Are Athiests evil?

Fanny Cradock

Oh! Off-line for the day and this thread has continued to spiral a considerable distance off topic. Can we all just hop back on the original topic train.

Cheers

Gambler

I think it's actually mostly been back on the general topic (if a little bit expanded), One of the posts was that anyone who does not accept Jesus is doomed to eternal damnation. I think some of us are just trying to figure out if that is the case then where the line is? Do Muslims (who do accept Jesus as a prophet of god) end up in heaven or hell and what happens to people who have not had the opportunity (through no fault of their own) to hear the story of Jesus?

To be honest as an Atheist I am just trying to get a handle on what Christians believe and where that belief comes from, I was not raised as a Christian or a Muslim and I find it difficult to understand things from their point of view, this (Heaven\Hell) is a subject in particular that I have trouble getting to grips with.

jimmy-jazz

--amadeus-- wrote: »

Since The Truth is so overwhelming and God is so Magnificent why do we not believe?

i think this should answer your question! :P

Hivemind187

Father Dougal Maguire: "We're all going to heaven lads waaaayhaaaay"

Three possibilities;

1) All religions are correct and therefore no one is going to heaven due to mutually exclusive dogmas.

2) Only one religion is right but there is no way to know which one. Therefore the vast majority of people arent going to heaven because of exclusionary dogma. The probability of you being a part of and devout enough follower of said religion is piddly small so chances are you wont be going to heaven.

3) No religion is right, there is no god and no after life and as such no one is going to heaven.

If any of these are true (and admitedly its VERY early in the morning so I may have missed something without my espresso) one can only assume that the position of "good or evil" which have been so happily adopted by the religions of the world are utterly irrelevant to you seeing as you are unlikely to reap the benefit of them. Since the product of belief is the same for nearly everyone whether they are a believer or not it kind of puts them all on an equal footing and by extention it means that an Atheist is no more (or less!) evil than a christian scientist.

I find this so disturbing I may need a lie down.

wolfsbane

Gambler said:

I'm sorry but by my understanding Muslims Believe that "All creatures are God's children, and those dearest to God are the ones who treat His children kindly." They do not believe that Jesus was the son of god in the same way as I am my fathers son but they do believe that Jesus was sent from God (and even refer to him as the Messiah in some passages as well as believing that when Jesus returns to earth at a time close to the end of the world).

That's my point: they do not believe Him to be the Son of God in the Christian sense. That's why they specifically say that God has no Son.

Christians also believe evey man/woman is God's offspring - His sons and daughters. But that is not all what Christ claimed to be, nor what the Church holds Him to be.

Quote:
The heathen who never hear the gospel are lost, just as anyone who hears it and does not obey it. They have creation that declares that God is real, not some idol or sun, moon or stars.

If they heed that witness and seek for the unknown God, He will send the gospel to them or send them to the gospel. God has His people in every nation and makes sure they hear the gospel at some time, and that they repent and believe.
So, if someone is in a tribe in the Jungle and God hasn't sent them a messenger then they are doomed to eternal damnation? Also what about the generations that lived before Jesus was born?

All who lived and died in unbelief are eternally lost. They lived as sinners and died the same.

I find this notion to be out of tune with the idea of a loving god? By your rational a man that grows up living a good life, providing to his neighbours when they are in need, caring for his wife and children, believing in God as he understands god to be and trying to better himself, has managed to accidentally live up to all of gods commandments is doomed to eternal damnation just because they have never heard of the bible or Jesus?

No, for no one ever has lived up to all of Gods commandments. All are guilty sinners, in need of salvation. All grow up with a heart that is opposed to God to some degree. Men are eternally condemned because of their sins. Those who hear and reject the gospel are guilty of a further sin.

Your concept of the loving God is skewed by its failure to include His holiness and man's sin. You would not condemn the judge as 'unloving' for imprisoning a murderer or rapist.

wolfsbane

rockbeer wrote: »

The thing about history is that to be considered valid, references must generally be supported by a range of different materials. An historian is always - and rightly - sceptical about any account based on a single source, or assembled by proponents of just one side of a dispute, the old adage about history being written by the winners notwithstanding. It's a question of corroboration.

There is also the question of degrees of evidence depending on the nature of what is being claimed.

