Atheism.
"so what if in the end science finds out that Christ was not the son of God, my question is, did Christ taught anything wrong? Did he harm people and nations? All he did was to teach people to live in peace with one another and to cherish the loved ones we have around us. Is it wrong to teach these things that atheists must destroy these teachings and the faith that is built around this? If this is the case, then I'm sorry I believe that atheism is the true evil in this world.
The evil that will destroy worlds."
i) Did christ teach anything wrong?
Arguable, did any other religions teach anything wrong with the exception of cults? The mere fact that you must accept what other people say without testing is wrong. Blind acceptance is not the way to go.
ii) Did he harm people and nations?
An intellectual person would have strived to bring about his point in an effective manner without alienating other religions and races. A 'son of god' should have the foresight to see the problems he will cause in time to come and work for the most optimum manner.
iii) Is it wrong to teach these things that atheists must destroy these teachings and the faith that is built around this?
What I personally strive to eliminate is ignorance. I derived my principles of morality without the benefit of the christian religion. I based my personal principles on ideals of;
- The Common Good
- Do not do to others what you do not wish others to do unto you
- Honour (Which is definitely NOT from the bible/religion as Honour is based heavily on traditions and practices rather than religious teachings)
If the teachings of christianity is essentially similar to buddhism there is no quarrel. However, the teachings of christianity is simple. You choose between believing in god and accepting christ as your saviour OR YOU GO TO HELL. That is not free will. That is simply me putting a gun to your head and saying "You can choose to renounce god now or I will shoot you". Fundamentally flawed.
Free will is when you are allowed to choose between different options without unjustified repercussions. For example, you can choose between walking home or jogging home. It'll either take more time or take less time but consume more energy. At the end of the day, there isn't anything that is very detrimental to your well being (such as languishing in hell for all of eternity). Other things would be, you can choose to finish your work now, or finish it an hour later. So long as you hand it up on time, its up to you.
However capital crimes such as murder, voluntarily causing grievous hurt etc. deserves death because it is against the Law and people are harmed. Arguably it can be said by choosing not to believe in god, you have broken god's law and covenant and therefore you deserve to go to hell.
BUT. I ask this. Who is harmed when a person chooses not to believe in god?
Does the non-believer harm anyone at all as compared to someone who commits capital crime?
In spite of the teachings of religion, I will emphasize the quote I placed in my previous post.
"With or without religion, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things."
If you ask about how can morality be defined without religion? I answer you. If god and religion is false, we have effectively drawn out morals and codes of conduct in spite of religion being false.
iv) I believe that atheism is the true evil in this world. The evil that will destroy worlds.
I dare say I have stood by my word on many if not, all occasions and that I have not trespass against any man undeserving of it. I have not brought unfair judgement upon any who did not deserve it and I have helped many even if they didn't deserve it.
I have stood by my principles when COUNTLESS christians have not stood by the simple principles of their religion.
The differences lies in the strength of character when ONE knows that he MUST rely on himself to right wrongs and set records straight rather than relying on some divine being to set records straight for them and lamenting in churches rather than spilling impure blood.
If every man was educated that he must RELY on himself and not some divine being's intervention and some grand divine plan, the world would have been a different place.
Soldiers may pray and hope they don't get shot or to survive devastating wounds, but I assure you that nothing short of absolute divine intervention can alter the laws of physics and biology. The same goes for casualties in accidents.
No one talks about the 95% who prayed and died anyway... but about the 5% who prayed and survived, which arguably if they didn't pray, would have survived anyway.
I am an atheist and destroying the teachings and the faith of christianity could be one of my goals.
I am the evil of the world, don't you think?
"so what if in the end science finds out that Christ was not the son of God, my question is, did Christ taught anything wrong? Did he harm people and nations? All he did was to teach people to live in peace with one another and to cherish the loved ones we have around us. Is it wrong to teach these things that atheists must destroy these teachings and the faith that is built around this? If this is the case, then I'm sorry I believe that atheism is the true evil in this world.
The evil that will destroy worlds."
i) Did christ teach anything wrong?
Arguable, did any other religions teach anything wrong with the exception of cults? The mere fact that you must accept what other people say without testing is wrong. Blind acceptance is not the way to go.
ii) Did he harm people and nations?
