Are atheists afraid of judgement?

Originally posted by The MISTER
I'm with the group that believes Jesus is God's son and died to save mens' souls. I am not a part of whichever christian denomination that doesn't believe that. IMO denominations are used by the enemy to divide and conquer. In the Bible Jesus spoke harshly against judging others. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone and all. Denominations regularly consider those outside of their doctrine as lost and damned.

Yeah, as opposed to what else?

Your not aware of the big stink going on about whether the Bible is truly the preserved Word of God, huh?

what big stink? any1 worth taking seriously on the subject knows that its a selective compilation of contradictory and unoriginal myths from roman/greek and hebrew documents that have been wldly translated and rougly put together with costant change over time by people with very self serving or delusional motivations. if you can still take the question of it being the authentic dictation of an in text suggested diety, seriously, than by all means do.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
what big stink? any1 worth taking seriously on the subject knows that its a selective compilation of contradictory and unoriginal myths from roman/greek and hebrew documents that have been wldly translated and rougly put together with costant change over time by people with very self serving or delusional motivations. if you can still take the question of it being the authentic dictation of an in text suggested diety, seriously, than by all means do.

So adamant about a statement for which there is no proof... Care to provide the names of some of these people you are talking about?

Originally posted by LLLLLink
So adamant about a statement for which there is no proof... Care to provide the names of some of these people you are talking about?

you claim for no proof is false. the numinous scholarship on the history of rome and the ottoman region as well as much of the scholarship on the history of heology and the history of the bible {much of which is christian in nature} comes to those conclusions among others. the fact that 82 gospels are missing from the king james compilattion versus the catholic compilation, the discovery of manhy other accuratly dated gospels, the fact that the historical writing of the gospels is put anywhere from 25 to 105 years after the supposed death of yehshua, the acceptance by even he catholic church of the fact that jesus could not have been born histoicall for atleast 10 years after 1 AD. the nearly complete lack of evidence for the existance of the mythical jesus etc etc etc.

the problem is that people have stoppedlooking at the bible as an historical, man made text,

Originally posted by leonheartmm
you claim for no proof is false. the numinous scholarship on the history of rome and the ottoman region as well as much of the scholarship on the history of heology and the history of the bible {much of which is christian in nature} comes to those conclusions among others. the fact that 82 gospels are missing from the king james compilattion versus the catholic compilation, the discovery of manhy other accuratly dated gospels, the fact that the historical writing of the gospels is put anywhere from 25 to 105 years after the supposed death of yehshua, the acceptance by even he catholic church of the fact that jesus could not have been born histoicall for atleast 10 years after 1 AD. the nearly complete lack of evidence for the existance of the mythical jesus etc etc etc.

the problem is that people have stoppedlooking at the bible as an historical, man made text,

Missing because of the very fact that they are not part of the gospels. The gospels are only the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John...
The first three being synoptic, John being unique.
Also, Catholicism is garbage.

Originally posted by LLLLLink
Missing because of the very fact that they are not part of the gospels. The gospels are only the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John...
The first three being synoptic, John being unique.
Also, Catholicism is garbage.

says who, you? 🙄

besides, historical and scientific evidence suggests otherwise, and that DOES have objective authority, unlike you.

Apparently the apocrypha has Kid Jesus taming dragons, exploding snakes, and murdering other children just because he didn't like them. Helluva savior.

Thank you Cracked.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
you claim for no proof is false. the numinous scholarship on the history of rome and the ottoman region as well as much of the scholarship on the history of heology and the history of the bible {much of which is christian in nature} comes to those conclusions among others. the fact that 82 gospels are missing from the king james compilattion versus the catholic compilation, the discovery of manhy other accuratly dated gospels, the fact that the historical writing of the gospels is put anywhere from 25 to 105 years after the supposed death of yehshua, the acceptance by even he catholic church of the fact that jesus could not have been born histoicall for atleast 10 years after 1 AD. the nearly complete lack of evidence for the existance of the mythical jesus etc etc etc.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
the problem is that people have stoppedlooking at the bible as an historical, man made text,

Why should someone lose faith in God's word because of what men say? If Christians believe that God is the mastermind behind existence why would they think that he can't keep his gospel pure? Remember we readily believe in his power to do whatever he pleases.

