Why do the ATHEISTS think all THEISTS are the same?

[attofishpi]

bla bla

Poor ol' theists..just glad since gnosis I can claim to no longer be one of "them"..

www.androcies.com <-- getting there (gonna get the Poetry section recoded lata)

[Impenitent]

I used to have gnosis, but she was born when I was 12...

-Imp

[attofishpi]

-

[accelafine]

Why would they even think about you?

[attofishpi]

Why would they even think about you?

Who are you talking to woman?

Everybody nose Imp worships Satan. (but only on Wednesdays)

[FrankGSterleJr]

Sadly, some of the best humanitarians I’ve met or heard about were/are atheists or agnostics who, quite ironically, would make better examples of many of Christ’s teachings than too many institutional Christians. Conversely, some of the worst human(e) beings I’ve met or heard about are the most devout believers/preachers of fundamental Biblical theology.

[attofishpi]

Sadly, some of the best humanitarians I’ve met or heard about were/are atheists or agnostics who, quite ironically, would make better examples of many of Christ’s teachings than too many institutional Christians. Conversely, some of the worst human(e) beings I’ve met or heard about are the most devout believers/preachers of fundamental Biblical theology.

Go ahead, provide examples..

[BigMike]

Sadly, some of the best humanitarians I’ve met or heard about were/are atheists or agnostics who, quite ironically, would make better examples of many of Christ’s teachings than too many institutional Christians. Conversely, some of the worst human(e) beings I’ve met or heard about are the most devout believers/preachers of fundamental Biblical theology.

This is such an insightful and important observation, and it touches on a deep paradox within human behavior and belief systems. It seems that adherence to a particular faith—or lack thereof—is not, in itself, a reliable predictor of moral character or ethical action. What you’re pointing to is the distinction between belief and behavior, and this is critical.

Think about it: people can profess to follow the highest moral ideals, even espousing teachings like "love thy neighbor," "turn the other cheek," or "judge not, lest ye be judged," but those words can become hollow if their actions contradict them. And conversely, someone who identifies as an atheist or agnostic, guided by secular ethics or simply a profound sense of human solidarity, might embody those very principles more consistently than those who loudly proclaim them.

Why is this? It could be that moral action doesn’t spring from the stated beliefs alone but from deeper psychological and social determinants. Kindness, empathy, and a sense of justice may emerge from one’s upbringing, life experiences, and even innate temperament, regardless of their stated worldview. Meanwhile, rigid adherence to dogma can sometimes foster tribalism, hypocrisy, or even cruelty, as actions become more about enforcing orthodoxy than living by the ethical principles a religion might claim to promote.

This is where determinism can add to the discussion. Human behavior—moral or otherwise—arises from a complex web of causes, including genetics, environment, social context, and personal experiences. Whether someone is a saintly atheist or a flawed theist is less about their chosen labels and more about the chain of influences that shaped their character.

So, instead of seeing this as ironic, perhaps it’s an opportunity to recognize that the capacity for moral greatness—or failure—transcends belief systems. It’s a human capacity, one that’s determined by factors far more intricate than the titles we wear or the doctrines we recite.

[attofishpi]

Sadly, some of the best humanitarians I’ve met or heard about were/are atheists or agnostics who, quite ironically, would make better examples of many of Christ’s teachings than too many institutional Christians. Conversely, some of the worst human(e) beings I’ve met or heard about are the most devout believers/preachers of fundamental Biblical theology.

This is such an insightful and important observation, and it touches on a deep paradox within human behavior and belief systems. It seems that adherence to a particular faith—or lack thereof—is not, in itself, a reliable predictor of moral character or ethical action. What you’re pointing to is the distinction between belief and behavior, and this is critical.

Think about it: people can profess to follow the highest moral ideals, even espousing teachings like "love thy neighbor," "turn the other cheek," or "judge not, lest ye be judged," but those words can become hollow if their actions contradict them.

Ergo, they are not Christians.

[ThinkOfOne]

Sadly, some of the best humanitarians I’ve met or heard about were/are atheists or agnostics who, quite ironically, would make better examples of many of Christ’s teachings than too many institutional Christians. Conversely, some of the worst human(e) beings I’ve met or heard about are the most devout believers/preachers of fundamental Biblical theology.

This is such an insightful and important observation, and it touches on a deep paradox within human behavior and belief systems. It seems that adherence to a particular faith—or lack thereof—is not, in itself, a reliable predictor of moral character or ethical action. What you’re pointing to is the distinction between belief and behavior, and this is critical.

Think about it: people can profess to follow the highest moral ideals, even espousing teachings like "love thy neighbor," "turn the other cheek," or "judge not, lest ye be judged," but those words can become hollow if their actions contradict them. And conversely, someone who identifies as an atheist or agnostic, guided by secular ethics or simply a profound sense of human solidarity, might embody those very principles more consistently than those who loudly proclaim them.

Perhaps you are unaware that the core beliefs of Christianity are grounded in the teachings of Paul and followers of Paul rather than the teachings of Jesus. As such, for all intents and purposes Christianity is a factory for the "white-washed tombs" if not the "wolves in sheep's clothing" for which Jesus repeatedly lambasted the Pharisees, Sadducees, et al for being. They try to present themselves as righteous on the outside while being unrighteous on the inside. So it's not at all a "paradox". Jesus warned strongly against it.

