A Challenge for Believers in God.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by ExistentialNightmare

 

Because your bible can't be verified as truth

I disagree completely. It's not that it cannot be verified, the problem is people all have different degrees to which they have their dial of skepticism turned.

That's why there are believers and those who are not.

A somewhat logical step forward, but still not quite there. The difference between believers and non-belivers is not a question of scepticism, it's a question of the criteria in truth-seeking.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan

Originally posted by ExistentialNightmare
Name a moral act that could be carried out by a believer (person with faith); that could not be carried out by a non-believer (person without faith in god)

Prayer and worship, in Spirit and in Truth.

Prayerful expressions of Gratitude, to God as Supreme Being/Creator.

Love of God as the great giver of all life.

You have to stretch the definition of a 'moral act' to its breaking-point, before your examples could be included. It said 'MORAL act', not just 'act'.

Originally posted by Soldier of God

Originally posted by bogomil

Originally posted by OptimusSubprime
reply to post by ExistentialNightmare

 

Come on, you can do better than this can't you? This isn't a challenge, it is an attempt to lure unsuspecting Christians into your Atheist gauntlet. It is also an attempt to get flags and stars by pandering to the Atheist crowd here on ATS. Again, I think that you will have to do better than this. I don't know anyone that has said that Christians are more kind or more apt to performing acts of kindness or compassion because they believe in God. There are good people and bad people in all groups and in all walks of life.

edit on 6-7-2011 by OptimusSubprime because: (no reason given)

We actually DO have many christian preachers or missionaries on this forum, who in one way or another claim superior qualities for themselves or what they represent.

Then they are not being true Christians.

While YOU are?

But that's not the point. The point is, that as soon as any ideology manifests elitist tendencies, it will ofcourse be met with demands of evidence for this elitism.

And elitism is an intrinsic part of christian (and abrahamic) teachings, so it's unavoidable, that it will be questioned.

Originally posted by kinglizard
What I find weird is the way some think or imagine that Christians live outside of humanity somehow. Christians have all the shortcomings, desires, prejudices, passions...etc as any other human that has ever lived. We are you and you are us, there is no difference.

We have a belief like most humans and try to follow some teachings we find to be true like many other people do but we are still just simple old humans.

edit on 7/6/2011 by kinglizard because: (no reason given)

Except that a functional human being would try to do something about his/her shortcomings or at least acknowledge them for what they are. The missionary mindset (from all ideologies) try to turn their shortcomings into 'truths' they push at people.

Originally posted by LightAssassin
reply to post by ExistentialNightmare

 

There is no such thing as a divinely motivated evil action.

Humans have free will, any choice that is made is made through our own actions.We are responsible, only us.

Nonetheless it IS possible to brainwash people. Free will can be immobilized.

reply to post by bogomil


Agreed, but it is with naivety that people just take what they are told and believe it instantly rather than pondering it and using the gift we have been given to make sense of it.

So, in the end, it is still Humans choice to brainwash other humans.

reply to post by Lionhearte


You wrote:

["I've always heard Atheists use the wars "started" by Christians and all the immoral stuff Christians do as discrediting God"]

Insofar as there are strong elements of violence in christian teachings, it's just calling these parts by their right name: Violence. Insofar the alleged OT 'god' is a violent character, he's correctly described as: Violent. Insofar many of the christianities have manifested violence, they are: Violent.

These christians, these doctrines, this 'god' are violent.

You don't call a spade a spade?

But maybe you are talking about ANOTHER 'god' (alleged or for you probably 'real'), who is not to be blamed for the actions of the violent 'god'.

Quote: ["(why they would want to discredit something they don't even believe exists is beyond me.. "Nah, Unicorns don't exist -....."]

You can still discredit principles associated with imagined concepts. The principles are 'real' enough.

