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]

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.

[brunumb]

Or the suggestion that killing witches is wrong, that is affirming Jesus Christ in John 8 and the teachings of the New Testament. It is assuming a moral absolute as well, which isnt defined in secularism.

Killing is wrong. The witch part is irrelevant. Some cultures used the label as an excuse to justify their killing. Nevertheless, there are no moral absolutes. Morals have changed and evolved over time. People will be raised and taught the morals that pertain to their time. If you were born centuries ago as an Aztec you would most likely see nothing immoral about killing people by ripping out their hearts to appease the god you worshiped.

[brunumb]

By amusing [sic] the moral understanding that killing is wrong, you are affirming one of the 10 Commandments, "thou shalt not kill" (Exodus 20)

The other way around. That commandment was simply co-opted from morality that had evolved in human societies long before the OT was compiled. You surely don't believe that people didn't think it was wrong to murder others until they were told otherwise by Moses.

[William]

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.

[brunumb]

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.

Well, I'm bouncing off "Not only did Christ give his life for other, he gave his life for people who were actively sinning against him". Christians flip and flop over this depending on what point they want to make at any given time. In this case the issue was the death sacrifice. I'm not denying any central belief either. I know what they claim to believe. For me it is just a meaningless gesture.

[TRANSPONDER]

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.

[William]

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?

[Clownboat]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[TRANSPONDER]

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?

You are still missing the point - and adding an additional fallacy. 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. It has to be symbolic or magical. and that's the additional fallacy: if Jesus was not as other men, it was even less of a suffering for him....Are you doing a Velma, here? (1). Assuming that Jesus was not made less of a man and with heightened feelings of pain to make it count, even though it was over in less than a day.

(1) A 'Velma' (TM (2) an argument so terribly bad that one cannot tell whether the person making it means it, or it is actually done by a Mole seeking to discredit such arguments. (related to the POE).

(2) I think you may have seen it here, first.

[William]

[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."