A challenge to theists

[Infidel]

Name a moral or ethical statement or action that a believer could say/perform that a non-believer could not. If you can't meet this challenge, then why be religious? There is something enlightening about the corollary to this challenge. If I asked you to name a wicked statement or action that could only be taken by a believer, you need not hesitate for 3 seconds to think of one.

[sarabellum]

To me prayer seems like it comes close to fulfilling your criteria....

I would also assume that a non-theist could not be a pastor of a church.....
So any moral action that comes about by his teaching or indirectly by his flock would not be possible for a non-theist...
(that one feels a little weak to me but....)

Mostly, I do not see a clear relationship between your challenge and why that would mean someone should not consider religion or be religious...

If some one comes up with an answer will you convert to theism?

[Infidel]

These are fatuous comparisons cnorman18. There is no insinuation on the part of the musician that they are more deserving of an eternal reward than the non-musician. There is no suggestion that the non-potato eater is deserving of eternal punishment for not eating fries. Obviously just personal preference. Really silly comparison. The religious person is literally saying that being religious is morally superior to non-religion. If you say that you don't personally believe this, then I don't know in what sense you are religious. One need only to take passages from the bible to clearly see this. Mark 16:16 is just one example. "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." It clearly says that not believing will damn you to hell for all eternity. Are you saying you disagree with the word of god? I do happen to know that I am morally superior than the god of the bible, and take pride in that. So I would like to hear from a believer. What is morally superior to religion than non-religion. Why is belief moral, and non-belief immoral?

[Filthy Tugboat]

These are fatuous comparisons cnorman18. There is no insinuation on the part of the musician that they are more deserving of an eternal reward than the non-musician. There is no suggestion that the non-potato eater is deserving of eternal punishment for not eating fries. Obviously just personal preference. Really silly comparison. The religious person is literally saying that being religious is morally superior to non-religion. If you say that you don't personally believe this, then I don't know in what sense you are religious. One need only to take passages from the bible to clearly see this. Mark 16:16 is just one example. "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." It clearly says that not believing will damn you to hell for all eternity. Are you saying you disagree with the word of god? I do happen to know that I am morally superior than the god of the bible, and take pride in that. So I would like to hear from a believer. What is morally superior to religion than non-religion. Why is belief moral, and non-belief immoral?

If you didn't already know, Cnorman18 is Jewish, your reference to Mark 16 would not affect his judgement anymore than referencing the Qur'an or the Vedas.

As far as I'm aware there is also no insinuation by the atheist that they deserve or don't deserve eternal punishment. Opinions of Heaven and Hell are neither here nor there for me at least.

Are you actually calling the Bible the 'Word of God?'

How do you define 'morally superior'? What grounds do you have for suggesting what is and is not moral?

[Question Everything]

If some one comes up with an answer will you convert to theism?

In my case, no, but at least I would admit that theism encourages moral behavior, at least some of the time. Right now, I don't think it does so at all. I think that cnorman18 is correct in saying that theism is used to justify whatever it is that people want to do. (Or words to that effect - I can't remember exactly how he put it.)

[Baz]

These are fatuous comparisons cnorman18. There is no insinuation on the part of the musician that they are more deserving of an eternal reward than the non-musician. There is no suggestion that the non-potato eater is deserving of eternal punishment for not eating fries. Obviously just personal preference. Really silly comparison. The religious person is literally saying that being religious is morally superior to non-religion. If you say that you don't personally believe this, then I don't know in what sense you are religious. One need only to take passages from the bible to clearly see this. Mark 16:16 is just one example. "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." It clearly says that not believing will damn you to hell for all eternity. Are you saying you disagree with the word of god? I do happen to know that I am morally superior than the god of the bible, and take pride in that. So I would like to hear from a believer. What is morally superior to religion than non-religion. Why is belief moral, and non-belief immoral?

Hi.

I find the OP a bit none descript so far as actually asking a question goes; Believers/none Believers, in what? The actual question appears to be “why be religious?� with a moral and ethical focus.
It did however spark of what I found to be some interesting posts.
I am not wishing to partake in the present debate as such but would just like to ask; seeing the way you have used a quote from the Christian bible, do you mean in your OP why be a fundamentalist Christian ?

[Truthbychoice]

Name a moral or ethical statement or action that a believer could say/perform that a non-believer could not. If you can't meet this challenge, then why be religious? There is something enlightening about the corollary to this challenge. If I asked you to name a wicked statement or action that could only be taken by a believer, you need not hesitate for 3 seconds to think of one.

A believer, (or most of them), will show a certain respect for another person's faith, even if views conflict.

[Overcomer]

Atheists miss the point when they start to talk about how they are just as capable of doing good deeds as religious people. There's a tremendous difference between doing good things and being good in essence. That difference is at the root of Christianity. Christians recognize the fact that all human beings are born with a sin nature, that is, we are in essence, sinners. It is who we are. We can attempt to make ourselves better, kinder, more compassionate human beings by following rules, but we can't make ourselves sin-free.

That's why Jesus came to earth. God can't have sin in his presence. We can't make ourselves sin-free. Jesus, being God Incarnate, was sin-free. When he died on the cross, he took our sins upon him and he gives us the gift of his righteousness in exchange for our sins.

