Why are christians morally inferior to atheists

[monta]

Let me see if I've got this right, In the red end of the spectrum of atheism we have those who firmly deny the existence of God, at the blue end of the spectrum we have those who accept the possibility that God exists.

I am an athiest , I don't believe a god exists, and yet can accept the possiblity I may be incorrect. I don't believe I am incorrect as I said, I don't believe in the existence of a god.

Agnostics generally believe that the nature of god and the universe is not knowable, they can be atheist or theist.

 

[S-word]

[/COLOR]

I am an athiest , I don't believe a god exists, and yet can accept the possiblity I may be incorrect. I don't believe I am incorrect as I said, I don't believe in the existence of a god.

Agnostics generally believe that the nature of god and the universe is not knowable, they can be atheist or theist.

I see, so you believe that in the process of evolution from an absolute "Atheist" to a God worshiping theist, there are grey areas where the athestis is seen to be an agnostic, then a god believing non-worshipping theist, before they finally become a fully fledged god worshipping spiritual Son of God, who is a usedtobe Agnostic, that was a usedtobe Atheist.

 

[Nepenthe]

I see, so you believe that in the process of evolution from an absolute "Atheist" to a God worshiping theist, there are grey areas where the athestis is seen to be an agnostic, then a god believing non-worshipping theist, before they finally become a fully fledged god worshipping spiritual Son of God, who is a usedtobe Agnostic, that was a usedtobe Atheist.

Speaking for myself of course, it all depends on the specific deity, or more specifically, the attributes of said deity. I'm an atheist (strong) when it comes to the traditional Abrahamic God and the omnitraits it possesses; those omnitraits are contradictory and cannot coexist. But I'm a weak atheist when it comes to the more panentheistic gods because they're incapable of being detected and a shade of weak atheism or agnosticism is the only logical response. If the deity doesn't actually intrude into the physical universe it's not capable of scrutiny and thus I can only be agnostic towards its existence; an interventionist deity on the other hand should be capable of detection.

 

[monta]

I see, so you believe that in the process of evolution from an absolute "Atheist" to a God worshiping theist, there are grey areas where the athestis is seen to be an agnostic, then a god believing non-worshipping theist, before they finally become a fully fledged god worshipping spiritual Son of God, who is a usedtobe Agnostic, that was a usedtobe Atheist.

Stop telling me what I believe.

Agnostic and atheist are two different things. Lumping them intogether is as useful as saying someone is Judeochristian.

I don't believe in the existence of a god, it is not a religion and it doesn't have any bearing on what any other atheist believes let alone any other agnostic.

There are no rules to being an atheist, and the labels only serve as the quickest way for me to give a vague overview of my beliefs, so that another person can come close to understanding, there is no way to divine every single belief of a person with a one word label.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

One cannot believe that there is no God if one believes that there may be a God, one must make up their mind old mate and choose one or the other.

And atheists have made that choice, but recognize that they, like everyone, aren't always 100% correct.

If you believe that there may be a God then you are not an atheist who believe that no God exists, you are an agnostic.

And if you believe that there is not a God but fall short of absolute certainty, then you're both an atheist and an agnostic.

If you believe that no God exists, then you are an atheist and you cannot claim to be an agnostic, who believes (thinks) that God may exist. You may as well say "I am a Christian agnostic who believes in atheism.

How did you manage to pull "Christian" into this?

That aside, there is such a thing as a Christian agnostic atheist. That would be a person who follows Christ in some way but does not believe in God (e.g. these people), while at the same time recognizing that his knowledge is not complete enough to say that he knows God does not exist.

So, what you are saying, is that there are atheists who accept the possibility that God exists, right? Well I can handle that, as long as those who believe that my God may exist, admit to that before entering a debate, then we will understand that they are in fact not true blue atheists.

In the sense that they're also not "true blue" about their disbelief in the lost city of Atlantis but would probably laugh you out of the room if you claimed you had visited it, sure.

 

[S-word]

Speaking for myself of course, it all depends on the specific deity, or more specifically, the attributes of said deity. I'm an atheist (strong) when it comes to the traditional Abrahamic God and the omnitraits it possesses; those omnitraits are contradictory and cannot coexist. But I'm a weak atheist when it comes to the more panentheistic gods because they're incapable of being detected and a shade of weak atheism or agnosticism is the only logical response. If the deity doesn't actually intrude into the physical universe it's not capable of scrutiny and thus I can only be agnostic towards its existence; an interventionist deity on the other hand should be capable of detection.

Sp you are an agnostic and not an Atheist.

 

[S-word]

And atheists have made that choice, but recognize that they, like everyone, aren't always 100% correct.

And if you believe that there is not a God but fall short of absolute certainty, then you're both an atheist and an agnostic.