If a source says that Queen Victoria took a cab to Parliament we will probably accept it. Why? because

1. It's a perfectly normal thing to do and
2. Little significance hangs on it and
3. There's no reason to lie.

If the account says she flew down to Westminster we would be more sceptical. We would want corroboration; lots of independent eyewitness accounts, preferably from irrefutable sources; photgraphic evidence if possible. And even then it would be normal to be sceptical, trickery b3eing the most likely explanation.

Any respectable historian would expect to be laughed at if they defended an outrageous claim such as a resurrection based on a source of doubtful origin.

Where's the corroboration of the doubtful claims of the New Testament? Where are the eyewitness accounts? Where's the demonstration of non-trickery?

If Jesus REALLY wanted to demonstrate his divinity, why didn't he do something utterly irrefutable that could be examined by all and that would last for all time? Instead we're stuck with these unverifiable parlour tricks.

I agree - the resurrection of Christ has no strong historical proof. The historical case is made by the success of its believers in the face of great persecution, but that is not an infallible indicator of any truth.

The proof that the sinner needs is provided by the Holy Spirit. When one of the elect hear the gospel at God's appointed time, the Spirit confirms that message in their heart. They know it is true.

That is how God has ordained to save His people:

1 Corinthians 1:18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written:


“ I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
And bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.”

20 Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? 21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. 22 For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom; 23 but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness, 24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.

kingtut

Dave! wrote: »

Yes atheists are evil

If you are going to make such a statement then you should at least back it up with evidence....

wolfsbane

Gambler wrote: »

Sorry, forget what I said about the commandments, I just read them and they are pretty scary..


So much for the loving god idea, blew that out with the "I the LORD your God am a jealous God" bit...

This bit strikes me as generally saying God's ok with Slaves.. That freaks me right out and again blows out the loving god idea.

1. All men are sinners - it is God's mercy that chooses to save some of them. He cannot be critisised for punishing any of the guilty.

2. God tolerated slavery, polygamy and divorce in the OT times - but that was never His standard. Christians have to love their fellowmen and live holy lives in accordance with His perfect will.
Matthew 19:7 They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?”
8 He said to them, “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.”

wolfsbane

rockbeer wrote: »

Indeed, and meanwhile a complete b*stard who has never done anything good can achieve eternal salvation by repenting at the last.

I can no more accept that an intelligent deity would set things up this way than I can accept that an intelligent, thinking person would believe it.

The key is the nature of his repentance.

If genuine, a true sorrow for sin and a truning from it to God, then he will indeed be saved. But some think they can do a 'sorry I'm about to face the consequences' repentance and be accepted. They are eternally wrong.

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

That is a bit of a misrepresentation. Your assertion makes it sound like Muslims believe Jesus lied about who he was.

Muslims do not believe the representation of Jesus that the early Christians presented to the rest of the world through the books of the New Testament. They believe Jesus was truthful about what he was, but that he didn't claim to be the Son of God in the first place.

You, and they, are completely wrong.

For example, in Jesus' own words:
John 10:27 My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. 28 And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father’s hand. 30 I and My Father are one.”
31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone Him. 32 Jesus answered them, “Many good works I have shown you from My Father. For which of those works do you stone Me?”
33 The Jews answered Him, saying, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God.”
34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, “You are gods”’? 35 If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), 36 do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’? 37 If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me; 38 but if I do, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, that you may know and believe that the Father is in Me, and I in Him.” 39 Therefore they sought again to seize Him, but He escaped out of their hand.
John 14:23 Jesus answered and said to him, “If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him.

He told His apostles:
John 16:12 “I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13 However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come.

These apostles are the witnesses who further revealed Jesus as the Son of God:
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.

The Muslims and atheists are of course free to reject Christ as the Son of God, and to substitute a Christ of their own imagination.

Gambler

For example, in Jesus' own words:

Don't you mean to add according to John?

wolfsbane

Hivemind187 wrote: »

Father Dougal Maguire: "We're all going to heaven lads waaaayhaaaay"

Three possibilities;

1) All religions are correct and therefore no one is going to heaven due to mutually exclusive dogmas.

2) Only one religion is right but there is no way to know which one. Therefore the vast majority of people arent going to heaven because of exclusionary dogma. The probability of you being a part of and devout enough follower of said religion is piddly small so chances are you wont be going to heaven.