Now here's the exciting part: When a man accepts Christ in faith, he is filled with the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit not only points out what sin is, the Holy Spirit empowers that man to resist temptation and overcome sin. If you look at religions like Islam, they have a lot of rules to follow, but they have no power from God to enable them to obey those rules. In fact, only Christianity offers the very power of God inside the believer to fight sin.

Look at our legal systems. We have lots of laws which tell us what is right and what is wrong, but obviously there are a lot of people incapable of doing what is right. Our prisons attest to that fact. Laws can point out what's wrong, but they can't help us keep from doing what's wrong. That's why we need the power of the Holy Spirit.

Obviously, there are no perfect Christians and, yes, they can make mistakes and do the wrong things, too. At conversion, we Christians embark on the process of sanctification under the guidance and in the power of the Holy Spirit, but it takes a lifetime to reach full maturity in Christ.

So the issue isn't whether there is a moral statement or action that any given Christian could make that any given atheist can't make, too. The issue is that of the sin nature. The atheist can do nothing to rid himself of it. The Christian can and does overcome it through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, as he is reborn, that is, brought spiritually alive by God, while the atheist remains dead in his sin, enslaved by his sin nature, unable to do anything about it in his own power.

I like the way Christian apologist Ravi Zacharias puts it. Jesus didn't come to make bad people good. He came to make dead people alive.

[Ernestalice]

Name a moral or ethical statement or action that a believer could say/perform that a non-believer could not. If you can't meet this challenge, then why be religious? There is something enlightening about the corollary to this challenge. If I asked you to name a wicked statement or action that could only be taken by a believer, you need not hesitate for 3 seconds to think of one.

Hmm... let me ask you the same thing. Name a moral or ethical statement or action that a non believer could say/perform that a believer could not. If you can't, why be non-religious?

[LiamOS]

Hmm... let me ask you the same thing. Name a moral or ethical statement or action that a non believer could say/perform that a believer could not. If you can't, why be non-religious?

I contend that aborting a foetus under appropriate circumstances is a morally correct decision. As such, the gross majority of Theists opposing such an action is arguably support for my point under the circumstance that abortion is capable of being morally correct.

So, how does one determine what is morally correct?

[Filthy Tugboat]

Atheists miss the point when they start to talk about how they are just as capable of doing good deeds as religious people.

The point of what? The comment is usually made in response to theists who claim to be morally superior because they are religious.

There's a tremendous difference between doing good things and being good in essence.

You might have to explain them both and then show some objective nature to them rather than your own subjective opinion.

That difference is at the root of Christianity.

Doubtful.

Christians recognize the fact that all human beings are born with a sin nature, that is, we are in essence, sinners. It is who we are. We can attempt to make ourselves better, kinder, more compassionate human beings by following rules, but we can't make ourselves sin-free.

This is religious dogma presented as fact, support the claim that recognizing yourself as a sinner allows for you to be 'good in essence'.

That's why Jesus came to earth.

Support this claim or retract it.

God can't have sin in his presence.

Support this claim or retract it.

We can't make ourselves sin-free.

Support this claim or retract it.

Jesus, being God Incarnate, was sin-free.

Support this claim or retract it.

When he died on the cross, he took our sins upon him and he gives us the gift of his righteousness in exchange for our sins.

Support this claim or retract it.

Now here's the exciting part: When a man accepts Christ in faith, he is filled with the Holy Spirit.

Support this claim or retract it(that goes for it being exciting too).

The Holy Spirit not only points out what sin is, the Holy Spirit empowers that man to resist temptation and overcome sin.

Support this claim or retract it.

If you look at religions like Islam, they have a lot of rules to follow, but they have no power from God to enable them to obey those rules.

Support this claim or retract it.

In fact, only Christianity offers the very power of God inside the believer to fight sin.

Support this claim or retract it.

Look at our legal systems. We have lots of laws which tell us what is right and what is wrong, but obviously there are a lot of people incapable of doing what is right. Our prisons attest to that fact. Laws can point out what's wrong, but they can't help us keep from doing what's wrong. That's why we need the power of the Holy Spirit.

Obviously, there are no perfect Christians and, yes, they can make mistakes and do the wrong things, too.

I often find that Christians are no different from anybody else and claims that they get magical support that makes them better go unanswered and are likely to be untrue.

At conversion, we Christians embark on the process of sanctification under the guidance and in the power of the Holy Spirit, but it takes a lifetime to reach full maturity in Christ.

Support these claims or retract them.

So the issue isn't whether there is a moral statement or action that any given Christian could make that any given atheist can't make, too. The issue is that of the sin nature. The atheist can do nothing to rid himself of it. The Christian can and does overcome it through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, as he is reborn, that is, brought spiritually alive by God, while the atheist remains dead in his sin, enslaved by his sin nature, unable to do anything about it in his own power.

You haven't even shown the idea of a sin-nature is credible let alone that Christians are capable of ridding themselves of it and everybody else is stuck with it. This entire post has been you presenting your own religious dogma as if it were true, we get it, you bought into the idea of magic and the concept that you and those that believe like you are better than everyone else, but I personally and many people I know consider it to be total bs. This forum isn't here for preaching, it's here for debate.

I like the way Christian apologist Ravi Zacharias puts it. Jesus didn't come to make bad people good. He came to make dead people alive.

He probably didn't come at all, at least not the way many people believe.