I just want to sin!!!

[robocop (actually)]

If you dunk me in water and then tell me that my baptism is voluntary because I don't have to accept it, then I am going to laugh at you when I charge you with assault.

We do it for you after you die. We don't need to involve your corpse.

 

[Wandering Monk]

In Islam, There's no reason to question Allah as to why he does things. He's your creator and you do as he wishes.

Well that's handy! You are not allowed to ask questions of God. Lucky for him and his 'prophets.'

 

[ppp]

We do it for you after you die. We don't need to involve your corpse.

Dunking ghosts in ghost water is still ghost assault.

 

[epronovost]

That's meaningless.
Who is more likely to commit sin?
A person who is trying to remember G-d and avoid sinning, or a person who mocks religion and is careless?

You can believe whatever you like, if it makes you feel good. It doesn't make it true though.

Actually there is absolutely no difference in terms of morality and pro-social behavior between believers and non-believers. You can check the stats about those if you want. No, religion has no impact on morality. You are not more moral than any other person in the street because of your religion. You are, most likely, just as good and bad as the next person.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Actually there is absolutely no difference in terms of morality and pro-social behavior between believers and non-believers. You can check the stats about those if you want..

That would be hard to prove.
One can attempt to prove anything by manipulation of statistics.

In the case that you speak of, one needs to determine who is a Christian "by birth" or "by faith" to start with. One is not necessarily equivalent to the other.

One can say that same about Muslims. It is obligatory to pray 5 times a day, but not everybody does.

I think you confuse "a label" with faith.
Some people who don't take much notice of their religion might just be weak, whilst another might not believe at all, but want to be considered as "part of the tribe/nation".

If we look at the stats between those that practise their faith against those that are atheists, I think we will see a difference.
After all, atheists don't agree with the morality as defined by the Bible, so..

 

[muhammad_isa]

Hypothetically if a deity existed that already knows whether I will "go astray or not", then I cannot truly have the free will to choose the outcome, that is axiomatic.

So you keep saying.
You obviously think it is true, whilst it is not.

It might seem right, but it is not. It relies on the notion that the future is decreed by some mysterious force, when "knowing something about what a person will do in the future" has absolutely nothing to do with why that something will happen.

 

[Windwalker]

I live everyday very happy and with complete inner peace. This is a religion of gratitude where we are so joyous that we have been given a very precious gift.

When I first joined the Baha’i Faith 46 years ago, I had all sorts of guilt complexes and anxieties left over from my previous beliefs. I found that the emphasis on focusing on the positive, healed me of all those traumas and made me a happy and joyous person.

Regular reading the Words of Baha’u’llah fills me with so much encouragement and hope.

Well, you said, "I’ve yet to become a true Baha’i. I’ve been a member for 46 years but that means zilch if I don’t live up to my beliefs." That makes it sound like you see yourself as a failure.

To me "true" actually means sincere or genuine. Not perfect. The idea that you have to be perfect to be a "true" follower of whatever, is inherently wrong. I think that's the error of a lot of spirituality in the West. They mistake error-free with "perfection". The goal is maturity, not perfection. A genuine faith, recognizes imperfection and does not go walking around with guilt and shame for being human. Such beliefs are anti-human, and anti-spiritual.

 

[ppp]

It might seem right, but it is not. It relies on the notion that the future is decreed by some mysterious force, when "knowing something about what a person will do in the future" has absolutely nothing to do with why that something will happen.

Well that paragraph certainly got away from you.

 

[epronovost]

If we look at the stats between those that practice their faith against those that are atheists, I think we will see a difference.

We use self identification. So if a person declare themselves Christian or Muslim then she is counted as a member of this group as to avoid making a No True Scotsman out of it all.

Are religious people more moral?

Most studies shows that people are people and that the main thing that triggers good behavior isn't religious faith or even philosophical inclination but witnessing a good actions or being reminded to do good things. Churches and religious calls have been shown to fulfil that, but ironically they work on atheists too as they are still impregnated by a religious culture even if they don't believe in it. Watching shows or seeing advertisement that invite people to be nice also work just as fine to stimulate good behavior. One thing to be of note though is that atheists, despite being younger and more masculine than the general population, do commit fewer crimes, divorce less often, have less teenage pregnancy and rates of sexually transmitted disease and both groups give about as much to charity.

Misinformation and Facts about Secularism and Religion

After all, atheists don't agree with the morality as defined by the Bible, so..

This is indeed true to a certain point.

Atheists and believers both have moral compasses, but with key differences: Belief in God associated with stronger endorsement of moral values that promote group cohesion.

But, as this study shows, there is a massive overlap between what one considers as moral vs the other. Both theists and atheists consider lying, cheating, robbing, killing, threatening others, harming others, unfairness, hypocrisy, (negative) prejudices and selfishness to be very bad things and that's most of the moral rules presented in Christian or Muslim scriptures which leaves mostly the dietary prohibition like not eating pork, fasting on certain days or drinking alcohol (though atheists largely believe that being a drunk is bad) and ceremonial rules like praying, fasting and participating in certain sacraments like baptism for example. There isn't that much of a difference between those moral codes. Plus, Christian (and Muslim) themselves don't adhere strongly to the morals of the Bible, few are those who would tolerate striking children to discipline them, slavery, the death penalty for petty crimes, etc.