Quote continued: [".....but if they did, here's all the reasons they're evil.."),

You are saying, that disagreeing with you and your ilk about your mythology is 'evil'. This 'evil' must be part of the mythology also then, because in normal life mythology criticism isn't 'evil'.

Quote: ["when it all comes down to Freewill and mankind's sinful nature that carries out it's acts in the name of God, painting the rest of us in a horrid color."]

'Sin' is a faith-based postulate, and when you guys throw the concept at mankind constantly (but unasked for) it's not surprising, that you make yourself impopular.

Quote: [" One does something, and the rest are labelled as lunatics."]

My suggestion is then, that you in the future do your outmost only to present completely sane and rational arguments, you stop the 'persecution' whining and you don't push your mythology on other people. Such would surely help to remove the bad names christians get.

reply to post by Gravity215


You wrote:

["As far as it pertains to Christianity, man has free will, believers and non believers alike."]

Yes, we have free will, on the condition we don't use it except to choose the pre-determined.

Quote: ["You basically get your entire life to come to god and live a moral life,"]

That these are synonumous is a postulate, based on faith.

Quote: ["there are no limitations on behavior."]

Apart from gravity, metabolism and a few other insignificant details.

Quote: ["You can go about quoting the old testament till the sun goes down, but its just showing that you have never read the new testament where Jesus basically demonstrates that the laws of god should be adhered to with common sense and obeyed in the obvious spirit of the law rather than the letter of the law as was done in the old testament."]

Please DO explain then, what the 'spirit of the law' is? Are people to be killed the old way for the old reasons, but with the killers having another kind of mindset while doing the killing?

Quote: [Given the right set of circumstances society can normalize anything, we might be drawn into wars of aggression in order to steal another countries resources, we may celebrate sexual deviancy, we might idolize people for behaving like animals, we might hate our fellow humans and feel that starving the third world and hope to eliminating the middle class is a good thing, or maybe we'd kill 300,000 unborn babies a year. Oh wait.. we already do, thanks secularism."]

Do you always let your imagination and your pre-concieved mythology come before pragmatic observation? Or is it, that you just like black/white scenarios? The egalitarian, liberal AND secular democracies are the most humane and morally functional societies on the planet.

reply to post by TylerDurden2U


You wrote:

["Moral is a word pertaining to or concerning the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong."]

It's perhaps more precise to say, that 'moral' ultimately is how you DEFINE right and wrong.

Quote: ["Before the ten commandments it was not uncommon to lie, cheat, steal, worship ideals or commit adultery."]

Were you there, or do you have some reliable information about this?

Quote: ["worship ideals"]

And that is 'immoral'?


Quote: ["Basically, morals did not exist because there were no set of principles to follow"]

SOME people can function rationally and decently without a slave-master to direct their thoughts and actions. Beside there existed asian (semi)-religions with a high moral system outside of your sphere of mythology already then.

Quote: ["The people who lived there had turned away from God. They didn’t care about doing what was good and right."]

You're preaching now.

Quote: ["The citizens worshipped idols and the men of the city had anal sex with one another."]

If it was consenting adults, I can not see it's anybody's business.

Quite: ["This was common during this era and was part of the norm, because there were no set of principles."]

You mean there was no divinely-sanctioned homophobia.

Quote: ["Only those who had a personal relationship with God understood right from wrong."]

Faith-based postulate.

Quote: ["These principals have been instilled in humanity for so long that their origins are often forgotten. To answer your question, if “a believer” had never provided “nonbelievers” with morality then you would be living in a completely different world."]

That is true. It would have been a much better world without abrahamic interference.

Quote: ["Each set of morals has its place. If you covet your neighbor’s wife, then you will eventually begin to commit adultery, then you will lie about the affair, and if your neighbor finds out that you have had an affair with his wife then he will kill you. Considering that moral behavior is defined by the principles of the ten commandments, you are then an amoral person."]

There's nothing like fabulations, it frees the mind from the droll tyranny of reality.