Originally posted by The MISTER
If you do believe all of that then you must accept 100% of what other people have taught you to be true. Either that or you have modified what you have been taught and are now sharing the parts that you have faith in. A christian does no different. If you define yourself as an atheist then the only difference between you and any christian is that a christian must follow a specific code of conduct according to a specific guideline. If they do not then it is obvious to people who practice christianity. If a person was pretending that they knew how to read you would notice immediately, correct? An atheist is free to create their own guidline and no fellow atheist can say "He's an obvious phony" Not that this is good or bad it's just a key difference. Analogy Your name and your nickname are both names. However you can change your nickname to whatever you want to, whenever you want to. Your birth name doesn't change like that.

Why should someone lose faith in God's word because of what men say? If Christians believe that God is the mastermind behind existence why would they think that he can't keep his gospel pure? Remember we readily believe in his power to do whatever he pleases.

but i dont beleive it 100%, i accept it as falliable, yet gve due credance to the evidence and the peer review, as well as the demonstration of facts and predictions through that evidence. it is so unlike the dogma that self professing christians have to beleive. furthermore, i was not taught, i went out to see for myself and came upon these things which i tried to check for validity by criterion as objective as possible. again, very different from the majority of christians.

christians dont follow a specific code at all, they all, depending on denomination and individual preference, pick and choose, as well as interpret the text the way way it fits in with their ethos.{after all, how seriously do most practicing christians take the point of view of turning the other cheek or killing someone if they work on the sabbath?}

as for why you would lose faith based on what men say? well i ask you this, why would you gain faith based on what men would say{im assuming u werent born, knowing the tenants of ur brand of christianity}, for that matter why would you lend credulity to the bible, a factually man made and man written work to begin with? if the former holds, than it goes to reason that beleivers are swayed by the words of me, so they cud just as well follow men OUT of their relegion. lastly, the bible, a man made work tells you to beleive in it and its purity based on a god that IT claims. the very reason you beleive in the existance of god is because you beleive in the bible. so at some point, you didnt beleive and then you CHOSE to accept sumthing presented to you which in itself had no criteria which gave it authority over truth. it cud just as well have been any other book and any other myth and going by that, you wud belive it too. the PILLAR on which the the status of god stands, is undeniably the book, and unless IT can claim any non circular authority on the truth, no beleiver of it's can claim authority over truth based ont he very tenants described within it.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
but i dont beleive it 100%, i accept it as falliable, yet gve due credance to the evidence and the peer review, as well as the demonstration of facts and predictions through that evidence. it is so unlike the dogma that self professing christians have to beleive. furthermore, i was not taught, i went out to see for myself and came upon these things which i tried to check for validity by criterion as objective as possible. again, very different from the majority of christians.

christians dont follow a specific code at all, they all, depending on denomination and individual preference, pick and choose, as well as interpret the text the way way it fits in with their ethos.{after all, how seriously do most practicing christians take the point of view of turning the other cheek or killing someone if they work on the sabbath?}

as for why you would lose faith based on what men say? well i ask you this, why would you gain faith based on what men would say{im assuming u werent born, knowing the tenants of ur brand of christianity}, for that matter why would you lend credulity to the bible, a factually man made and man written work to begin with? if the former holds, than it goes to reason that beleivers are swayed by the words of me, so they cud just as well follow men OUT of their relegion. lastly, the bible, a man made work tells you to beleive in it and its purity based on a god that IT claims. the very reason you beleive in the existance of god is because you beleive in the bible. so at some point, you didnt beleive and then you CHOSE to accept sumthing presented to you which in itself had no criteria which gave it authority over truth. it cud just as well have been any other book and any other myth and going by that, you wud belive it too. the PILLAR on which the the status of god stands, is undeniably the book, and unless IT can claim any non circular authority on the truth, no beleiver of it's can claim authority over truth based ont he very tenants described within it.