Religious people tend to view themselves as more moral than those who are not or who are less religious than them, but there is basically no evidence to show that they are correct in that judgement.

I sense the smell of the sin of pride over such a judgement

 

[Sheldon]

G-d cannot make a square circle, so stop making nonsensical arguments please.

 

[Sheldon]

Hi Sheldon.

Yes that’s one of the things that caused me a lot of angst that two sects of Christianity in the same street hated each other’s guts despite supposedly believing in the same Book. I just couldn’t reconcile myself to these contradictions and became an atheist and believed I was more sincere because I walked away from inconsistency rather than turning a blind eye. How can one preach to others to be united and loving when one is divided into tens of thousands of sects?

“Where, precisely, are "Judaism", "Buddhism", "Christianity", "Islám" and the others, since they obviously cannot be identified with the irreconcilably opposed organizations that purport to speak authoritatively in their names?”

So joining one means you axiomatically must reject the others and who speaks authoritatively for these Faiths as none of them speak with one voice? Will the right or true Christianity or Islam or Buddhism please stand up?

So this situation has rightfully led people to become atheists because where is their God if they can’t get along with each other?

For me, as an atheist, I eventually found that there was a way out of this mess but it means moving on, not clinging to outworn shibboleths which have had their time and are not fit for this age and which need to give way to the needs of this time.

Oh I'm not an atheist because countless theists imagine countless different deities, or because theists imagine countless versions of the same deity. I am an atheist because there is no objective evidence for any deity.

 

[muhammad_isa]

We use self identification. So if a person declare themselves Christian or Muslim then she is counted as a member of this group as to avoid making a No True Scotsman out of it all.

Exactly.
..so it says more about people than it does religion.

 

[Sheldon]

If we look at the stats between those that practise their faith against those that are atheists, I think we will see a difference.
After all, atheists don't agree with the morality as defined by the Bible, so..

The premise that Bible, or the Quran is required for morality is a begging the question fallacy, used to assume your conclusion in your premise, that atheists are immoral, because they follow neither, thus it is another of your circular reasoning fallacies.

Morality is subjective, it cannot be otherwise.

 

[ppp]

Exactly.
..so it says more about people than it does religion.

Religion only exists because of people

 

[Sheldon]

Sheldon said: ↑
Hypothetically if a deity existed that already knows whether I will "go astray or not", then I cannot truly have the free will to choose the outcome, that is axiomatic.

So you keep saying.
You obviously think it is true, whilst it is not.

So you keep saying, you obviously think you're right, but the claim is an irrational contradiction nonetheless.

It relies on the notion that the future is decreed by some mysterious force,

No it doesn't, that is just another of your straw man fallacies. It is self evident that if the outcome is know beforehand, there can be no other outcome.

"knowing something about what a person will do in the future" has absolutely nothing to do with why that something will happen.

Irrelevant red herring, since that is not the claim that was made, go back and read the claim that was made, and that I responded to.

 

[Sheldon]

To me "true" actually means sincere or genuine. Not perfect.

A delusional person might be both sincere and genuine. Does this mean their claims are true? A mistaken person might be sincere and genuine, does this mean their claims are true?

Something is true, if it is in accordance with facts or reality.

 

[ppp]

I never drink alcohol, take recreational drugs, or have sex outside of marriage, but I am still considered a sinner just for existing, not only by Christian beliefs, but by Baha'i beliefs. Nothing is ever good enough for God. So do you think it is easy to be a believer?

I suspect that it is harrowing for some people. It sounds like you are one of them. People who are terrorized by a fear of hell (believers and ex believers both experience this) have a difficult time. I was lucky not to have been infected with that fear.

 

[epronovost]

Exactly.
..so it says more about people than it does religion.

A religion is the set of beliefs of the people subscribing to it; a religion isn't a book or scriptures. The books and the traditions are only an anchor; one part of a religion. Books and traditions cannot be moral or immoral, they are inanimate objects who cannot make moral actions and judgements. Only people can be moral and when they read religious books and try and follow their councils and their tenets, they turn out no more moral than those who don't. It shows the strength of those books and tenets on morality. They do modulate it, but knowledge and traditions are no substitute for reason and wisdom.

 

[Sheldon]

Well that paragraph certainly got away from you.

I know what you mean, you get dizzy reading some of his claims they're so circular, but the way they are so often peppered with unevidenced assumptions, almost brings on a bout of biliousness.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

We do it for you after you die. We don't need to involve your corpse.

How are Mormons still oblivious to this? We don't want you involving us when we're dead. The Jews sueing to stop proxy/post mortem baptisms of Holocaust victims should have been a wake up call to end this practice of taking that which does not belong to you to use it for your own ends.