Should I become an atheist and why?

[Wootah]

Should I become an atheist and why?

What are the benefits, practices, beliefs? Any good conversion stories?

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #179]

. Whatever the central tenet of Christianity is or is not, the crucifixion as described is not in itself enough (as suffering) to wipe out sin -death, as others have suffered worse.

The problem with this reasoning is that is assumes the crucifixion as described is not in itself enough (as suffering) to wipe out sin -death, BECAUSE "others have suffered worse".

Therefore, prefixing to that "Whatever the central tenet of Christianity is or is not" is trivializing to the point where the argument then presented, is done so by ignoring "Whatever the central tenet of Christianity is or is not" in order to create the strawman argument "the crucifixion as described is not in itself enough (as suffering) to wipe out sin -death, as others have suffered worse."

Not really. You'll recall I had an alternative - the suffering itself was not enough (I don't see that you can deny that some have had it worse) in itself, so symbolism or magic has to be what does it.

But if you say I did a strawman (of the argument) - what (if not the 'outs' that I did above) is your actual argument?

[Shem Yoshi]

Not only did Christ give his life for other, he gave his life for people who were actively sinning against him. He said "love your enemy", "bless them who curse you". and "pray for them who deceitfully use you".

All just smoke and mirrors. The Christ did nothing in reality, since he did what he did knowing that he would bounce back good as new a few hours later. Not so for many heroic human beings who gave their their lives for others with no such expectation. Sure, you can still say he gave his life. But that would be like me giving you a large sum of money on Friday, but when you check on Monday I have taken it back. I can still say that I gave you the money, but ultimately the gesture was worthless.

It appears that you are committing a fallacy of misrepresenting the beliefs and teachings of Christianity. According to Christian belief, the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross was not merely an act of temporary self-sacrifice, but a redemption for the sins of humanity. The belief in the resurrection of Jesus after his death is considered a central tenet of Christianity and essential to the understanding of his sacrifice as having eternal significance and value. By denying this central belief, you are mischaracterizing the nature of Jesus' sacrifice and its meaning in the Christian faith.

I think you miss the point - we know what you more or less point above as the tenets of Christianity (we have seen one or two create their own doctrines about this, like it was ...necessary to have a foopnote (1) ... but the point was that it makes no sense that an experience that, while unpleasant, is no worse than a lot of people have had to go through, it was a lot shorter than crucifixions really were Mark 15.14) Jesus has risen almost immediately (Luke 23. 43.) and had eternal life in heaven as a reward. This in no way is such a sacrifice as to outweigh sin - death (but only if you believe right) but that has to be more of a symbolic Act or a distraction like a conjurer's assistant in fishnets diverting audience attention while the magician does the trick.

(1) like it was the example of selflessness that saves, or the healings that Jesus did that sorta skipped the act of resurrection to show that people had been saved.

Yes - I understand the point that was being made.

Jesus as portrayed in the bible stories, appears from an early age to being different to other humans, so how can it be argued that Jesus was just like other humans, when he is portrayed as being so different than other humans?

Ultimately it does not seem to matter - as the fallacy of misrepresenting the beliefs and teachings of Christianity is still a fallacy. The argument that Jesus possess powers which imply that his sacrifice was a shallow one, against the belief the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross was not merely an act of temporary self-sacrifice, but a redemption for the sins of humanity and the belief in the resurrection of Jesus after his death is considered a central tenet of Christianity and essential to the understanding of his sacrifice as having eternal significance and value, appears to be petty at best.

By denying this central belief, one mischaracterizes the nature of Jesus' sacrifice and its meaning in the Christian faith... as why should it matter that Jesus was different from all us other humans, that the sacrifice need be trivialized to the degree that is being argued?

I agree with William on this one. Suggesting Jesus sacrifice was shallow or superficial isnt really taking in the gravity of the event, all the while it is acknowledging the resurrection to be true.

So what are we to believe here?

The scripture says Jesus bore our sins, our suffering, our transgressions on the cross. If we are to acknowledge that the resurrection did happen (which nonbelievers are doing in this case), are we not to acknowledge the significance of the sacrifice itself? That Jesus bore the sins of humanity?

[SacredBishop]

[Replying to Shem Yoshi in post #182]

If Jesus bore the sins of humanity, why does his death absolve him of carrying them still? Perhaps, he bears the sins of humanity for always. A perpetual burden.

[Shem Yoshi]

Why not "eat your enemy" instead?

Please never lose your religious beliefs. We have them for people such as yourself in order to prevent them from commiting such evils. Please note that not all humans seem to struggle with this eating of people that you focus on here. Eating of people doesn't even seem to be a thing, yet here you are?...

You need religion and society needs you to remain religious. Most humans do not struggle with not eating people and they do not commit such atrocities even though they do not subscribe to any sort of a god concept. You don't seem able to grasp this fact.

I dont think you understand. I fully recognize humans dont struggle with eating people. Even the law is written on the hearts of gentiles (Romans), and all humans are created in the image of God (Genesis).

It is evident that God has established values in us, in all people, Jew or Gentile, Greek or Barbarian (Ephesians). And it is evdience that animal like behavior don't guide our values.

But evolution teaches us we are like animals.. right?

Jesus taught humility, long suffering, and died for people who were against him.

He did not teach eating your enemies though. Please do not stone or eat people. Stay religious if that is the only thing stopping you.

But on atheism you would not assume these values..

Atheists have values. Atheism does not subsribe values. This is your strawman about atheism and you should correct your thinking.

if this is a strawman about atheists values, id have you establish its fundamental beliefs in order to establish it is a strawman. An argument from incredulity, or popular belief, does not establish your position.

What can establish that killing and eating your enemies is wrong? Science? Evolution? what is it? How is it a strawman?