3) No religion is right, there is no god and no after life and as such no one is going to heaven.

If any of these are true (and admitedly its VERY early in the morning so I may have missed something without my espresso) one can only assume that the position of "good or evil" which have been so happily adopted by the religions of the world are utterly irrelevant to you seeing as you are unlikely to reap the benefit of them. Since the product of belief is the same for nearly everyone whether they are a believer or not it kind of puts them all on an equal footing and by extention it means that an Atheist is no more (or less!) evil than a christian scientist.

I find this so disturbing I may need a lie down.

You did indeed miss an option:
Only one religion is right and God has provided the way to know which one.. He sent His Holy Spirit to accompany the preaching of the gospel:
John 16:8 And when He has come, He will convict the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: 9 of sin, because they do not believe in Me; 10 of righteousness, because I go to My Father and you see Me no more; 11 of judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged.

He it is who opens the heart to believe and obey the gospel:
Acts 16:14 Now a certain woman named Lydia heard us. She was a seller of purple from the city of Thyatira, who worshiped God. The Lord opened her heart to heed the things spoken by Paul.

Gambler

Just realised my last post may have come accross as being cynical, but it is not without a reason:

Matthew, Mark, and Luke are often called the "synoptic" gospels. "Synoptic" is a Greek word meaning "having a common view." 1 John differs significantly from the synoptic gospels in theme, content, time duration, order of events, and style. "Only ca. 8% of it is parallel to these other gospels, and even then, no such word-for-word parallelism occurs as we find among the synoptic gospels." 2 The Gospel of John reflects a Christian tradition that is different from that of the other gospels. It was rejected as heretical by many individuals and groups within the early Christian movement. It was used extensively by the Gnostic Christians. But it was ultimately accepted into the official canon, over many objections. It is now the favorite gospel of many conservative Christians, and the gospel least referred to by many liberal Christians.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_john.htm

wolfsbane

Gambler wrote: »

Don't you mean to add according to John?

Indeed. But then every thing any one says out of our own hearing falls into the same catagory. All historical quotes are mediated to us. That doesn't mean they are necessarily false.

I've dealt with how one can know the veracity of the Bible - the witness of the Spirit. So I'm 100% sure John recorded it correctly.:)

wolfsbane

Gambler wrote: »

Just realised my last post may have come accross as being cynical, but it is not without a reason:


http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_john.htm

I've no problem with John's gospel being a distinctively unique account. It obviously did not seek to incorporate the records of other disciples, but rather to give John's account.

That there were various heretics and abusers of the word back then is certain. The man who wrote that article is just a modern example. He has his axe to grind. It's a free country.

Gambler

What about the differences between what John says happened and what Mathew, Mark and Luke said?

I would have a harder time arguing that John may not have recorded exactly what was said if his accounts matched everyone else's!

Again, if the witness of the spirit means that they couldn't have written anything that wasn't gods message (or whatever the argument is) then again surely the accounts would have matched better?

Gambler

wolfsbane wrote: »

I've no problem with John's gospel being a distinctively unique account. It obviously did not seek to incorporate the records of other disciples, but rather to give John's account.

There is a unique account and then there is mixing up (possibly incorrect) fundamental details! They are not "he said, she said" kind of differences we are talking about but completely different locations and people for different events\stories etc.

wolfsbane wrote: »

That there were various heretics and abusers of the word back then is certain. The man who wrote that article is just a modern example. He has his axe to grind. It's a free country.

All I can really say to that is to point you to the actual information about the site, in particular:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/statbelief.htm

EamonnKeane

towel401 wrote: »

atheists are boring / bitter old sods. I dunno about evil though

Boring/bitter = incorrect?

Gambler wrote: »

What about the differences between what John says happened and what Mathew, Mark and Luke said?

I would have a harder time arguing that John may not have recorded exactly what was said if his accounts matched everyone else's!

Again, if the witness of the spirit means that they couldn't have written anything that wasn't gods message (or whatever the argument is) then again surely the accounts would have matched better?

Bot only that, but the accounts of the resurrection differ to such an extent that they would be laughed at for presenting them in court.

