Christianity

[Immanuel Can]

I think you capable of seeing through the flaws in Atheism.

Let us suppose, for a moment, that seeing through the flaws in atheism could be explained and defended rationally to an intelligent person.

We don't need to suppose. Atheism's a childishly easy belief: one premise, and no more. We can see all it implies at a glance. And its faults are manifest.

It does not follow that that person would then turn around and accept and believe...the Christian belief-system.

I don't agree with your characterizations, of course. So I won't repeat them. But you're right: nothing about rejecting Atheism guarantees anybody should become anything in particular.

But the same is true of any ideology one rejects; it doesn't become automatic to embrace any other. But so what?

[seeds]

I can't help thinking that this sort of thing is directly at odds with what a Christian attitude is supposed to be. This is confrontational, and, seemingly, intentionally offensive.

Not at all.

What a Christian is supposed to do, is to treat people with respect, but to prefer truth over lies. This is exactly what one should do: be kind to Atheists, since they are people made in the image of God, and utterly ruthless in freeing them from the fatal delusions Atheism.

Be careful Harbal.

What Mr. Con means by being "ruthless" (but "kind") in freeing you from the fatal delusions of Atheism is this...



As I pointed out thousands of posts ago, IC would no doubt feel much more at home had he been born in earlier times on earth where he could have had a more hands-on approach in the process of converting people to Christianity.
_______

[Harbal]

Au contraire: I think you capable of seeing through the flaws in Atheism. That's a vote of confidence in your wits, not an insult.

You think me capable of seeing through the flaws in not believing in God?

What flaws?

[Alexis Jacobi]

No, they could live in a way entirely inconsistent with Atheism. That's true. And I've said so. one thing you could call them was "consistent." But I don't think even they could manage to live as if Atheism were really true. Nobody can.

This encapsulates your core error. You assert, because you are psychologically and ideologically wedded to the idea, that all ethics and all morality come exclusively through the *revelation* you refer to. The Hebrew revelation to be precise.

But I -- and many others -- do not believe that to be true.

You say:

But I don't think even they could manage to live as if Atheism were really true. Nobody can.

This is, in fact, a supposition, an unsupported supposition.

In your world -- a world that you have concretized in your mind -- it can only be as you say it is.

In my world I see The World as it is. That is, the biological and mechanical world of Nature. That is 'reality' and the more closely one examines it, the more terrible and ruthless it is. True seeing therefore is to see the real situation.

In the face of that Man will have to make authentic choices. Simply because that is the real substratum.

True indeed: we see the 'reality' of where we are and in what we are subsumed. But we do, in fact, make different choices.

[Harbal]

Be careful Harbal.

What Mr. Con means by being "ruthless" (but "kind") in freeing you from the fatal delusions of Atheism is this...



As I pointed out thousands of posts ago, IC would no doubt feel much more at home had he been born in earlier times on earth where he could have had a more hands-on approach in the process of converting people to Christianity.
_______

Ah, the good old days.

[Immanuel Can]

By revelation. There's no other way we could. God has given us His laws and priniciples, and by them we are informed of what right moral orientation is. That's exactly how Western society has, in fact, formed its existing moral codes, even if they've become somewhat decayed from their prototype.

This is blatantly false. Greek rationalism and indeed philosophy itself (not a Hebrew endeavor) prove it so.

You're waaay behind recent scholarship, Alexis. Here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4LalzOLFiE The Greek-and-pagan paradigm is dead. It's the Hebrew paradigm that's now in.

That's exactly how Western society has, in fact, formed its existing moral codes.

Wrong again. We have a moral system, or various moral systems, that are composites.

They are indeed composites. But the first codifications of law were such things as the Code of Hammurabi and the Hebrew Scriptures. No scholar doubts that. These are the earliest prototypical sources for our modern laws...though we are, today, much departed and much degenerated away from the originals, it's true. Nowadays, our laws are often composites of old traditions and local prejudices, often with diminished resemblance to the originals.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I don't agree with your characterizations, of course. So I won't repeat them. But you're right: nothing about rejecting Atheism guarantees anybody should become anything in particular.

You have just taken a very big step! I am so proud of you!

Atheism is a complex rejection. What is rejected, and why, have to be carefully understood. It is contextual to our cultural and metaphysical situation.

nothing about rejecting Atheism guarantees anybody should become anything in particular

There is nothing evidentiary in the biological and mechanical world (the real world) that induces a person to take the tenets of Christianity as real. So the 'evidence' is not found in the real world. All of the arguments brought to bear in contradiction to your assertions are in this!

In this sense the Christian World (the metaphysics it defines) is an unreal imposition.

Once that is understood, then the entire issue of *impositions* is uncovered and can then be examined.

[Immanuel Can]

I don't agree with your characterizations, of course. So I won't repeat them. But you're right: nothing about rejecting Atheism guarantees anybody should become anything in particular.

You have just taken a very big step!

Not at all. You're very easily impressed, it seems. I was always conscious of this.

Atheism is a complex rejection.

No, nobody says that. Even Atheists insist it has to be kept dead simple: "No gods." That's it. Two words, one simple idea. It couldn't be less complex.

nothing about rejecting Atheism guarantees anybody should become anything in particular

There is nothing evidentiary in the biological and mechanical world (the real world) that induces a person to take the tenets of Christianity as real.

You're badly misinformed. But you can go and search that out yourself. That's territory I covered long ago, in my comments on the forum.

[Alexis Jacobi]

You're waaay behind recent scholarship, Alexis. Here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4LalzOLFiE The Greek-and-pagan paradigm is dead. It's the Hebrew paradigm that's now in.