Quote: [" One thing that Believers can do, that unbelievers can’t or don’t do is keep the Sabbath day holy by attending church."]

That's only a moral act according to your premises. On such premises eating bananas can also be claimed to be moral (or not).

Quote: [" We don’t put any other gods before our god, and we don’t worship any images and idols."]

As above.

Quote: ["If being moral is defined by the set of principals from the ten commandments, then you are not moral if you do not follow these principals."]

Yes. IF.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


You wrote:

["More prejudicial arbitrary conjecture. Read up on Dr. Ivan Panin's work on the heptadic structures of scripture."]

Panin's work is one of those pseudo-rational fakes made to support an unsupportable religion (concerning the 'evidence' department).

reply to post by yahushuasaves


You wrote:

["There is not one person on this planet that has never committed a sin."]

Considering that the concept 'sin' is a postulate from your mythology, it's questionable if ANYONE ever has committed a sin. The validity of 'sin' must be established before you can start further argumentation based on it.

Quote: ["Yahushua (Jesus) was sinless."]

An assumption.

Quote: ["Elijah was a prophet who killed people."]


Quote: ["The Two Witnesses will be able to kill anyone who stands in their way and tries to hurt or kill them and strike the Earth with all plagues as often as they will, cause it not to rain, and that's still not immoral. The world always hates prophets. People hate prophets."]

People hate prophets when they kill people on self-proclaimd divine sanction.

Quote: ["They will get their just due. People would rather hear Antichrist and the False Prophet than a prophet."]

If they are not sanctimonous, self-righteous and hypocratical, I would personally prefer anti-christ and false prophets, than listen to christian repetitive propaganda.

Quote: ["So since they are empowered by Yah, it is not immoral to speak of repentance to a wicked world or nation."]

You got it wrong. It's those empowered by the flying spaghetti monster, who have this right.

Quote: ["They have carte blanche so given by Yahweh, who created the galaxies and universe one can behold, to do such things. Regardless of your confined opinion."]

Sometimes some christians like to pretend, that the good old bloodthirst has gone out of contemporary christians. I've alway suspected, that they were whitewashing christianity.

Quote: ["If you don't believe why do you feel the need to taunt people?"]

Probably for the similar reasons as when some people criticize communism without believing in it.

reply to post by Key-Minder

A moral act that could not be carried out by a nonbeliever but by a Christian believer would be to go up to a person who looks really sad,. . .

How is that a "moral act". To pronounce a law and make demands of someone who probably can not cope with the demands of life he already has? How about listening to him to find out what he was sad about? I have had people evangelize me on the street as if somehow it was obvious to them that I was not "saved". Even as a believer, I don't like that. Can't imagine how a non-believer would take it.
Things can happen, like a guy I was preaching to one night and he was dead from a car accident in about an hour after he left. I told him some things he had not considered and was happy to find out that he could talk to God, even though he had fallen into sin. But he was a backslidden Christian and the subject was not initiated by me.

Originally posted by LightAssassin
reply to post by bogomil

 

Agreed, but it is with naivety that people just take what they are told and believe it instantly rather than pondering it and using the gift we have been given to make sense of it.

So, in the end, it is still Humans choice to brainwash other humans.

Free will would include the possibility to give up free will, if it's to mentally exhausting to use it.

But free will in a theist context is kind of meaningless, as 'god' or 'the gods' haven't left any unambiguous footprints in existence (according to contemporary terms). And it's questionable that 'god' or 'gods' would start with free will, if the policy of non-visibility was broken.

So I tend to agree with you, that the manipulators of free will have to be sought for amongst mankind, at the level of 'reality'. But that's different from when we consider the speculations in the texts of the christian mythology, which is an imaginary world.

You wrote:

["Moral is a word pertaining to or concerning the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong."]