It was dark/it was dawn. Mary Magdalene came, maybe on her own or maybe with Mary and Salome or Joanna too. Mary Mag. might have ran to get Peter, or maybe not. The stone had already been rolled away. Or maybe an angel came down and rolled it away in front of them. There were one or two angels.

Hivemind187

wolfsbane wrote: »

You did indeed miss an option:
Only one religion is right and God has provided the way to know which one.. He sent His Holy Spirit to accompany the preaching of the gospel:
John 16:8 And when He has come, He will convict the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: 9 of sin, because they do not believe in Me; 10 of righteousness, because I go to My Father and you see Me no more; 11 of judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged.

He it is who opens the heart to believe and obey the gospel:
Acts 16:14 Now a certain woman named Lydia heard us. She was a seller of purple from the city of Thyatira, who worshiped God. The Lord opened her heart to heed the things spoken by Paul.

OK, yeah. I read that like six times and you know what? It didnt tell me squat about which religion was the right one.

I fully get that you were trying to say "christianity" but which version? Catholocism? Protestanism? Mormonism? Branch Davidianism?

Throwing quotes around is all well and good but unlessthey actually answer the question they are a little flat.

Edit: Oh, thats not an additional option by the way since it is bunkum. God etc has not provided a means to know which faith is the correct one we know this by simple observation: Had he provided such a means it would be measureable and undeniable evidence of the existance of god. None exist, hence the number of faiths in existance arguing about a single deity and the existance of atheists constantly questioning the veracity of said faiths.

TPD

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Oh, and you can prove that, can you? Because if you cant, then I'm afraid that it's just you, based on your intolerances, presupposing that religious people are a silly bunch.

This may have been asked already, but since when do religious people ask for proof before believing something is true?

Dave!

kingtut wrote: »

If you are going to make such a statement then you should at least back it up with evidence....

Well Hitler was an atheist, so therefore............

Hivemind187

Dave! wrote: »

Well Hitler was an atheist, so therefore............

And a vegetarian. So you can see that in some circumstances atheism combined with a low protein diet can lead to genocide.

AtomicHorror

Dave! wrote: »

Well Hitler was an atheist, so therefore............

I thought the conventional view was that he was your typical half-assed denomination-nonspecific Christian. Not trying to shift the blame there, after all he was into evolution in a half-assed way too. :pac:

Hivemind187

AtomicHorror wrote: »

I thought the conventional view was that he was your typical half-assed denomination-nonspecific Christian. Not trying to shift the blame there, after all he was into evolution in a half-assed way too. :pac:

Things Hitler did Half-assed

1) Religion
2) Occult Magic
3) Planning
4) War
5) Understanding Evolution
6) Understanding Neitzche
7) Testicles.

Hitler was, if anything, incredibly eclectic in his religious views. He appears (going by his own statements in speeches) to have had issues with Catholocism (though not with making use of them), admired aspects of Protestanism and quietly respected the Muslim passion for armed military conquest of their enemies. He was a proponent of positive chrisitanism which appears to have been a kind of Nazified version of christianity including a viking christ.

Takes all sorts ...

Dave!

Hey since we're going off on this Hitler tangent, I was wondering if any of ye know/can dig up some stats on religiosity in Germany in the 3rd Reich?

Cos when the usual people throw up the point about the holocaust being the result of too much rationality, it might be worthwhile pointing out that the vast majority of Germans (who gave Hitler a significant number of seats in the Reichstag) were Christian... and I would assume that the armed forces were also predominantly religious.

I know that most were Christians, I'm just not sure what the % are.

studiorat

from A slow fuse - Hitler's WW1

Hitler, given his personality, became obsessed (obsessed even in the eyes of fellow veterans!) with an idea that he was being preserved by a divine force. Later, as Fuhrer, he would emphasise a number of examples that backed his beliefs. In the first case, Hitler recalled how a mysterious voice had told him to leave a crowded dugout during a minor barrage. Within minutes of walking out into the trenches an incoming shell flattened the bunker killing all of its occupants.

Links for Positive Christism and Nazi religious beliefs
http://www.h-net.msu.edu/reviews/showrev.php?id=7658

http://www.claremontmckenna.edu/hist/jpetropoulos/church/keithpage/protesta.htm

MrPudding

wolfsbane wrote: »

You would not condemn the judge as 'unloving' for imprisoning a murderer or rapist.