To die for someone who is against you... You dont get to assume that value...

Are you seriously claiming that if someone were to die for me, I wouldn't see value in that? Please clarify and justify such a thing if that is what you mean.

I am glad you asked for clarification here, because that is not what I was saying. You may or may not see value in someone dying for you... Actually I hope you fully appreciate the value of Jesus sacrifice on the cross. I hope you see value in that.

What I meant was, dying for your enemy is not a moral value you can assume as rational. While you might be able to rationalize that it is bad to kill other people, to stone other people, or to eat other people. I do not believe you can rationalize, and justify the moral behavior of loving your enemy, and dying for people who are actively sinning against you.

Surely you enemy is not for your good.. the consequences of eating your enemy would be you eliminating your enemy, survival of the fitness, and be nutrients for your body for your own personal good.

Please do not eat people. Even those evil atheists don't eat others.
Heck, pick a religion if you must if that is really the mechanism stopping you from eating people.

I would suggest that you stop straw manning people to establish a working debate.

So far, I find what you suggest to be appauling.
Copy/paste: "Why not "eat your enemy" instead?"
How can I find this appauling as I currently don't find any of the available god concepts to be credible? According to your thinking, surely I should be struggling not to eat people, but I don't, that seems to be solely a Shem Yoshi thing best I can tell.

You continue to prop up an argument from incredulity...

Shoot on atheism, it might even be beneficial to eat her. Nutrients for the body, like any animal... Good way to survive... Eat your enemies...

Can you make the connection for how not believing in any of the available god concepts would lead a person to become a canabal?

Readers, note the failure in the ability to even try to make such a connection. And I got called out for strawmanning!

What I see is people are appealing to Christian values

So you see atheists, Muslims and Hindus to name a few as appealing to Christian values? Trying to gauge if I can take you seriously even a little.

like we ought not stone people, and appealing to ideas of objective morality as if they are coming from above, but on atheism neither is true.

Correct. Atheists do not pretend that a god concept exists to supply morals. Atheists still have morals though and they don't even eat people! Something you seem to struggle with understanding as to why.

It is perfectly rational that someone would like to borrow such ideas of truths, for our foundations lay on such ideas, but take those truths away and reduce our understand to materialism and natural selection, and survival... Maybe eating your enemy is the "best" thing you can do.

Please do not lose your religious beliefs. You seem to need them! Do stop projecting this need though if you would. Jesus would approve of that.

I would like to point out that creating an argument from incredulity, is not establishing rational ideas to support your position.

[brunumb]

The problem with this reasoning is that is assumes the crucifixion as described is not in itself enough (as suffering) to wipe out sin -death, BECAUSE "others have suffered worse".

I am not saying that it was not enough to wipe out sin as per Christian belief. I am saying that Christians often elevate the suffering and sacrifice involved to an exaggerated level to make it seem more significant than I believe it warrants.

[brunumb]

I agree with William on this one. Suggesting Jesus sacrifice was shallow or superficial isnt really taking in the gravity of the event, all the while it is acknowledging the resurrection to be true.

How is it acknowledging that the resurrection is true? What Jesus allegedly endured is no more significant than any other crucified person. Just because there is a claim that he bore the sins of humanity changes nothing.

The scripture says Jesus bore our sins, our suffering, our transgressions on the cross. If we are to acknowledge that the resurrection did happen (which nonbelievers are doing in this case), are we not to acknowledge the significance of the sacrifice itself? That Jesus bore the sins of humanity?

What the scripture says is not necessarily true. It is a claim. I do not believe there was a resurrection nor do I believe that Jesus somehow magically bore the sins of humanity. The alleged sacrifice and suffering was not extraordinary.

[brunumb]

[Replying to Shem Yoshi in post #182]

If Jesus bore the sins of humanity, why does his death absolve him of carrying them still? Perhaps, he bears the sins of humanity for always. A perpetual burden.

Jesus should either be dead or suffering in hell if they are the price of sin.

[SacredBishop]

[Replying to Shem Yoshi in post #182]

If Jesus bore the sins of humanity, why does his death absolve him of carrying them still? Perhaps, he bears the sins of humanity for always. A perpetual burden.

Jesus should either be dead or suffering in hell if they are the price of sin.

I agree, maybe he'll give it another go, and straighten this mess out.

[Shem Yoshi]

I agree with William on this one. Suggesting Jesus sacrifice was shallow or superficial isnt really taking in the gravity of the event, all the while it is acknowledging the resurrection to be true.

How is it acknowledging that the resurrection is true? What Jesus allegedly endured is no more significant than any other crucified person. Just because there is a claim that he bore the sins of humanity changes nothing.

The scripture says Jesus bore our sins, our suffering, our transgressions on the cross. If we are to acknowledge that the resurrection did happen (which nonbelievers are doing in this case), are we not to acknowledge the significance of the sacrifice itself? That Jesus bore the sins of humanity?

What the scripture says is not necessarily true. It is a claim. I do not believe there was a resurrection nor do I believe that Jesus somehow magically bore the sins of humanity. The alleged sacrifice and suffering was not extraordinary.

This is what you first said "All just smoke and mirrors. The Christ did nothing in reality, since he did what he did knowing that he would bounce back good as new a few hours later."

[Shem Yoshi]

[Replying to Shem Yoshi in post #182]

If Jesus bore the sins of humanity, why does his death absolve him of carrying them still? Perhaps, he bears the sins of humanity for always. A perpetual burden.

Jesus should either be dead or suffering in hell if they are the price of sin.

The temporal state of Jesus suffering does not elevate the magnitude of it. Also, it might well be that the sins of humanity, and the suffering thereof, have an eternal presence on Jesus.