Moral is the distinction between right and wrong. huge difference. Where do you think that distinction came from? You think we appeared out of no-where with the ability to know when something was right or wrong, moral or immoral? In that case if we all come from the same thing, trees should have morals, and rocks. Our morals were given to us by God when he created us.

Quote: ["Before the ten commandments it was not uncommon to lie, cheat, steal, worship ideals or commit adultery."]

Were you there, or do you have some reliable information about this? Actually, after four years of college, I think I can confidently say that ancient writings, and arts have proven that people acted in what we would consider "less humane ways."

Quote: ["worship ideals"]

And that is 'immoral'? I said amoral and that whats I meant. Amoral is to have no morals. look it up.


Quote: ["Basically, morals did not exist because there were no set of principles to follow"]
Who functions rationally and decently without a slave-master to direct their thoughts and actions. There isn't one person in the world who doesn't have a slave master whether it's God, their boss, their parents, or the president we are ALL told what rules to follow. You could not walk down a busy street grab an attractive woman and rape her in the middle of the street. You would be arrested. Yet in the other countries that you mentioned this occurs on a daily basis. They don't have God and are not moral. Even Japanese will bow down to Buddha which is to be immoral.

Quote: ["The people who lived there had turned away from God. They didn’t care about doing what was good and right."]

Let me rephrase that NO-ONE CARED ABOUT RIGHT AND WRONG..... THERE WAS NO SUCH THING. Since its your post why don't you look up the world's history on violence. I did my research.

Quote: ["The citizens worshipped idols and the men of the city had anal sex with one another."]

Now again, if you had done your research, it was not all consenting adults. So let me rephrase it "MEN WERE RAPING OTHER MEN."

Quite: ["This was common during this era and was part of the norm, because there were no set of principles."]

I'm not homophobic. If you walked into Sodom and were surrounded by a large group of men, who robbed you of your possessions, and then began to take turns raping you, would you then say that it wasn't moral? Why, to whose standards is that not moral?

Quote: ["Only those who had a personal relationship with God understood right from wrong."]

Again, tell me where did the knowledge of right and wrong come from. If you are married and you cheat on your wife, is that okay? Your wife would not agree if you say yes. If you say no, why? Before the ten commandments men had many many wives. Look it up before you argues.

Quote: ["These principals have been instilled in humanity for so long that their origins are often forgotten. To answer your question, if “a believer” had never provided “nonbelievers” with morality then you would be living in a completely different world."]

According to you, the world would be better? HOW? You don't back up anything with fact. History has shown that men would have many wives, woman would be enslaved to their husbands, woman would be raped on a daily basis, people would be killed in the streets we walk daily, children would be killed without cause, and everyone would be cheated in life because honesty would not exist. We also would not be "FREE" as we are now.

Quote: ["Each set of morals has its place. If you covet your neighbor’s wife, then you will eventually begin to commit adultery, then you will lie about the affair, and if your neighbor finds out that you have had an affair with his wife then he will kill you. Considering that moral behavior is defined by the principles of the ten commandments, you are then an amoral person."]

Instead of trying to be funny, why don't you say something intelligent like, "Every action has an equal reaction." This is a proven scientific theory. If you do "a" then "b", "c" or "d" will occur and maybe all three.

Quote: [" One thing that Believers can do, that unbelievers can’t or don’t do is keep the Sabbath day holy by attending church."]

Why do you think that eating a banana is moral? A feeling inside of you tells you that it's okay? How do you know that killing your mother is an immoral act? To whose standards is it immoral?

Quote: [" We don’t put any other gods before our god, and we don’t worship any images and idols."]

As above.

Quote: ["If being moral is defined by the set of principals from the ten commandments, then you are not moral if you do not follow these principals."]