No you are right, I would not condemn the judge, nor would most of the people on this board, but then that is very different to what we are talking about here. The judge did not "create" the offender. He simply happens to be the judge this particular criminal finds himself before to answer for his crimes. The judge, like other judges applies the law. Aside from that he has, or should have, no connection to the criminal.

Your god, on the other hand, allegedly created us. Further, it created us, and being all knowing, knew that we would sin, yet still went ahead with it. Unless it is not all powerful it must have known what Adam would do. This leaves a number of possibilities. 1) It is not the creator, or simply does not exist. 2) It exists but is not all powerful or all knowing. 3) It exists and is all powerful and all knowing but does not give a monkey's. 4) It exists and is all knowing but can't do anything because it is not all powerful.

I am sure there are other options as well, but the point is, it does not make any sense at all for your god, as you describe it, to punish puny humans for acting in a manner which is, in effect, entirely of it's making.

MrP

kingtut

Dave! wrote: »

Well Hitler was an atheist, so therefore............

You use one man as evidence that all atheists are evil?
I do not think it is fair for you to assume that one evil atheist means that all atheists are evil.

What religion are you?

MrPudding

kingtut wrote: »

You use one man as evidence that all atheists are evil?
I do not think it is fair for you to assume that one evil atheist means that all atheists are evil.

What religion are you?

Have a look at his sig.

MrP

wolfsbane

Gambler wrote: »

What about the differences between what John says happened and what Mathew, Mark and Luke said?

I would have a harder time arguing that John may not have recorded exactly what was said if his accounts matched everyone else's!

Again, if the witness of the spirit means that they couldn't have written anything that wasn't gods message (or whatever the argument is) then again surely the accounts would have matched better?

The differences are only apparent. Some are more easily resolved than others, but the principle remains the same: eye-witness accounts that appear divergent may be reconciled with further data. Since the gospel accounts were common to the early church, if they were the work of mere men then one would expect divergent accounts to have been reconciled. If they were the work of men inspired by God, then we would find the several unexplained divergences left intact.

Why would God leave us perplexed by such items? Possibly to remind us that we depend on Him for revelation, not just our intellects. Possibly to reveal who are listening to God and who are not - it is the 'hard' sayings that reveal this:
John 6:60 Therefore many of His disciples, when they heard this, said, “This is a hard saying; who can understand it?”
61 When Jesus knew in Himself that His disciples complained about this, He said to them, “Does this offend you? 62 What then if you should see the Son of Man ascend where He was before? 63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life. 64 But there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who would betray Him. 65 And He said, “Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father.”
66 From that time many of His disciples went back and walked with Him no more.

wolfsbane

MrPudding wrote: »

No you are right, I would not condemn the judge, nor would most of the people on this board, but then that is very different to what we are talking about here. The judge did not "create" the offender. He simply happens to be the judge this particular criminal finds himself before to answer for his crimes. The judge, like other judges applies the law. Aside from that he has, or should have, no connection to the criminal.

Your god, on the other hand, allegedly created us. Further, it created us, and being all knowing, knew that we would sin, yet still went ahead with it. Unless it is not all powerful it must have known what Adam would do. This leaves a number of possibilities. 1) It is not the creator, or simply does not exist. 2) It exists but is not all powerful or all knowing. 3) It exists and is all powerful and all knowing but does not give a monkey's. 4) It exists and is all knowing but can't do anything because it is not all powerful.

I am sure there are other options as well, but the point is, it does not make any sense at all for your god, as you describe it, to punish puny humans for acting in a manner which is, in effect, entirely of it's making.

MrP

It might appear so to a sinner like yourself, but who are we to sit in judgment of God?

The God of the Bible declares Himself to be perfectly holy, as well as all-powerful and all-knowing. He did indeed know what the outcome of His creation would be, but He is not responsible for the free actions of His creatures.

He could have choosen not to have permitted their sin, but He chose otherwise. He is the only one with the wisdom to know if that was right or not, and He says it was. How foolish of us to put our tiny understanding up against His infinite wisdom:
Romans 9: 20 But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?

wolfsbane

Hivemind187 said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
You did indeed miss an option:
Only one religion is right and God has provided the way to know which one.. He sent His Holy Spirit to accompany the preaching of the gospel:
John 16:8 And when He has come, He will convict the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: 9 of sin, because they do not believe in Me; 10 of righteousness, because I go to My Father and you see Me no more; 11 of judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged.