How did you manage to pull "Christian" into this?

That aside, there is such a thing as a Christian agnostic atheist. That would be a person who follows Christ in some way but does not believe in God (e.g. these people), while at the same time recognizing that his knowledge is not complete enough to say that he knows God does not exist.


In the sense that they're also not "true blue" about their disbelief in the lost city of Atlantis but would probably laugh you out of the room if you claimed you had visited it, sure.

As you have said, there are true atheists who refuse to acknowledge that there is a God and have no doubts about their belief. Then there are what you call atheist/agnostics who say that they believe that there in no God, but have doubts concerning that belief; and there are Agnostics who believe that there is a god, but he cannot be proven to exist and nor do they worship him, these are true agnostics and can in no way be considered to be atheists.

You also claim that there is such a thing as a Christian agnostic atheist, and that would be a person who follows Christ in some way but does not believe in God (e.g. these people), while at the same time recognizing that their knowledge is not complete enough to say that they know God does not exist. These people are neither christians, agnostic, or atheist in the true sense , but are some sort of hybrid belief'

Then there is the true theist who believes in their particular God and tries to the best of their ability to remain true to their God. As I have already stated, I can go along with that, but it would be nice to know whether the person with whom one is debating, Is an Atheist, and athesist/agnostic, an agnostic, an agnostic/theist, or a theist.

Concerning myself, I am true only to "Who I Am," who was in the beginning and has become who I am, he is my ancestral spirit; My Father and Saviour, who is evolving and has evolved by the gathering of all my ancestral spirits including all my pre-human ancestors that reach back into antiquity.

"Who I Am," is connected to his beginning by an unbroken genetic thread of life, and He can never die. And as long as I remain true to "Who I Am" and an extension to He as He is in my time and space, then after this mortal body which was formed from the universal elements has returned to the one living body in which we all share, then I will continue to live in and as "Who I Am," as He now lives in me and is me.

For I am "Who I Am," may I never lose sight
Of the fact that 'I Am Who I Am' day and night
I'm not who I was nor who I will be
For "Who I Am" is the name that my God gave to me
So get behind me you charlatan priests and you shams
For I am true to My God, to my God "Who I Am."

I see my God in all mankind, whether they belong to the Scientific body, the Atheists, the Agnostics, the Christians, Buddhists, Muslims etc; I have been fed by all these bodies and from the spiritual food offered to me by all these divisions of the body of man, I, the mind/spirit have evolved and continue to evolve as a Son of God to be born from the body of Mankind.

 

[Nepenthe]

Sp you are an agnostic and not an Atheist.

No, I'm an atheist. I'm an atheist and an agnostic depending on the epistemological circumstances.

 

[Sunstone]

Richard Dawkins came up with a scale with which to measure the degree to which one is an atheist. Dawkins does not consider himself an absolute atheist on his scale, but merely an almost absolute atheist. That's because Dawkins believes there is a very tiny chance that a god might exist. Despite that belief, Dawkins calls himself an atheist.

As you say, Dawkins considers himself to be almost an atheist, but not an absolutely true atheist.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

As you have said, there are true atheists who refuse to acknowledge that there is a God and have no doubts about their belief. Then there are what you call atheist/agnostics who say that they believe that there in no God, but have doubts concerning that belief; and there are Agnostics who believe that there is a god, but he cannot be proven to exist and nor do they worship him, these are true agnostics and can in no way be considered to be atheists.

Don't twist my words. An atheist who is also an agnostic is just as "true" an atheist who believes that no gods exist with 100% certainty.

You also claim that there is such a thing as a Christian agnostic atheist, and that would be a person who follows Christ in some way but does not believe in God (e.g.

these people), while at the same time recognizing that their knowledge is not complete enough to say that they know God does not exist. These people are neither christians, agnostic, or atheist in the true sense , but are some sort of hybrid belief'

Sure they are.

What's the definition of "Christian"? Personally, I usually go with "follower of Christ" (though if someone applies the label "Christian" to themselves using some other definition, I usually won't declare them to not be a Christian). Does the person follow Christ? Yes, therefore he's a Christian.

What's the definition of "atheist"? Depending on who you ask, it's either someone who lacks belief in god or who actively disbelieves in God. In either case, the person meets that test as well, therefore he's also an atheist.

What's the definition of "agnostic"? Someone who believe that the truth of the existence of god(s) can't be fully known, either currently or for all time. Does the person believe that limitations on human knowledge prevent certain knowledge of whether god(s) exist or not? Yes, therefore he's an agnostic as well.

Then there is the true theist who believes in their particular God and tries to the best of their ability to remain true to their God. As I have already stated, I can go along with that, but it would be nice to know whether the person with whom one is debating, Is an Atheist, and athesist/agnostic, an agnostic, an agnostic/theist, or a theist.

