BadBadBad

I'm an atheist. I believe that your views on Christianity are false. That's all you've got to work with here.

Superheavy

Kirilov was a nihilist. You may also remember that he actually had a hard time killing himself. Self preservation is a completely natural phenomenon and needs no gods.

Haran

I have already stated that my beliefs are subjective. As I also already stated, please re-read my posts for a better understanding. What I am saying is that you nor any other atheist has a leg to stand on when criticizing the morals of Christians or the Bible, because your morality is also subjective. The best you can hope to say is "I don't like some of what you believe'. Well, I would simply say the same thing back...

Haran

I want to spend more time with your posts and I have limited time for my posts. Yet more atheistic wrangling...

Anyways, briefly, I want to go deeper than the issues you have. You told me that you would be happy for Christianity to go away. Well, I'd like to know what you'd replace it with and how it is any better. See, if you can't offer a better, less subjective alternative, then you have nothing against Christianity.

MHF

Haran wrote:
"In other cases, the people who were destroyed were the aggressors"

Including women, children, and even infants. Do you really mean to tell
me they were aggressors too? And in some cases this is hundreds of years
after these agressors committed their acts.

and then wrote: "I do not understand rejecting the Bible based on these accounts because, one, that is not all there is to the Bible, two, I know few sane people
who would decide that these accounts were somehow a guide for how we
should behave, and three, I do not know God's ultimate reasons for his
actions."

OK but Nazi Germany was not all about committing genocide on the Jews,
they did other things too, not all of which were bad (e.g. the German
economy improved after Hitler took control). In my view when it comes
to genocide (that includes women, children and infants) then they've
crossed the line even if I don't understand the ultimate reasons for
those actions, and even if they did some good stuff as well. I apply
that same standard to the Bible. Or should I hold the Bible to a different
standard? If so, what standard, if any?

"I challenge you or anyone else who is a non-theist to tell me how your
moral standards are any better than mine."

The difference between us is this one: I read the bible (well, until I
got to the point that I couldn't take it any longer) with an open mind
as to whether it is true or not. You can not read the bible with an
open mind because you're already committed to its Truth. So when you
see some disturbing text, you must either ignore it or explain it away.
I also assume that you're probably only aware of a small portion of
the biblical violence because I'm guessing you don't divide the time
evenly but spend most time on the good parts. But if you were to read
it openly and judge it like you judge any other text, I can't see how you
could end up concluding that it is a Good Book with sound moral
values.

Now of course, Christians aren't allowed judge the Bible, instead, you
must use the Bible to judge yourself. So you can not read it the
way someone would read it that is still open to both possibilities
(the possibilitiy that it could be the word of God but it could also
not be the word of God). That's why when you read the Bible, you'll
end up with a vastly different impression of the Bible than someone
else who is (I should say: was) still open to both cases.

In the end, my conclusion that the Bible is not a good book is based
on only two premises:

1) Genocide (including women, children and infants) is always morally wrong.

2) Being open to the possibility that the Bible is the word of God but also
open to the possibility that it is not the word of God.


I suspect that Deists (even though Deism is no longer popular) use a
similar line of reasoning in their belief that God exists and that the Bible
is wrong.

MHF

The Arbiter

As an atheist and a trekkie, I feel that I am qualified to point out that the only place I've ever observed even remotely Borg-like behaviour was in groups of Christians and other theists. They ignore you until they percive you to be a threat (An unbeliever? Here?) and then they start sending wave after wave of drones, reeling off the same tired and utterly ineffectual arguments we've all heard a thousand times before at you.

Jedi Mind Trick

Fair enough, but I'm not much interested in judging you. My focus is on the irrationality of the concepts of the bible god. And I can judge the bible god by his own standards and by reason.

I'm a "depressing" agnostic not an atheist, BTW.

-John

Writer@Large

So, the distinction you're willing to draw between Christian morals and "other" morals is how subjective one is over the other? Wouldn't, oh, I don't know, what the moral code is or what the code will allow and forbid play a big role? Because it strikes me that "yours is as subjective as mine" means diddly shit if yours says (for example) "only men and women are alloowed to marry" and mine says "any consenting adults are allowed to marry," regardless of how subjective one is over the other.

--W@L

ELECTROGOD

Convert people to what belief system? What exactly is the "atheist belief system"? That you are unaware atheists don't have a belief system tells us pretty much everything we need to know about you...that we won't be getting much rational discussion out of you.

If that were true then all Christians coming to this website would have to be considered "Borg-like Christian militants intent on converting people". How does that sound? What were your intentions in coming here?
The reason that Christians usually don't seem able to respond to a pile of posts is not because we are such bad people making non-sensical things up, but rather because that Christian posted something which they cannot back up/answer and then either chooses not to respond to the "hard" questions or chooses to cherry pick the most irrelevant comment to respond to despite still spending plenty of time in the thread or on the board.
You are doing the same thing by making statements which we will call you on but you will fail to provide a reasonable answer.
Like:
This lack of knowledge displayed as strong statments in front of people you deem as hostile will not go unnoticed or unchallenged. This is what a discussion board is all about. But if you cannot or will not take the following discussion then the board is not for you.
But that doesn't matter to a missionary does it?

BadBadBad

That's an interesting question. Religion provides a means through authority and social conformity to perform some good functions in society. For example, Christianity organizes charity. For example Islam enforces morality. I agree you can't just eliminate these functions of religion in society. However, why do I need to provide an alternative to speak out against the harm and falsity of religion?

Edited to add:

Why must my alternative be less subjective? Why can't the alternative be just as irrational and false as religion, just less harmful?