He it is who opens the heart to believe and obey the gospel:
Acts 16:14 Now a certain woman named Lydia heard us. She was a seller of purple from the city of Thyatira, who worshiped God. The Lord opened her heart to heed the things spoken by Paul.
OK, yeah. I read that like six times and you know what? It didnt tell me squat about which religion was the right one.

I fully get that you were trying to say "christianity" but which version? Catholocism? Protestanism? Mormonism? Branch Davidianism?

Throwing quotes around is all well and good but unlessthey actually answer the question they are a little flat.

The quotes were not meant to give you that knowledge, only to show you how that knowledge is achieved. God the Holy Spirit reveals it to us as we read/listen to His word.

Edit: Oh, thats not an additional option by the way since it is bunkum. God etc has not provided a means to know which faith is the correct one we know this by simple observation: Had he provided such a means it would be measureable and undeniable evidence of the existance of god. None exist, hence the number of faiths in existance arguing about a single deity and the existance of atheists constantly questioning the veracity of said faiths.

True Christians beg to differ - we have experienced that knowledge in our hearts.

Unbelievers may hear the clearest witness of the Spirit, but choose to reject it. The difference lies in the nature of the receiving heart: if it has been changed by God from its stoney hardness, then it gladly hears and obeys. That change is the regenerating work of the Spirit, preparing the elect soul for conversion. The rest are left in their wicked condition, and deny, reject and ridicule the idea of this holy God.

wolfsbane

Gambler said:

All I can really say to that is to point you to the actual information about the site, in particular:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/statbelief.htm

Here's a quote from them:
About accuracy in our essays:
We will attempt to overcome our biases on each topic that we describe, by explaining each point of view carefully, respectfully and objectively. To this end, we have many of our essays reviewed by persons familiar with the issues who represent all sides of each topic.

But the table of differences they list is loaded with claims the Conservative/Traditional Christian rejects - for example, that Matthew, Mark and Luke teach a salvation by good works and John by faith in Christ. Plain and inexcusable rubbish!

Nailz

No, Atheists aren't. I might be a crappy Christian, but, I've always respected others views if they made sence, and in almost every sence they do. From ones I know and met, they aren't pushy or anything, they don't care what you believe in, as far as they're concerned you can believe in whatever the hell you want (which is the downfall of many people in verious religions). They're normal individuals, almost more than ourselves). I see them as the Cult Of Personality.

Thomas_S_Hunterson

kingtut wrote: »

You use one man as evidence that all atheists are evil?
I do not think it is fair for you to assume that one evil atheist means that all atheists are evil.

What religion are you?

err Atheists are the soldiers of Satan. Of course they're evil.

Zombrex

Sean_K wrote: »

err Atheists are the soldiers of Satan. Of course they're evil.

Atheists don't believe in Satan any more than they believe God








... of course thats what Satan wants us to all think ... waaahhaaahaaahaa!

studiorat

wolfsbane wrote: »

Unbelievers may hear the clearest witness of the Spirit, but choose to reject it. The difference lies in the nature of the receiving heart: if it has been changed by God from its stoney hardness, then it gladly hears and obeys. That change is the regenerating work of the Spirit, preparing the elect soul for conversion. The rest are left in their wicked condition, and deny, reject and ridicule the idea of this holy God.

Personally I think this statement is absolutely "evil".

Absolute rubbish! Wicked condition? The usual self-righteous bs. I for one am sick and tired of reading posts from so called christians calling themselves better than others.

Athiests Evil? Yeah right. Why don't we start discussing are Muslims evil or Jews evil and see how far we get.

I think Wolfsbane is right out of line here, faith is not a measure of goodness or whatever you want to call it. If we started judging people by their deeds and not what colour their theological football jersey is, I for one would be happy enough to leave this forum alone and christians to discuss their beliefs.

marco_polo

wolfsbane wrote: »

Unbelievers may hear the clearest witness of the Spirit, but choose to reject it. The difference lies in the nature of the receiving heart: if it has been changed by God from its stoney hardness, then it gladly hears and obeys. That change is the regenerating work of the Spirit, preparing the elect soul for conversion. The rest are left in their wicked condition, and deny, reject and ridicule the idea of this holy God.