Sadly, some of the best humanitarians I’ve met or heard about were/are atheists or agnostics who, quite ironically, would make better examples of many of Christ’s teachings than too many institutional Christians. Conversely, some of the worst human(e) beings I’ve met or heard about are the most devout believers/preachers of fundamental Biblical theology.

See my comment to BigMike immediately above.

[BigMike]

Sadly, some of the best humanitarians I’ve met or heard about were/are atheists or agnostics who, quite ironically, would make better examples of many of Christ’s teachings than too many institutional Christians. Conversely, some of the worst human(e) beings I’ve met or heard about are the most devout believers/preachers of fundamental Biblical theology.

This is such an insightful and important observation, and it touches on a deep paradox within human behavior and belief systems. It seems that adherence to a particular faith—or lack thereof—is not, in itself, a reliable predictor of moral character or ethical action. What you’re pointing to is the distinction between belief and behavior, and this is critical.

Think about it: people can profess to follow the highest moral ideals, even espousing teachings like "love thy neighbor," "turn the other cheek," or "judge not, lest ye be judged," but those words can become hollow if their actions contradict them. And conversely, someone who identifies as an atheist or agnostic, guided by secular ethics or simply a profound sense of human solidarity, might embody those very principles more consistently than those who loudly proclaim them.

Perhaps you are unaware that the core beliefs of Christianity are grounded in the teachings of Paul and followers of Paul rather than the teachings of Jesus. As such, for all intents and purposes Christianity is a factory for the "white-washed tombs" if not the "wolves in sheep's clothing" for which Jesus repeatedly lambasted the Pharisees, Sadducees, et al for being. They try to present themselves as righteous on the outside while being unrighteous on the inside. So it's not at all a "paradox". Jesus warned strongly against it.

Sadly, some of the best humanitarians I’ve met or heard about were/are atheists or agnostics who, quite ironically, would make better examples of many of Christ’s teachings than too many institutional Christians. Conversely, some of the worst human(e) beings I’ve met or heard about are the most devout believers/preachers of fundamental Biblical theology.

See my comment to BigMike immediately above.

This is a fascinating perspective, and it raises an important question about the difference between the teachings of Jesus and the interpretations that have developed through institutional Christianity. If we take the teachings attributed to Jesus at face value—love, humility, forgiveness—they often seem at odds with the behaviors of those who claim to follow him yet focus more on rigid dogma or outward appearances of piety.

However, while it’s true that some branches of Christianity have placed a stronger emphasis on Pauline theology or institutional tradition, it’s worth noting that the diversity within Christianity itself means that not all theists fit this mold. Just as some Christians may embody Christ-like principles more in name than in practice, others—often inspired by a more personal or spiritual connection to those teachings—can genuinely reflect the values they espouse.

This ties into the broader idea that belief systems, whether theistic or atheistic, are lived out by individuals whose actions are shaped by a web of cultural, psychological, and societal influences. When we see atheists or agnostics who exemplify humanitarian ideals better than some self-identified Christians, it’s not necessarily a paradox but rather a reminder that moral behavior stems more from those influences than from labels like “Christian” or “atheist.”

At the same time, it’s important to avoid overgeneralizing. Many theists—and atheists—struggle with the same human inconsistencies. They wrestle with the gap between their ideals and their actions, not because of their stated beliefs, but because they’re human. That shared humanity, shaped by common life influences, often explains the overlap in moral behaviors across belief systems. It’s not surprising that Jesus warned against hypocrisy—it’s a universal human tendency, and one that transcends faith or philosophy.

[ThinkOfOne]

This is such an insightful and important observation, and it touches on a deep paradox within human behavior and belief systems. It seems that adherence to a particular faith—or lack thereof—is not, in itself, a reliable predictor of moral character or ethical action. What you’re pointing to is the distinction between belief and behavior, and this is critical.

Think about it: people can profess to follow the highest moral ideals, even espousing teachings like "love thy neighbor," "turn the other cheek," or "judge not, lest ye be judged," but those words can become hollow if their actions contradict them. And conversely, someone who identifies as an atheist or agnostic, guided by secular ethics or simply a profound sense of human solidarity, might embody those very principles more consistently than those who loudly proclaim them.

Perhaps you are unaware that the core beliefs of Christianity are grounded in the teachings of Paul and followers of Paul rather than the teachings of Jesus. As such, for all intents and purposes Christianity is a factory for the "white-washed tombs" if not the "wolves in sheep's clothing" for which Jesus repeatedly lambasted the Pharisees, Sadducees, et al for being. They try to present themselves as righteous on the outside while being unrighteous on the inside. So it's not at all a "paradox". Jesus warned strongly against it.

Sadly, some of the best humanitarians I’ve met or heard about were/are atheists or agnostics who, quite ironically, would make better examples of many of Christ’s teachings than too many institutional Christians. Conversely, some of the worst human(e) beings I’ve met or heard about are the most devout believers/preachers of fundamental Biblical theology.