You're right I wasn't born knowing any more than you did. Your claim of having been self-taught is likely exaggerated unless you taught yourself to read and write then read only what you wrote. Love thy neighbor as thyself is the summary of the Gospel of Christ and he said this himself. How can a person call themselves a christian and make no efforts to do this? It is not always obvious to others when someone is doing this but God knows and they know. Also I have been interested in whether or not love thy neighbor as thyself was a central belief in other religions.

i was referring to the critique of relegion being self taught, or more accurately, individually followed instead of being forced or influenced by the opinions of others.

if that is your beleif of what christianity is then you are welcome to it. but christianity in itself is neither that nor anything else. simply because you choose to beleive that doesnt mean that others are wrong if they dont. and there are those who beleive in meaner things from the bible more than they beleive in love for the neighbour. but thats besides the point.

the fact is that whatever the bible may say on morality, the moral truths which are at their basis, a part of all human beings, will neither be denied because of biblical dogma, nor will they become any more true because of it. thou shalt not murder etc. so it is completely wrong to say that non beleivers dont have a code of inherent moral value to which they can hold on to, or dont have motivation enough to do so, simply because of the fact that they reject your dogma or faith. furthermore, very often, scriptural morality is very mistaken on what is moral and what is immoral.{interpretation notwithstanding}

Originally posted by leonheartmm
i was referring to the critique of relegion being self taught, or more accurately, individually followed instead of being forced or influenced by the opinions of others.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
if that is your beleif of what christianity is then you are welcome to it. but christianity in itself is neither that nor anything else. simply because you choose to beleive that doesnt mean that others are wrong if they dont. and there are those who beleive in meaner things from the bible more than they beleive in love for the neighbour. but thats besides the point.

That is what christianity is defined as in the english language.

Therefore a person calling themselves a christian cannot just dismiss the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
the fact is that whatever the bible may say on morality, the moral truths which are at their basis, a part of all human beings, will neither be denied because of biblical dogma, nor will they become any more true because of it. thou shalt not murder etc. so it is completely wrong to say that non beleivers dont have a code of inherent moral value to which they can hold on to, or dont have motivation enough to do so, simply because of the fact that they reject your dogma or faith. furthermore, very often, scriptural morality is very mistaken on what is moral and what is immoral.{interpretation notwithstanding}

Originally posted by The MISTER
Atheism can indeed have rights and wrongs. It could lack them as well. It has no rulebook or laws to follow. The person calling themselves an atheist can give the title whichever structure suits them the best. It could include moral code based on treating others well or it could reject moral code based on morals being a man-made illusion. A person could say that they don't believe anything another person tells them and describe themselves as an atheist. That would not then make all atheists people who don't believe anything that they are told. The title of atheist is only definable by the lack of belief in God or gods. Whether an atheist believes in morals or not depends on the individual. Remember a buddhist would fall into the category of not believing in God or gods. That could be making them a reluctant atheist by definition even if they rejected that title themselves. Buddhists have an objective code of right and wrong if I'm not mistaken.

I agree. I'm not sayng Atheists cannot have morals or be morally grounded. I'm saying that their notion of morality has to be rooted in the subjective and is therefore ultimately pointless. There's no higher authority or moral law issued by God so any notion of right and wrong is purely subjective and any law they may have e.g. murder is wrong or it is better to not be afraid of Hell (like the video showed) is a value judgement that has nor justification for being better or worse than someone who believes the opposite e.g. murder is right. By comparison the Christian, whether you agree with them or not, can say that they try to allign themselves with the objective moral commands issued by God.

Also I wouldn't personally define an Atheist as someone who has a lack of belief in God in the same way I wouldn't define a Theist as someone who believes in God. Whilst that may be features of their stance, both of those viewpoints are compatible with the existence or non-existence of God. God would or wouldn't exist, regardless of belief. I feel that a better definition would be that a Theist is someone who maintains that there is a God and that the notion that there is no God is a false proposition. An Atheist is someone who maintains there is no God in that the claim God exists is a false proposition. That way their respective attitudes are knowledge statements that aren't compatible with something that stands contrary to their definition.