FACT: You act as if you created your own set of morals out of nowhere. You may not choose to follow all of the ten commandments, but you must follow most of them. Otherwise, you would be sitting in a jail cell. I'm not being funny, these ten commandments are embedded in the laws. You cannot lie (examples to a police officer or bear false witness), You cannot cheat (some states are not no fault states. Woman loose everything for adultery), Death penalty was created for murderers. I hope you get where I am going. If you are in America then this is the set of principals that you are forced to follow. Look at the pledge: "ONE NATION UNDER GOD." How areb we under God, How does God control you? The people who founded America made sure that you had to live as a christian whether you were one or not. This is fact!!!!

reply to post by TylerDurden2U


It appears that both you and I have an insufficient quoting technique, so we'll have to do as best we can.

I'l just answer along the way, and hope it will be contextually understandable.

Morality is a subjective phenomenon, insofar it's a result of local consensus. No 'god' is necessary for this process, though many religionists ofcourse make such claims.

I can only agree with, that you probably have picked up some knowledge on college concerning early cultures (if that was part of your education), but I needed some more specific information, as the general situation you initially described is very variable from culture to culture (as you supplied information of your educational background, it's only reasonable, that I do so also. I have some years at university studying cultural anthropology and comparative religion one year).

I apologize for reading 'amoral' as 'immoral'.

As to having slave-masters there is a great difference between the balance of freedom and obligations in different systems. An egalitarian, secular, liberal democracy contains a much greater amount of individual freedom than a totalitarian system as e.g. a theocracy.

Quote: [" Let me rephrase that NO-ONE CARED ABOUT RIGHT AND WRONG..... THERE WAS NO SUCH THING. Since its your post why don't you look up the world's history on violence. I did my research."]

Back to square one: Where and how. There are several examples of pre-bible and pre-christian 'moral' systems. If you like or accept the values of such systems is besides the point. You are not the ultimate authority on 'correct' morality.

Quote: ["Now again, if you had done your research, it was not all consenting adults. So let me rephrase it "MEN WERE RAPING OTHER MEN."]

If I need to do premature research with your possible rephrasings in mind, it would take a long time to write anything. I referred to your text, which said:

Quote: ["the men of the city had anal sex with one another."]

which is not automatically the same as rape.

Quote: ["I'm not homophobic."]

Not, not after rephrasing your initial statement. Now you are against rape, which is a completely different matter.

Quote: ["If you walked into Sodom and were surrounded by a large group of men, who robbed you of your possessions, and then began to take turns raping you, would you then say that it wasn't moral?"]

This information taken from the propaganda manifest you rely on as your source?

Quote: [" Again, tell me where did the knowledge of right and wrong come from. If you are married and you cheat on your wife, is that okay? Your wife would not agree if you say yes. If you say no, why? Before the ten commandments men had many many wives. Look it up before you argues."]

You mix a monogamic situation with that of cultures with different customs. Which one are you centering on? Or will you generally take it upon yourself to be moral judge of marital customs different from the one, you approve of. In Tibet e.g. it was customary with polyandry.

Quote: ["According to you, the world would be better? HOW? You don't back up anything with fact."]

For 1.500 years parts of the christianities have had aspirations of monopoly, which has led to a considerable amount of violence, cultural break-down and blocking of a search for real (objective) knowledge. As examples there are the 'inner' crusades, the inquisition, the infiltration of european politics, the destruction of Innuit culture on Greenland, the South-american slave-states run by the church, several smaller indigenous cultures destroyed (e.g. Ester Island and the Pacific Islands); the destruction of the cultural centers in southern France in connection with the 'Cathar' crusades, the later impact on academic life, where the bible was THE authority instead of real knowledge, the destruction of european medicin, and up and until recent the constant efforts of christians to get extra-parliamentary influence in democracies.

Quote: ["History has shown that men would have many wives, woman would be enslaved to their husbands, woman would be raped on a daily basis,"]

Christianity isn't exactly known for its egalitarian principles concerning women. That's something which came with the growing secularization of western society.

Quote: ["people would be killed in the streets we walk daily, children would be killed without cause, and everyone would be cheated in life because honesty would not exist. We also would not be "FREE" as we are now."]

