Moral Superiority of Atheism

[Othelos]

Well let us all examine what Hitler who was an Atheist did. Was that morally superior? I think not people.

One person doesn't represent a group. Kind of like how Stalin doesn't represent all Russians.

[Valyrian Freeholds]

Well let us all examine what Hitler who was an Atheist did. Was that morally superior? I think not people.

One person doesn't represent a group. Kind of like how Stalin doesn't represent all Russians.

Well I hate to be a correcting Colin there but Stalin was actually Georgian. Hi diddly ho!

[Othelos]

One person doesn't represent a group. Kind of like how Stalin doesn't represent all Russians.

Well I hate to be a correcting Colin there but Stalin was actually Georgian. Hi diddly ho!

...exactly. Hitler wasn't an atheist, Stalin wasn't a russian.

[The Third Nova Terra of Scrin]

What do you mean by "dark powers"? Also, Hilter still believed in a God, therefore not making him an atheist.

Yeah that's what I'm talking about. He ultimately believed in a god which was Science. He had also claimed that Nazism was an Atheist ideology and could not co-exist with Christianity in the long run. Truely that was the case of a balanced and devout individual who fell prey to evil.

Hitler's religious views are really confusing and historians and scholars could not reach at all a sane consensus on the matter. Hitler did not claimed at all that Nazism was an atheist ideology, nor did he established state atheism. At large, he was very vocal in opposition to atheism at public events as some of the users here had pointed though he was at large also skeptical of religious belief and disdainful of Christianity.

Makes sense, as we really do not expect an insane and mentally ill individual to have consistent and established religious beliefs.

Indeed... if it were a perfect text, it would defy issues with translation and maintain its original message no matter what is done to it...

Nobody has to believe in that as the Christian doctrine of Biblical inerrancy applies only to the original manuscripts. Besides, if you look at it, the modern versions of the Holy Bible had done at least a good job in fixing the issues with the original translation and maintaining the manuscripts' original message.

[Twilight Imperium]

Nobody has to believe in that as the Christian doctrine of Biblical inerrancy applies only to the original manuscripts. Besides, if you look at it, the modern versions of the Holy Bible had done at least a good job in fixing the issues with the original translation and maintaining the manuscripts' original message.

We assume

What if one of those monks in the middle ages thought it would be funny to change a perfectly sensible parable about the value of nurturing faith into some kind of weird rambling story about mustard seeds? How would you even know?

[Jute]

And God's saying, "Jesus, you people! Do I have to do everything for you?"

"Yesh Mashter. You musht".

Whatever did you get free will for? Just so you can ask for everything happen the way it does, or so you can actually do things on your own and become an independent person?

[Jute]

Nobody has to believe in that as the Christian doctrine of Biblical inerrancy applies only to the original manuscripts. Besides, if you look at it, the modern versions of the Holy Bible had done at least a good job in fixing the issues with the original translation and maintaining the manuscripts' original message.

We assume

What if one of those monks in the middle ages thought it would be funny to change a perfectly sensible parable about the value of nurturing faith into some kind of weird rambling story about mustard seeds? How would you even know?

We can read the original in Aramaic and Ancient Greek (provided you speak these languages) so that would become obvious rather quickly, wouldn't it?

[The Alma Mater]

"Yesh Mashter. You musht".

Whatever did you get free will for? Just so you can ask for everything happen the way it does, or so you can actually do things on your own and become an independent person?

"But mashter, you give us orders - and if we do nots obeyyss, we gets thrown into the fiery pits of mount doomsie ! Free will is meaningless !"

[The Third Nova Terra of Scrin]

Nobody has to believe in that as the Christian doctrine of Biblical inerrancy applies only to the original manuscripts. Besides, if you look at it, the modern versions of the Holy Bible had done at least a good job in fixing the issues with the original translation and maintaining the manuscripts' original message.

We assume

What if one of those monks in the middle ages thought it would be funny to change a perfectly sensible parable about the value of nurturing faith into some kind of weird rambling story about mustard seeds? How would you even know?

This assumes that the translation of the original manuscripts to other languages such as Latin throughout the centuries was always under the duty of an eternal single group of monks.

[Jute]

Whatever did you get free will for? Just so you can ask for everything happen the way it does, or so you can actually do things on your own and become an independent person?

"But mashter, you give us orders - and if we do nots obeyyss, we gets thrown into the fiery pits of mount doomsie ! Free will is meaningless !"

That is not true, most Catholics for example hold no such view of hell
It's often defined as a state of being, absent from God, than Dante's famous interpretation.

[Elepis]

atheists are stupid jews fuck them

you do just realize you called people who dispute religion (atheists-and undecided) members of a religion?
that is probably the greatest oxymoron I have ever read

[The Third Nova Terra of Scrin]

"But mashter, you give us orders - and if we do nots obeyyss, we gets thrown into the fiery pits of mount doomsie ! Free will is meaningless !"

That is not true, most Catholics for example hold no such view of hell
It's often defined as a state of being, absent from God, than Dante's famous interpretation.

Not at all, the idea of a physical, eternal Hell is still well-established in Catholicism and certainly not rejected by most Catholics.

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-hell-there-is

[Jute]

atheists are stupid jews fuck them

you do just realize you called people who dispute religion (atheists-and undecided) members of a religion?
that is probably the greatest oxymoron I have ever read

Actually, there are religions that are commonly seen as "atheist".

[Jute]

That is not true, most Catholics for example hold no such view of hell
It's often defined as a state of being, absent from God, than Dante's famous interpretation.

