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?

[brunumb]

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.

Also, it might well be just religious propaganda and nothing of the sort really happened. It's too easy to make up fanciful claims knowing that there is no way to test them for truth.

[Shem Yoshi]

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.

Also, it might well be just religious propaganda and nothing of the sort really happened. It's too easy to make up fanciful claims knowing that there is no way to test them for truth.

You are the one who used Jesus crucifixion and resurrection as evidence that it wasnt that bad.

If you want to debate about whether or not the entire story is true, you ought not use it as evidence for your arguments.

[brunumb]

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.

Also, it might well be just religious propaganda and nothing of the sort really happened. It's too easy to make up fanciful claims knowing that there is no way to test them for truth.

You are the one who used Jesus crucifixion and resurrection as evidence that it wasnt that bad.

If you want to debate about whether or not the entire story is true, you ought not use it as evidence for your arguments.

I used the story of the alleged crucifixion of Jesus and made the point that the so-called suffering and sacrifice was of no greater significance than any similar event involving other human beings. Please read for understanding without imposing your own religious biases to misinterpret what was said.

[Shem Yoshi]

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.

Also, it might well be just religious propaganda and nothing of the sort really happened. It's too easy to make up fanciful claims knowing that there is no way to test them for truth.

You are the one who used Jesus crucifixion and resurrection as evidence that it wasnt that bad.

If you want to debate about whether or not the entire story is true, you ought not use it as evidence for your arguments.

I used the story of the alleged crucifixion of Jesus and made the point that the so-called suffering and sacrifice was of no greater significance than any similar event involving other human beings. Please read for understanding without imposing your own religious biases to misinterpret what was said.

Here is your quote "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."

Did i miss understand it? You are using the Resurrection as evidence the sacrifice is superficial. "Please read for understanding without imposing your own religious biases to misinterpret what was said."

This is all getting off topic anyways...

None the less, if it is actually true that Jesus died a normal death, like thousands of men crucified, then sure there is no reason to believe that death is special in anyway... But if the death was to bare our sins, as the Lamb of God, like the prophets foretold, then the sacrifice is greatly significant.

[JoeyKnothead]

...
But if the death was to bare our sins, as the Lamb of God, like the prophets foretold, then the sacrifice is greatly significant.

Only 'significant' in how an omnipotent god has to put on this great big dog and pony show in order to say, "I forgive you", like he asks us to do when we get in a fuss.

[TRANSPONDER]

[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.

I think you must mean the temporal state does not diminish it. Not that it make it any more reasonable. The temporary state makes it ludicrous that this should be a huge enough sacrifice to eliminate the sins of the world, which of course it doesn't - only for those who belong to the religion.

This is an obvious sales -pitch which we can see Paul inventing in Romans. It's a question of whether people are interested in learning or prefer to go with what the religious propaganda machine keeps telling them.

[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.

I think you must mean the temporal state does not diminish it. Not that it make it any more reasonable. The temporary state makes it ludicrous that this should be a huge enough sacrifice to eliminate the sins of the world, which of course it doesn't - only for those who belong to the religion.

This is an obvious sales -pitch which we can see Paul inventing in Romans. It's a question of whether people are interested in learning or prefer to go with what the religious propaganda machine keeps telling them.

I think it goes back further then Paul. The Passover was in Egypt in the times of Moses. David spoke of it in Psalms, and Isaiah prophesied of it in Isaiah 53. Also other epistles mention it like 1 Peter...

This idea that Paul invented Christianity is a loosing debate. We get no answers from it.

[TRANSPONDER]

[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.

I think you must mean the temporal state does not diminish it. Not that it make it any more reasonable. The temporary state makes it ludicrous that this should be a huge enough sacrifice to eliminate the sins of the world, which of course it doesn't - only for those who belong to the religion.

This is an obvious sales -pitch which we can see Paul inventing in Romans. It's a question of whether people are interested in learning or prefer to go with what the religious propaganda machine keeps telling them.

I think it goes back further then Paul. The Passover was in Egypt in the times of Moses. David spoke of it in Psalms, and Isaiah prophesied of it in Isaiah 53. Also other epistles mention it like 1 Peter...

This idea that Paul invented Christianity is a loosing debate. We get no answers from it.