An intellectual person would have strived to bring about his point in an effective manner without alienating other religions and races. A 'son of god' should have the foresight to see the problems he will cause in time to come and work for the most optimum manner.
iii) Is it wrong to teach these things that atheists must destroy these teachings and the faith that is built around this?
What I personally strive to eliminate is ignorance. I derived my principles of morality without the benefit of the christian religion. I based my personal principles on ideals of;
- The Common Good
- Do not do to others what you do not wish others to do unto you
- Honour (Which is definitely NOT from the bible/religion as Honour is based heavily on traditions and practices rather than religious teachings)
If the teachings of christianity is essentially similar to buddhism there is no quarrel. However, the teachings of christianity is simple. You choose between believing in god and accepting christ as your saviour OR YOU GO TO HELL. That is not free will. That is simply me putting a gun to your head and saying "You can choose to renounce god now or I will shoot you". Fundamentally flawed.
Free will is when you are allowed to choose between different options without unjustified repercussions. For example, you can choose between walking home or jogging home. It'll either take more time or take less time but consume more energy. At the end of the day, there isn't anything that is very detrimental to your well being (such as languishing in hell for all of eternity). Other things would be, you can choose to finish your work now, or finish it an hour later. So long as you hand it up on time, its up to you.
However capital crimes such as murder, voluntarily causing grievous hurt etc. deserves death because it is against the Law and people are harmed. Arguably it can be said by choosing not to believe in god, you have broken god's law and covenant and therefore you deserve to go to hell.
BUT. I ask this. Who is harmed when a person chooses not to believe in god?
Does the non-believer harm anyone at all as compared to someone who commits capital crime?
In spite of the teachings of religion, I will emphasize the quote I placed in my previous post.
"With or without religion, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things."
If you ask about how can morality be defined without religion? I answer you. If god and religion is false, we have effectively drawn out morals and codes of conduct in spite of religion being false.
iv) I believe that atheism is the true evil in this world. The evil that will destroy worlds.
I dare say I have stood by my word on many if not, all occasions and that I have not trespass against any man undeserving of it. I have not brought unfair judgement upon any who did not deserve it and I have helped many even if they didn't deserve it.
I have stood by my principles when COUNTLESS christians have not stood by the simple principles of their religion.
The differences lies in the strength of character when ONE knows that he MUST rely on himself to right wrongs and set records straight rather than relying on some divine being to set records straight for them and lamenting in churches rather than spilling impure blood.
If every man was educated that he must RELY on himself and not some divine being's intervention and some grand divine plan, the world would have been a different place.
Soldiers may pray and hope they don't get shot or to survive devastating wounds, but I assure you that nothing short of absolute divine intervention can alter the laws of physics and biology. The same goes for casualties in accidents.
No one talks about the 95% who prayed and died anyway... but about the 5% who prayed and survived, which arguably if they didn't pray, would have survived anyway.
I am an atheist and destroying the teachings and the faith of christianity could be one of my goals.
I am the evil of the world, don't you think?
3 Comments:
In the entirety of the quoted texts, you only choose to target the final paragraph. You do know that showing the statement without due regard to the rest of the statement would make a very big difference in the manner it is interpreted, thus making it very easy to rebuff it through the use of select phrases and sentences.
"I have stood by my principles when COUNTLESS Christians have not stood by the simple principles of their religion." - For the very same respect, so does countless atheist. You being an exception does not matter if you want to bring generalization into context.
How convenient yea =)I would really appreciate if you would really respect religion for what it is, and if a statement needed to be put forth, speak from your own stand, and not generalize the Christians.
And I would usually not remark on your texts, except you had quoted from me.
And it would be nice to if you do not generalise all atheists either.
Btw, I am not YH.. just a random reader :)
The burden of proof lies on the christians to prove somehow that god exists, and not on the atheists to prove that god doesn't exist.
I do not speak from "an atheist stand" because I do not view atheism as a religion or belief but rather as common sense.
When I comment on christian principles, I'll refer to a simple one. "Love thy neighbour". I have performed social experiments in my time in NS and I've written its results on this blog.
Post a Comment
<< Home