Not at all, the idea of a physical, eternal Hell is still well-established in Catholicism and certainly not rejected by most Catholics.

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-hell-there-is

Regardless, it's obviously a position that exists as well. In other words, the exact nature of hell is disputed, in Catholicism as well as in some other denominations.

[The Third Nova Terra of Scrin]

Not at all, the idea of a physical, eternal Hell is still well-established in Catholicism and certainly not rejected by most Catholics.

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-hell-there-is

Regardless, it's obviously a position that exists as well. In other words, the exact nature of hell is disputed, in Catholicism as well as in some other denominations.

Though you said that most Catholics hold no such view of Hell.

[Jute]

Regardless, it's obviously a position that exists as well. In other words, the exact nature of hell is disputed, in Catholicism as well as in some other denominations.

Though you said that most Catholics hold no such view of Hell.

Well, that seems debatable. I haven't found a survey about that, though the article I read together with the dictionary did seem to imply that. Do you have any more exact numbers?

[The Third Nova Terra of Scrin]

Though you said that most Catholics hold no such view of Hell.

Well, that seems debatable. I haven't found a survey about that, though the article I read together with the dictionary did seem to imply that. Do you have any more exact numbers?

Not at all. It seems that views of doctrine and theology within religious denominations are not really often surveyed or polled.

[The Alma Mater]

Though you said that most Catholics hold no such view of Hell.

Well, that seems debatable. I haven't found a survey about that, though the article I read together with the dictionary did seem to imply that. Do you have any more exact numbers?

Tip: maybe the debate should first center on the question if it matters. If people disagree with the notion that God "giving people free will" is rather meaningless if they get killed, turned into salt pillars or thrown into eternal torment whenever they will something God dislikes the exact distribution of the belief in Hell becomes somewhat moot

[The Alma Mater]

You forgot the broader angle - deaths due to being a good believer. Not accepting bloodtransfusions for yourself or your children is a small scale example. Not believing evolution exists and therefor not bothering to use antbiotics correctly on your lifestock is already leading to serious problems - and will probably lead to millions of dead people in the not so distant future. Believing that God will rescue us all if things get too bad and therefor not taking steps to prevent things from getting bad... well, that's also a biggy.

The religious way of thinking of Bob, Mary and Sally itself is, sadly, a danger to the continued existence of humanity. Despite them being decent hardworking people who would even hesitate to kill a fly.

Most religious people don't fit these insulting country bumpkin caricature descriptions.

True, they do not. But ironically the people they choose to lead them, e.g. as a presidential candidate or senator, or who are placed in charge of the curriculum in schools, tend to be exactly like this.

[Jute]

Well, that seems debatable. I haven't found a survey about that, though the article I read together with the dictionary did seem to imply that. Do you have any more exact numbers?

Tip: maybe the debate should first center on the question if it matters. If people disagree with the notion that God "giving people free will" is rather meaningless if they get killed, turned into salt pillars or thrown into eternal torment whenever they will something God dislikes the exact distribution of the belief in Hell becomes somewhat moot

To be honest, I already did answer that above:

"But mashter, you give us orders - and if we do nots obeyyss, we gets thrown into the fiery pits of mount doomsie ! Free will is meaningless !"

That is not true, most Catholics for example hold no such view of hell
It's often defined as a state of being, absent from God, than Dante's famous interpretation.

Also, you forget that God has changed since the end of the Old Testament.

[Jute]

Most religious people don't fit these insulting country bumpkin caricature descriptions.

True, they do not. But ironically the people they choose to lead them, e.g. as a presidential candidate or senator, or who are placed in charge of the curriculum in schools, tend to be exactly like this.

My religious education was called "evangelic", yet we had the most secular themes imaginable, "what is religion?", Islam, Freud, historical-critical method of bible study etc.

[Zottistan]

"Yesh Mashter. You musht".

Whatever did you get free will for? Just so you can ask for everything happen the way it does, or so you can actually do things on your own and become an independent person?

A good father won't do everything for his offspring so that they will learn independence.

He also won't make his children die slow, horrible cancer related deaths for no discernible reason, or cause strife between them by intentionally making his will ambiguous, knowing the consequences.

There's a difference between reasonable tough love and actual malice.

[The Third Nova Terra of Scrin]

A good father won't do everything for his offspring so that they will learn independence.

He also won't make his children die slow, horrible cancer related deaths for no discernible reason.

There's a difference between reasonable tough love and actual malice.

A good father is also not the cause of his children's slow horrible-cancer related deaths.

[Jute]

Whatever did you get free will for? Just so you can ask for everything happen the way it does, or so you can actually do things on your own and become an independent person?

A good father won't do everything for his offspring so that they will learn independence.

He also won't make his children die slow, horrible cancer related deaths for no discernible reason, or cause strife between them by intentionally making his will ambiguous, knowing the consequences.

There's a difference between reasonable tough love and actual malice.

Um, why would you blame cancer on God, if it's a natural byproduct of evolution, as far as I know?

[Zottistan]

A good father won't do everything for his offspring so that they will learn independence.

He also won't make his children die slow, horrible cancer related deaths for no discernible reason, or cause strife between them by intentionally making his will ambiguous, knowing the consequences.

There's a difference between reasonable tough love and actual malice.

Um, why would you blame cancer on God, if it's a natural byproduct of evolution, as far as I know?

Are the mechanisms of evolution not designed by God? And even if they weren't, wouldn't he be able to edit them, in his infinite wisdom?