So what happeed to free will then? If God has to intervene to change a heart from its "stoney hardness" first from how is it choice at all to reject him?

Looks like I didn't get picked for the football team, its like primary school all over again

Nonsense.

Fanny Cradock

wolfsbane wrote: »

Unbelievers may hear the clearest witness of the Spirit, but choose to reject it. The difference lies in the nature of the receiving heart: if it has been changed by God from its stoney hardness, then it gladly hears and obeys. That change is the regenerating work of the Spirit, preparing the elect soul for conversion. The rest are left in their wicked condition, and deny, reject and ridicule the idea of this holy God.

Maybe you should tone down the rhetoric a bit, Wolfsbane. It certainly doesn't win any favour with those you are referring to. It only servers to alienate people as it appears that you place yourself on a higher moral ground. Let's keep this civil.

Fanny Cradock

marco_polo wrote: »

So what happeed to free will then? If God has to intervene to change a heart from its "stoney hardness" first from how is it choice at all to reject him?

I believe that Wolf subscribes to the notion of such things being preordained. (Please correct me if I'm incorrect there, Wolf.) This is a notion that I have great trouble with myself.

marco_polo

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I believe that Wolf subscribes to the notion of such things being preordained. (Please correct me if I'm incorrect there, Wolf.) This is a notion that I have great trouble with myself.

It seems a contradictory position to me, I also find his views that good works are pretty much meaningless to be a rather bizzare moral framework to say the least.

Just old fire and brimestone rhetoric.

Fanny Cradock

marco_polo wrote: »

It seems a contradictory position to me, I also find his views that good works are pretty much meaningless to be a rather bizzare moral framework to say the least.

Just old fire and brimestone rhetoric.

Again, I may be incorrect here, but I would assume the Wolf means that good works are meaningless with regards to salvation. The former has no bearing on the latter. Maybe, though, I am slightly misrepresenting the viewpoint of many Christians when I say this (my own included).

I would be of the opinion that good deeds are a natural consequence of accepting Jesus - arguably even essential for a Christian. But to avoid any arguement, this says nothing about the morality of non-believers.

studiorat

Good deeds are a natural consequence of being human, not accepting Jesus, IMO. Empathy and all that.
Now I'm assuming you mean accepting Jesus as your redeemer.

How then can you account for the good deeds of people who don't accept Jesus in accordance with any christian belief. My deeply good sufi friends who would really and truly sell their belongings to accomodiate a stranger for instance. I wonder how many christians would accept someone into their house like that.
But hey it's ok, they're on the winning team!

Oddly enough I have no trouble as an Atheist with the universe being preordained, why not? Just not created by an interventionist being.

Fanny Cradock

studiorat wrote: »

Good deeds are a natural consequence of being human, not accepting Jesus, IMO. Empathy and all that.
Now I'm assuming you mean accepting Jesus as your redeemer.

How then can you account for the good deeds of people who don't accept Jesus in accordance with any christian belief. My deeply good sufi friends who would really and truly sell their belongings to accomodiate a stranger for instance. I wonder how many christians would accept someone into their house like that.
But hey it's ok, they're on the winning team!

Oddly enough I have no trouble as an Atheist with the universe being preordained, why not? Just not created by an interventionist being.

Ah, but you see, I never said that being a Christian was required for being a good person. I believe that all goodness comes from God where one believes in him or not. This is probably an infuriating argument for you :pac:

Care to expand on your final paragraph? Would it not take a huge leap to go from an ordered universe in which one can make predictions, to one that is so ordered that even an apparently random entropic system is preordained.

marco_polo

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Again, I may be incorrect here, but I would assume the Wolf means that good works are meaningless with regards to salvation. The former has no bearing on the latter. Maybe, though, I am slightly misrepresenting the viewpoint of many Christians when I say this (my own included).

I would be of the opinion that good deeds are a natural consequence of accepting Jesus - arguably even essential for a Christian. But to avoid any arguement, this says nothing about the morality of non-believers.