Originally posted by willRules
I agree. I'm not sayng Atheists cannot have morals or be morally grounded. I'm saying that their notion of morality has to be rooted in the subjective and is therefore ultimately pointless. There's no higher authority or moral law issued by God so any notion of right and wrong is purely subjective and any law they may have e.g. murder is wrong or it is better to not be afraid of Hell (like the video showed) is a value judgement that has nor justification for being better or worse than someone who believes the opposite e.g. murder is right. By comparison the Christian, whether you agree with them or not, can say that they try to allign themselves with the objective moral commands issued by God.

Also I wouldn't personally define an Atheist as someone who has a lack of belief in God in the same way I wouldn't define a Theist as someone who believes in God. Whilst that may be features of their stance, both of those viewpoints are compatible with the existence or non-existence of God. God would or wouldn't exist, regardless of belief. I feel that a better definition would be that a Theist is someone who maintains that there is a God and that the notion that there is no God is a false proposition. An Atheist is someone who maintains there is no God in that the claim God exists is a false proposition. That way their respective attitudes are knowledge statements that aren't compatible with something that stands contrary to their definition.

I'm trying to distinguish between Atheism and Agnosticism. If the definition of Atheism is "I don't believe God exists" and Theism "I believe God exists" well then they are no different from Agnosticism, because they aren't knowledge claims and they are compatible with God's existence or lack of. It's making the point that belief in God or lack of belief in him has no bearing on his existence or lack of, undermining the definitions.

For example, once we say Atheism is someone who maintains "there is no God" we have a clear cut definition, in my opinion. 🙂

Originally posted by willRules
I agree. I'm not sayng Atheists cannot have morals or be morally grounded. I'm saying that their notion of morality has to be rooted in the subjective and is therefore ultimately pointless. There's no higher authority or moral law issued by God so any notion of right and wrong is purely subjective and any law they may have e.g. murder is wrong or it is better to not be afraid of Hell (like the video showed) is a value judgement that has nor justification for being better or worse than someone who believes the opposite e.g. murder is right. By comparison the Christian, whether you agree with them or not, can say that they try to allign themselves with the objective moral commands issued by God.

Also I wouldn't personally define an Atheist as someone who has a lack of belief in God in the same way I wouldn't define a Theist as someone who believes in God. Whilst that may be features of their stance, both of those viewpoints are compatible with the existence or non-existence of God. God would or wouldn't exist, regardless of belief. I feel that a better definition would be that a Theist is someone who maintains that there is a God and that the notion that there is no God is a false proposition. An Atheist is someone who maintains there is no God in that the claim God exists is a false proposition. That way their respective attitudes are knowledge statements that aren't compatible with something that stands contrary to their definition.

Originally posted by willRules
I'm trying to distinguish between Atheism and Agnosticism. If the definition of Atheism is "I don't believe God exists" and Theism "I believe God exists" well then they are no different from Agnosticism, because they aren't knowledge claims and they are compatible with God's existence or lack of. It's making the point that belief in God or lack of belief in him has no bearing on his existence or lack of, undermining the definitions.

For example, once we say Atheism is someone who maintains "there is no God" we have a clear cut definition, in my opinion. 🙂

We can get clear cut definitions without doing that.

Strong Theism - there is proof of God
Weak Theism - there is reason to believe in God thus I do
Agnosticism - there is no way to make a decision about god
Weak Atheism - there is no reason to believe in God thus I do not
Strong Atheism - there is proof against God

Now the interesting thing is that you can't simply drop a person into one of these categories. People who are Weak Atheists as a general rule may well be Strong Atheist when considering particular deities. Even more common is for Strong Theists to be Strong Atheists outside of their own religion.

Huh, I guess I'm a Weak Athiest (about all deities fyi). Kool.

Apparently the apocrypha has Kid Jesus taming dragons, exploding snakes, and murdering other children just because he didn't like them. Helluva savior.

Thank you Cracked.

Link please.