Thank Heavens, because that *argument* is completely ridiculous. However, I can see why your choose to re-subsume yourself in it. As I have said a few times: you are essentially a wannabe Jew. Once one see this, one can better understand Christian Zionism, and can then understand why any view opposing that Zionism, or subverting it, or transcending it, is made anathema.

I regard you as so enveloped in religious fanaticism that you will not ever break out of is. If the shell cracked, you'd crack into pieces.

Nevertheless, and despite this, I regard you as a perfect subject of study. You must be better understood in order to understand the age we are in.

[BigMike]

If we can't understand what God's intentions are, how can we determine what is right and wrong?

By revelation. There's no other way we could. God has given us His laws and priniciples, and by them we are informed of what right moral orientation is. That's exactly how Western society has, in fact, formed its existing moral codes, even if they've become somewhat decayed from their prototype.

That's an interesting perspective. So, do you believe that morality is solely determined by God's laws and principles, or is there any room for human reasoning and interpretation?

Let's say we witness a heinous act like an elderly grandfather sexually assaulting his young granddaughter. If we don't have the ability to comprehend God's purposes, does that mean we should just stand by and do nothing,...

I don't see why you would think that, since God has already told us the moral status of such actions, and what our duty with regard to them is. That's violence, at least, or maybe fornication (you didn't specify), or incest...all roundly condemned by the first five books of the Bible.

I see what you're saying, but my point is more about the broader issue of determining right and wrong in situations where there may not be clear guidance from religious texts. In the case of the heinous act I mentioned, it's clear that it's wrong based on the moral principles outlined in the Bible. But what about other situations where there may not be a clear-cut answer? How do we navigate those gray areas without a complete understanding of God's intentions?

It's important to have some kind of moral compass to guide our actions, regardless of whether or not we can fully comprehend God's purposes.

This is the fundamental problem with Atheism that I'm pointing out, and with which the defenders of Atheism also seem to agree: Atheism does not imply any moral judgments.

That means that Atheism has nothing to offer the "moral compass" of which you speak. It can't offer us anything to inform us of what we should do in any moral dilemma, no matter how serious that dilemma may be.

And how bad is that? Just as bad as you suggest.

Firstly, I'd like to clarify that being an atheist does not mean that a person has no moral compass. Atheists base their moral values on empathy, compassion, reason, and human well-being, rather than on the authority of a deity.

Furthermore, just because someone believes in God doesn't necessarily mean that they have a clear understanding of what is right and wrong. There are countless examples throughout history of people committing terrible acts in the name of their religion or god.

In the case of the heinous act I mentioned earlier, regardless of our beliefs or lack thereof, it's our responsibility as human beings to take action and protect the innocent. We don't need a divine directive to know that assaulting a child is morally wrong and that we have a duty to intervene and seek justice for the victim.

Finally, morality is a complex and nuanced concept that cannot be reduced to simply following a set of rules or commandments. It requires critical thinking, empathy, and an ongoing commitment to ethical behavior. Ultimately, it's up to each individual to determine their own moral values and act accordingly, regardless of whether they believe in a god or not.

[Alexis Jacobi]

No, nobody says that. Even Atheists insist it has to be kept dead simple: "No gods." That's it. Two words, one simple idea. It couldn't be less complex.

They resort to a simplistic rejection, I grant that. But how it came about that the erstwhile god-concept was undermined -- that is a complex, cultural and existential question.

Yet it does resolve into a simple statement: no god is visible, and god (were there one) is intangible and cannot be proposed or relied on.

Except by god-believers who involve themselves in a totally subjective relationship.

That 'god' is totally useless in the world we live in. I mean as an active agent that can be invoked and relied on in any sphere.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Ah, the good old days.

Looking at the question from another angle Bergman deals with it in much of his filmic work. Like here.

[Harbal]

No, nobody says that. Even Atheists insist it has to be kept dead simple: "No gods." That's it. Two words, one simple idea. It couldn't be less complex.

For once we agree. The word "atheism" implies something active, whereas, in fact, the exact opposite is the case. There are many things I do not participate in, and theism is just one of them. I don't collect stamps, or catalogue the comings and goings of trains, or birds, but not engaging in these activities does not require me to live a particular kind of life, and neither does my not believing in God. I have a sense of morality, which I feel is in no way diminished by my none possession of a stamp album, or a Bible, for that matter.

You are not fooling anybody by persisting in the capitalisation of "atheist", btw.

[Alexis Jacobi]

...

[Dontaskme]

Although it is true that Atheism is certainly amoral. Atheists are often proud of that fact. If you look back, you'll find they say it has no responsibility at all to have any particular view of morality. So they agree with me about that. You have no grounds to complain, therefore.

Oh Really! Is that really true, or just something you wish to be true?

No, it's inherently true, analytically a fact. And Atheists themselves very often insist, in fact, that it is true.

They don't want to be held accountable to assert any moral judments themselves in a particular argument, nor to defend such. So they say, "Atheism only means there's no God. Nothing more. You can't ask us to justify any moral claims, because Atheism implies none." That's their line.

And it's true. They have a point. In fact, it was first pointed out by an Atheist: David Hume. Atheism does not imply, rationalize, ground or claim any moral particulars at all. All it's concerned with is saying, "There's no God." Nothing more, nothing else.

So Atheism IS amoral. The Atheists say so. And they're right.

Humans have a moral sense because their biological makeup determines the presence of three necessary conditions for ethical behavior: (i) the ability to anticipate the consequences of one's own actions; (ii) the ability to make value judgments; and (iii) the ability to choose between alternative courses of action.

Atheists / atheism has zero requirement to BELIEVE they have been created by a creator. The absence of such belief does not make one immoral because morality is innate in humans, they are naturally born moral as seen in very young children.