If belief is defined as actual knowledge, then I'd argue that there's no such thing as a "true theist" as you describe such a person.

 

[MSizer]

Well, now that I got your attention.....I really don't think christians are morally inferior, but this is in response to those who claim that if they did not have a belief in god, then nothing would stop them from living a hedonistic type lifestyle (drinking, sex, stealing, etc). I really want to know what is it in the makeup of the christian psyche, that leaves them unable to lead a "moral" life without some kind of belief in a deity. Why don't they have the self-regulating ability to control their actions not to cause harm to themselves or others? Most atheists I know are able to do this, so why aren't christians able to self-regulate? What are they missing?

I take great offence to your suggestion that hedonism includes stealing, or even drinking or sex for that matter. Hedonism is NOT selfishness! Hedonism is a philisophical view that we should always strive for pleasure, and most considered hedonists believe that it means "for everyone". So if persuing pleasure for oneself will inhibit another's persuit of pleasure, or harm another person, then your own persuit must take a different path in order to be an ethical one. John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham both wrote thoughtfully on the topic. Furthermore, protection from harm is a form of pleasure. A Hedonistic lifestyle isn't the continuous search for specific pleasures, such as sex or alcohol, hedonism is the continuous strive toward a pleasureable life. That might include a healthy relationship with your children.

 

[MSizer]

I also believe that people are capable of deciding what they are themselves,and if they dicide to be an atheist, then they must deny the possibility that God exists. That is of course, unless you wish to redefine the word Atheism; 1: "Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God." 2: "godlessness; wickedness." 3: "The doctrine that there is no God or that the word "God" and statments about it or using it is meaningless.

Now that is the defination of "Atheism," if you wish to define an atheist as one who believes that there is a possibility that God does exist, then you will have to produce a dictionary of your own making, as you will not find that which you define as an atheist as being (One who accepts the possibility of Gods existence) in any dictionary that has been published, unless there has been one written by an agnostic christian who believes in atheism.

Now, when are you so called atheists that believe that My God might just possibly exist, going to wake up to yourselves and go and find He, who I can assure you does exist

I strongly object to your use of the word "wickedness" in your supposed definition of atheism. An atheist is no more wicked necessarily than a christian may or not be wicked.

 

[MSizer]

So we see now in the societies that threw religion away that new definitions are given, (and humanity history is completely ignored or rejected as there is nothing called universal humanity/morality), for example the definition of the family now can be one man and children, one woman and children, two men and children, two women and children or two men, a woman and children.

Not4Me, I'd like you to elaborate on your comment about how new definitions are given. Yes, opinions of morality vary, and change as humans become more aware of the true nature of the world. The more people begin to realize that god is a superstition, the more people are uninhibited by illusion, and thus more able to make educated decisions about morality. And yes, families are now defined differently than they have been in previous generations, but I don't understand what your conclusion is, nor how this statement applies to the discussion.

 

[Nepenthe]

I'll take 5 please... And insert a spike in one just so it's over that much quicker.

 

[Tiapan]

It's not. Hence my point. Morality outside of religion does not exist. I could do all sorts of things like Killing and what not so long as I found a justification for it.

You added on "as long as no one gets hurt in the process". Without religious morality, why should I care if someone else gets hurt?

Sorry Mr Knight I feel a little insulted here, I believe I live a very moral, socially conducive, constructive life. I have no urge to kill my neighbor, rape his wife or steal his possessions, all without an ounce of religion to guide me. So I definitely suggest you readjust the the axiomatic base of your argument, it is simply false.

Morality outside of religion DOES exist. And guess what, it actually reflects many of the religious commonsense practices of social behavior. How strange, but its called the LAW.

 

[S-word]

I strongly object to your use of the word "wickedness" in your supposed definition of atheism. An atheist is no more wicked necessarily than a christian may or not be wicked.

Then take your complaints to the authors of the Readers Digest Universal Dictionary, from which book I have quoted.

 

[monta]

Then take your complaints to the authors of the Readers Digest Universal Dictionary, from which book I have quoted.

Amazingly it looks a lot like the definition from the Merriam Webster dictionary with the the word 'Archaic' left out

Queue the banjoes we have another round of dueling definitions lined up , oh wait no we can use the same source as you did but not leave vital words out , yay!