I am probably just not getting it, but surely from the christain point of view good works must have a value with regard to salvation. (Is the opposite a common non-catholic christian viewpoint? I only have a little prior catholic experience)

It just seems to me that if someone holds the view that good works are meaningless with regards to salvation, then surely "Why live morally?" is a valid question to ask of someone who holds such a belief as it is often asked of atheists. Or perhaps I am interpreting this all wrong and what is meant is that good works done purely for the the sake of gaining salvation are of no use?

Not looking for a non-believer morality fight just curious about this topic. I tend to stay out of these threads, unless something really grinds my gears. I don't have overly strong views on religion just not my cup of tea anymore .

Fanny Cradock

marco_polo wrote: »

I am probably just not getting it, but surely from the christain point of view good works must have a value with regard to salvation. (Is the opposite a common non-catholic christian viewpoint? I only have a little prior catholic experience)

It just seems to me that if someone holds the view that good works are meaningless with regards to salvation, then surely "Why live morally?" is a valid question to ask of someone who holds such a belief as it is often asked of atheists. Or perhaps I am interpreting this all wrong and what is meant is that good works done purely for the the sake of gaining salvation are of no use?

Not looking for a non-believer morality fight just curious about this topic. I tend to stay out of these threads, unless something really grinds my gears. I don't have overly strong views on religion just not my cup of tea anymore .

The misunderstanding is my fault.

Let me put it this way. For Christians the words found in Romans 3:23 ring true: "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God". In other words, salvation isn't earned, it's an act of grace, a freely given gift. So, while it would be untrue to say Christians hold that good deeds are meaningless, with regards to salvation, we believe it come from Jesus alone.

From salvation, however, though not exclusive to it, one expects that good deeds will arise. Indeed, one would have to ask questions if a moral improvement didn't arise. This isn't to say that Christians are somehow immune from evil deeds, are better people, or that non-Christians are less moral than Christians.

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

From salvation, however, though not exclusive to it, one expects that good deeds will arise.

Would a Christian then be skeptical of the salvation of someone who claims to be saved but who leads a selfish unhelpful life?

Is it possible for someone to believe in Jesus, believe they are saved, but not be? I know quite a few "Christians" who seem to genuinely believe they are saved (and genuinely believe I'm going straight to hell) but who I wouldn't consider to lead lives filled with good deeds.

rockbeer

Wicknight wrote: »

Would a Christian then be skeptical of the salvation of someone who claims to be saved but who leads a selfish unhelpful life?

Is it possible for someone to believe in Jesus, believe they are saved, but not be?

I'm no christian ( as most of you have probably guessed ) but I always understood that no christian should believe or claim that they were saved. I thought this was strictly god's prerogative.

It's always been a source of amazement to me, the confidence - the utter certainty - with which so many christians make outrageous pronouncements about who is saved and who is damned. It goes without saying that everyone almost without exception considers themselves among the saved.

It's almost as though they had a hot line upstairs, but as far as I can see everyone is just guessing.

(Sorry if this is a bit OT)

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

Would a Christian then be skeptical of the salvation of someone who claims to be saved but who leads a selfish unhelpful life?

Is it possible for someone to believe in Jesus, believe they are saved, but not be? I know quite a few "Christians" who seem to genuinely believe they are saved (and genuinely believe I'm going straight to hell) but who I wouldn't consider to lead lives filled with good deeds.

Well, it's not up to me, tbh. However, I would wonder why there has been no improvement or worse. At this point I may be departing from biblical teachings and slip into my natural state: scepticism.

As for your latter question, I think that it might. By way of comparison, somebody could claim to love their wife, yet it's not words but actions that go to proving this deceleration.

Fanny Cradock

rockbeer wrote: »

I'm no christian ( as most of you have probably guessed ) but I always understood that no christian should believe or claim that they were saved. I thought this was strictly god's prerogative.

It's always been a source of amazement to me, the confidence - the utter certainty - with which so many christians make outrageous pronouncements about who is saved and who is damned. It goes without saying that everyone almost without exception considers themselves among the saved.

It's almost as though they had a hot line upstairs, but as far as I can see everyone is just guessing.

(Sorry if this is a bit OT)

Quick answer, I believe that it is denominational. However, there are many passages in the bible that I believe guarantee salvation to those who truly believe. Of course, defining what true belief is may be a probl;em to some but not others.

For example, Matt 7:

7Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:

8For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.