One of the worst periods of lawlessness in european history was when various forms of theocracy ruled.

Quote: [" Instead of trying to be funny, why don't you say something intelligent like, "Every action has an equal reaction." This is a proven scientific theory. If you do "a" then "b", "c" or "d" will occur and maybe all three."]

I'm not aware of trying to be funny, but I can't see the connection between your religious speculations and postulates and scientific use of causality. Considering that you share the habit of many theists of using allegories, which you seem to believe 'prove' something, your sudden interest in deductive logic is misplaced.

Quote: ["Why do you think that eating a banana is moral? A feeling inside of you tells you that it's okay? How do you know that killing your mother is an immoral act? To whose standards is it immoral?"]

It was an example of the subjectivity of moral systems (including your own). In reality there are examples of dietary rules based on religious assumptions.

Quote: [" FACT: You act as if you created your own set of morals out of nowhere. You may not choose to follow all of the ten commandments, but you must follow most of them."]

That's not a fact, except in your topsy-turvy argumentation. I live in a culture where christianity (fortunately) arrived late, and disappeared early. We already had a moral code before the christian invasion, and we still have one now, when christianity has been completely removed from interfering with society. And sure, our few percent christians of your ilk still claim the 'christian cultural inheritance', but nobody take them seriously.

Originally posted by bogomil

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by bogomil

 

I can only repeat my many-times-suggestion..

That's called argumentum ad nauseam.

This poster isn't swayed, sorry.

I'm aware of that, so I suggest that you don't make universal claims on behalf of all mankind in the future. At least not if you don't want to see my answer repeated.

I guess spreading YOUR belief system all over this forum is not a universal claim that your trying to get others to believe in. Or should I say understand?

Originally posted by ExistentialNightmare
Name a moral act that could be carried out by a believer (person with faith); that could not be carried out by a non-believer (person without faith in god)

What about immoral acts? It's not hard to think of examples whereby immoral acts are carried out by someone who thinks they have a "divine" warrant, by someone who thinks they have Holy permission.

edit on 6-7-2011 by ExistentialNightmare because: (no reason given)

This has to be a joke right? If you really think this is evidence to the non-existence then you really are lost. There is not a person on earth who is not capable of performing a moral act. People do good because by nature it is the right thing to do, not because they believe in God. I would agree that you need to come up with a better challenge than this.

Originally posted by RealTruthSeeker

Originally posted by bogomil

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by bogomil

 

I can only repeat my many-times-suggestion..

That's called argumentum ad nauseam.

This poster isn't swayed, sorry.

I'm aware of that, so I suggest that you don't make universal claims on behalf of all mankind in the future. At least not if you don't want to see my answer repeated.

I guess spreading YOUR belief system all over this forum is not a universal claim that your trying to get others to believe in. Or should I say understand?

edit on 7-7-2011 by RealTruthSeeker because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-7-2011 by RealTruthSeeker because: (no reason given)

Which belief system of mine are you referring to? The only thing I'm aware of supporting strongly is egalitarian, secular, liberal democracy, and that's only a for-the-duration answer until we find something better or grow out of the need for it.

reply to post by RealTruthSeeker

This has to be a joke right?

No - If it was a joke, i would have said so in the OP.

If you really think this is evidence to the non-existence then you really are lost.

Can you higlight where i have said this? If i havn't, why did you bother even writing that sentence?

There is not a person on earth who is not capable of performing a moral act. People do good because by nature it is the right thing to do, not because they believe in God. I would agree that you need to come up with a better challenge than this.

It's great that you've worked out the semantics behind the challenge; give other people a chance, though. Many believers still actually think ALL atheists are sinful or immoral because of a lack of faith, or because of their heathen tendancies.

reply to post by kinglizard


Without religion evil people will do evil things and good people will do good things, but for good people to do evil things that takes religion.