• Main Entry: athe·ism
• Pronunciation: \ˈā-thē-ˌi-zəm\
• Function: noun
• Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god
• Date: 1546

1 archaic : ungodliness, wickedness

2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

In case you were wondering what the definition of archaic was

• Main Entry: ar·cha·ic
• Pronunciation: \är-ˈkā-ik\
• Function: adjective
• Etymology: French or Greek; French archaïque, from Greek archaïkos, from archaios
• Date: 1832

1 : having the characteristics of the language of the past and surviving chiefly in specialized uses <an archaic word>

2 : of, relating to, or characteristic of an earlier or more primitive time : antiquated <archaic legal traditions>
3 capitalized : of or belonging to the early or formative phases of a culture or a period of artistic development; especially : of or belonging to the period leading up to the classical period of Greek culture
4 : surviving from an earlier period; specifically : typical of a previously dominant evolutionary stage
5 capitalized : of or relating to the period from about 8000 b.c. to 1000 b.c. and the North American cultures of that time
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

You can believe that a god does not exist (be an atheist) and still allow for the slight possiblity you are incorrect, in fact I personally think it is a healthy way to view the world.

 

[S-word]

[/color]
Don't twist my words. An atheist who is also an agnostic is just as "true" an atheist who believes that no gods exist with 100% certainty.

Bullsh.., An atheist who acknowledges the possible existence of a god or gods cannot in anyway be defined as an atheist; not unless you redefine the word "Atheist."

quote=9-10ths_Penguin; Sure they are.
What's the definition of "Christian"? Personally, I usually go with "follower of Christ" (though if someone applies the label "Christian" to themselves using some other definition, I usually won't declare them to not be a Christian). Does the person follow Christ? Yes, therefore he's a Christian.

Bullsh.., to follow Christ, one must pray to the Father God, as Christ directed in his universal prayer, "Our Father who art in heaven etc."

quote=9-10ths_Penguin; What's the definition of "atheist"?

Oh for goodness sake, go and look it up yourself in the dictionary, why should I be forced to do your leg work for you.

quote=9-10ths_Penguin; Depending on who you ask, it's either someone who lacks belief in god or who actively disbelieves in God. In either case, the person meets that test as well, therefore he's also an atheist.

Then according to you, all people on this earth who disbelieve in God whether activily or not, that person meets the test and is therefore an Atheist. Hooray! at last it's sunk into that head of yours, one must disbelieve in God and irrelevant as to whether that person actively spreads their message of disbelief, it is they and they alone who meet the criteria and can be defined as an atheist.

quote=9-10ths_Penguin; What's the definition of "agnostic"? Someone who believe that the truth of the existence of god(s) can't be fully known, either currently or for all time. Does the person believe that limitations on human knowledge prevent certain knowledge of whether god(s) exist or not? Yes, therefore he's an agnostic as well.

Someone who does not disbelieve that God exists, but believes that the existence of a god or gods, can't be proved, either currently or for all time, is not an atheist who must disbelieve in the existence of God to meet the criteria that defines that person as an atheist, and that person is therefore an agnostic.


quote=9-10ths_Penguin; If belief is defined as actual knowledge, then I'd argue that there's no such thing as a "true theist" as you describe such a person.
Ah haa, "Blessed are they who believe and yet do not see." But Theism is not defined as actual knowledge taken in through the physical senses of the body, Let me spell out for you the defination of "Theism" according to the Universal Dictionary; "Thesism": Belief in the existence of a god or gods; aspecially, belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world, known to humankind through supernatual revelation."

So any person who believes in a god or gods by "Faith" in the supernatural revelation that they have personally received, is a "Theist" and can in no way be defined as either an agnostic or an atheist. If all trees were simply called trees, how would you explain to someone how they could recognise, from the written word, one tree from the other? Why do you think that we have bothered to define the words Atheist, agnostic and theist, if not to distinguish one from the other, but you would have us believe that there is no difference between an atheist, agnostic or a theist, wake up to yourself mate.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Oh for goodness sake, go and look it up yourself in the dictionary, why should I be forced to do your leg work.

While you're at it, could you look up "rhetorical question"?

Then according to you all people on this earth who disbelieve in God whether activily or not, that person meets the test and is therefore an Atheist. Hooray! at last it's sunk into that head of yours, one must disbelieve in God and irrelevant as to whether that person actively spreads their message of disbelief, it is they and they alone who meet the criteria and can be defined as an atheist.

Right. However, I don't accept your pecuilar definition of "belief".

Ah haa, "Blessed are they who believe and yet do not see." But Theism is not defined as actual knowledge taken in through the physical senses of the body, Let me spell out for you the defination of "Theism" according to the Universal Dictionary; "Thesism": Belief in the existence of a god or gods; aspecially, belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world, known to humankind through supernatual revelation."

Your dictionary uses "aspecially"? :sarcastic

Now look up "belief". You'll probably see that it doesn't match the way you've been using the word.

So any person who believes in a god or gods by "Faith" in the supernatural revelation that they have personally received, is a "Theist" and can in no way be defined as either an agnostic or an atheist.

Sure they can. If they aren't 100% certain that what they've experienced is definitely from God, then they're agnostic, as well as theist.