If you believe it. Given the topic, the atheist doubts much of it. There are not a few believers who do not credit Genesis. They don't and dismiss it as 'symbolic of human condition'/'truer than true' or 'That's myth, but the rest is true'. But the doubter asks whether if we doubt Genesis, can we believe Exodus? Well, I doubt it happened at all and never mind Ron Wyatt and his Moses site. Obviously some is sorta - true, like the Maccabean revolt, the siege of Tyre and the conquest of Babylon, but the polemical and Mythological twist and spin on these is evident for anyone willing to look.

For example, the post Roman turmoil in Britain and the political aspect of forest outlawry in medieval Britain is history and Arthur is even in an old historical account, but we must doubt the tales of Arthur and Robin Hood. So I won't go into yet another exposition of the NT but the nativities at least are as dubious as anything in the Bible, and the history debunks it. The upshot being that quoting it, and indeed NT as evidence of anything is pointless as it is using what is being questioned as support for what is being questioned. The ultimate circular argument.

But I will reiterate that I have evidence, or clues that Paul did indeed invent Christianity. In reading Romans, we can see him doing it (and amending it in later epistles). So no matter what you say you need more than denial and referring to the OT (which is really about Judaism, not Christianity) to make me doubt that Paul pretty much invented Christianity on his own.

[Clownboat]

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).

You seem bewildered that atheists are not eating people, if you think it is because a God wrote on hearts, please show that you speak the truth, otherwise your words will be disregarded for being empty religious claims.

It is evident that God has established values in us, in all people, Jew or Gentile, Greek or Barbarian (Ephesians).

Let's test your claim shall we? Please show the evidence that a god of any sorts established values in all humans. Remember, you said it was evident...

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

No, that would be biology. Biology informs us that humans are members of the great ape sub group. Evolution is the mechanism for how populations change over time.

if this is a strawman about atheists values, id have you establish its fundamental beliefs in order to establish it is a strawman.

There are no values one must have to be an atheist. Atheism is just a position about the gods. You are an atheist yourself I would imagine, at least towards all the available gods, less the one you placed faith in.
Why is your atheism justified in all the other gods?

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

Societies have determined such. Societies have even imposed punishments. It is only via imagination, best I can tell, that humans can pretend a god concept of sorts is what prevents humans from eating one another.

Actually I hope you fully appreciate the value of Jesus sacrifice on the cross. I hope you see value in that.

I see zero value in nailing a Jesus or anyone to a cross. Please justify why you would appreciate such an atrocity as sacrificing a human to a god concept. Do you appreciate how the Aztec's (just to name one) use to sacrifice people to their gods? Please, no stoning, eating or sacrificing of humans to the gods. You could sacrifice 1,000 humans and I just don't see how I would or should see value in such a thing.

What I meant was, dying for your enemy is not a moral value you can assume as rational.

No one here claimed it was. To argue against such a thing would be a strawman.

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.

Sin being nothing more than a religious concept, you are correct, I cannot rationalize people sinning against me. What does that even mean? Make sure you are not too heavenly in your replies as to not be of any eartly good.

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...

What a lazy and weak attempt at a dodge! I understand as to why you would prefer to not acknowledge the fact that I no longer subscribe to a god concept and still don't struggle with wanting to eat or stone people. It is just not something I have ever struggled with and you don't want to deal with this and instead will pretend a god wrote something on my heart.

Additional things that were ignored:

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

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.

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.

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

Strawman. Where has anyone claimed that to create an argument from incredulity would be to establish rational ideas to support a position?

[Clownboat]

You are the one who used Jesus crucifixion and resurrection as evidence that it wasnt that bad.

If you want to debate about whether or not the entire story is true, you ought not use it as evidence for your arguments.

Something tells me that Shem Yoshi would be incapable of discussing Gone With the Wind. Apparently, to discuss a story in their mind is the same as to accept that the story happened as history.

This again is what I mean about being too heavently as to not be of any earthly good. Why can't we discuss a resurrection story or claim without the story or claim having to be true before being willing to discuss it?

Let's take Davey Crockett for example. We could discuss the claim that he shot a bear and mountain lion with one bullet, without having to believe such a thing actually happened. To discuss as to how the physics would not allow such a thing would NOT be the same as arguing that Davey Crockett actually did such a feat.