See my comment to BigMike immediately above.

This is a fascinating perspective, and it raises an important question about the difference between the teachings of Jesus and the interpretations that have developed through institutional Christianity. If we take the teachings attributed to Jesus at face value—love, humility, forgiveness—they often seem at odds with the behaviors of those who claim to follow him yet focus more on rigid dogma or outward appearances of piety.

However, while it’s true that some branches of Christianity have placed a stronger emphasis on Pauline theology or institutional tradition, it’s worth noting that the diversity within Christianity itself means that not all theists fit this mold. Just as some Christians may embody Christ-like principles more in name than in practice, others—often inspired by a more personal or spiritual connection to those teachings—can genuinely reflect the values they espouse.

This ties into the broader idea that belief systems, whether theistic or atheistic, are lived out by individuals whose actions are shaped by a web of cultural, psychological, and societal influences. When we see atheists or agnostics who exemplify humanitarian ideals better than some self-identified Christians, it’s not necessarily a paradox but rather a reminder that moral behavior stems more from those influences than from labels like “Christian” or “atheist.”

At the same time, it’s important to avoid overgeneralizing. Many theists—and atheists—struggle with the same human inconsistencies. They wrestle with the gap between their ideals and their actions, not because of their stated beliefs, but because they’re human. That shared humanity, shaped by common life influences, often explains the overlap in moral behaviors across belief systems. It’s not surprising that Jesus warned against hypocrisy—it’s a universal human tendency, and one that transcends faith or philosophy.

This is a fascinating perspective, and it raises an important question about the difference between the teachings of Jesus and the interpretations that have developed through institutional Christianity. If we take the teachings attributed to Jesus at face value—love, humility, forgiveness—they often seem at odds with the behaviors of those who claim to follow him yet focus more on rigid dogma or outward appearances of piety.

However, while it’s true that some branches of Christianity have placed a stronger emphasis on Pauline theology or institutional tradition, it’s worth noting that the diversity within Christianity itself means that not all theists fit this mold. Just as some Christians may embody Christ-like principles more in name than in practice, others—often inspired by a more personal or spiritual connection to those teachings—can genuinely reflect the values they espouse.

There's a distinction that needs to be made between a "Christian" and a true "follower of Jesus". There's a wide gulf between the two. It isn't merely that "some branches of Christianity have placed a stronger emphasis on Pauline theology". From what I can tell, "Christianity", as the word is commonly used today, has "Pauline theology" as its very foundation - an extremely unsound foundation at that. For all intents and purposes, the teachings of Jesus are an afterthought at most. Granted much less of an afterthought for some than others, but an afterthought nonetheless. Perhaps the following will help put it in perspective.

According to Buddhism, to reach "Nirvana" an individual MUST "[eliminate] all greed, hatred, and ignorance...[refrain] from falsehood, malicious talk, and abusive language...stealing, killing, and unchastity..." and so on. In other words, the individual must make themselves righteous. Ultimately, it's about transformation. See https://spice.fsi.stanford.edu/docs/int ... o_buddhism.

According to the teachings of Jesus, to receive “salvation” / receive “eternal life” / live in the “Kingdom” an unrighteous individual MUST also make themselves righteous (they must cease to sin). Ultimately, it's also about transformation.

I know of no denomination of "Christianity" that believes that an unrighteous individual MUST make themselves righteous as a requirement to receive “salvation” / receive “eternal life” / live in the “Kingdom”. No transformation is required. Even worse, seems like the vast majority of Christians do not believe it possible. Many believe that Jesus has paid the price for their sins. Many believe that, for all intents and purposes, they will receive forgiveness for the asking. Many believe that their sins are not their fault, it is the fault of the "fallen nature" of man. Such a system of belief is inherently unsound. For all intents, and purposes it is antithetical to the gospel preached by Jesus.

This ties into the broader idea that belief systems, whether theistic or atheistic, are lived out by individuals whose actions are shaped by a web of cultural, psychological, and societal influences. When we see atheists or agnostics who exemplify humanitarian ideals better than some self-identified Christians, it’s not necessarily a paradox but rather a reminder that moral behavior stems more from those influences than from labels like “Christian” or “atheist.”

At the same time, it’s important to avoid overgeneralizing. Many theists—and atheists—struggle with the same human inconsistencies. They wrestle with the gap between their ideals and their actions, not because of their stated beliefs, but because they’re human. That shared humanity, shaped by common life influences, often explains the overlap in moral behaviors across belief systems. It’s not surprising that Jesus warned against hypocrisy—it’s a universal human tendency, and one that transcends faith or philosophy.

Those who are wholly committed to being righteous will be righteous. Those who are not, will not. Jesus understood this. Jesus taught this.

And for those whose system of belief not only does not require them to be righteous, but that they are nonetheless "right with God", will receive "eternal life", will receive forgiveness for the asking, etc.? Fairly recently a Buddhist that I know, told me that he had started to drop in at a Christian church which surprised me. When I told him the core beliefs of Christianity, he replied, "Sounds like the makings for psychopaths". Which is a bit strong. But still, the makings for "white-washed tombs", if not "wolves in sheep's clothing".