-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
My problem with atheism
- Thread starter ELoWolfe
- Start date
skl
A man on a mission
So we do not go to hell??? All I know is that I have been told numerous times by religious people that I am an unrepentant sinner or what you would call an infidel and will go to hell. Of course this is an unknown because nobody has come back from the dead and just because we are at the top of the food chain we are still animals who simply die like everything else on this planet unfortunately without the fantasy option of eternal life in heaven.
Vishvavajra
Active Member
A person who only does good for the promise of a reward after death, or who only abstains from evil out of fear of punishment after death, has no understanding of morality. Their motives remain purely selfish and short-sighted. It is also remarkably easy to manipulate them into doing horrible things, as no shortage of history shows.
SO much this!
FunctionalAtheist
Hammer of Reason
And yet;
Hebrews 10:36 You need to persevere so that when you have done the will of God, you will receive what he has promised.
Mark 2:35 Whoever does God's will is my brother and sister and mother."
No mention of 'why' a person does good, or if the person understands good form evil. DO good and BE rewarded! Good is defined as the will of god, the parameters of which are spelled out by Paul.
Maybe that is clarified or better defined somewhere else, but I find the attempt to define good as the will of god vague at best, and fairly dangerous under most circunstances.
Atheism equates the fate of a butcher and a sucker of human blood to the fate of a person who did nothing but good all his life. Where is your so-called morality in all of this?
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
We all die, that is our mutual fate. That has nothing to do with morality. Morality is for the living.
What do you mean here? Are you talking about afterlives, perhaps?
Morality is attained and should be pursued during the life that is known to exist, not projected into an afterlife that may well not exist at all and which is of speculative nature even if it does.
I don't really understand why some people want to associate morality with afterlives.
Morality is, of course, found on the actions of sentient beings and no where else.
Until and unless we find some evidence of other sentient beings, that means that morality exists only to the extent that humans build it.
This doesn't make sense.
Atheism is simply the nonbelief in god. What does that have to do with ethics and morality?
Rick O'Shez
Irishman bouncing off walls
Because theists like to claim that God is the only source of "objective" morality, and that atheists don't have morals.
Vishvavajra
Active Member
That's not atheism, it's the common understanding that everyone dies and that it's what happens in life that matters. That view is as old as human culture and is found in some of the earliest pieces of literature from nearly three thousand years ago.
"He that fights fares no better than he that does not; coward and hero are held in equal honor, and death deals like measure to him who works and him who is idle." -- Achilles in Book 9 of the Iliad.
It's also strongly implied in the Epic of Gilgamesh. The idea that one's fate in the afterlife forms the basis of morality comes much later. It's basically a medieval idea.
Vishvavajra
Active Member
Don't be quick to assume that Paul is talking about a reward in the afterlife. Notice that's not actually what he says. In fact, it's not clear Paul is ever talking about the afterlife in literal terms, since for him "death" is the current state of those who have not experienced perfection, whereas "resurrection" is the actualization of that perfection. He speaks derisively of those who think it's literally about dead people getting up again, or who try to understand it in strictly material terms.
As for "God's will," you really have to look at the context of those statements. Paul talks about how the Law has been shattered, how "everything is permitted, but not everything is useful." This is not a legalistic concept of morality he's constructing. What's happening is that he's couching it in terms familiar to him and his audience, and that misleads modern people who assume they know what he means by those terms. But "God" for Paul is not an external lawgiver but the true nature that dwells within all people and underlies all things. To do "God's will" is, ironically, to be liberated from superficial strictures and concepts, to be truly free. The reward in that case is not a pleasurable existence after death, but rather the experience of perfection in this world, which is what the Messianic prophecies promised.
nazz
Doubting Thomas
Like seeing the color zipwa
I am not an atheist because I think all possible gods are of moral equivalency to the Christian God, I'm an atheist because I think the notion of gods are unnecessarily redundant to a naturalistic view of the universe.
FunctionalAtheist
Hammer of Reason
I agree with you! But I am arguing from a biblical perspective. Am I weird in that I can place my mind in assuming the bible and argue from that perspective (knowing I think it's hogwash), or arguing completely against it?
FunctionalAtheist
Hammer of Reason
What Paul says is "what he has promised" What has god promised?
Context:; god's; will; possessive, intent, desire, etc. How is 'couching' to be considered looking at the context? Are you sure you are reading what you wrote before you post it? You suggest I should look at the 'context' and then talk about how Paul is 'couching?' Seriously? by considering how Paul might be 'couching' terms you sir ARE IGNORING THE CONTEXT.
You can use the Bible to support a variety of perspectives, as is to be expected. The weirdness IMO is in expecting it to be aware of and opinionated about cultures that are clearly outside its scope and understanding.
Talking about the Bible is ultimately talking about how much and what one is willing to see reflected in it.
Vishvavajra
Active Member
Paul refers to the Judaic Messianism of his day, which was based on their reading of prophetic books such as Ezekiel and Isaiah. The function of the Messiah was to perfect the world and turn it into the Kingdom of God, not to send souls to heaven after death or anything like that.
This makes no intelligible sense and is unnecessarily hostile. You'll have to rephrase it if you want a response. I try to be understanding to people whose English isn't good, but it's clear you don't understand what the verb "to couch" means in this context if you find it so objectionable. To couch something in certain terms means to express it in a specified manner. There's nothing remotely odd about what I said.
FunctionalAtheist
Hammer of Reason
You said that one must must read within the context, and then said Paul is couching his terms. These two thoughts are diametrically opposed and demonstrate a biased perspective.