I was under the impression that Galileo almost died for even attempting to say that the earth was the one revolving around the sun, back in the 15th century...modern?
Exactly. But Galileo was a Catholic. The church saw
this discovery as blasphemous, not because he was an atheist.
Well I find it extraordinary for various reasons, it's a strange religion that emphasized "good" well enough for the atheists ten commandments to be so similar to the originals. Golden rule and all that jazz. But I understand...that's just my opinion. I confess I have a thing for that which mesmerizes people (things like music, religion, literature, etc).
Okay well, the golden rule isn't unique to Christianity, or created by Christ. People followed similar laws long before Jesus was even supposedly born. Also, I suspect the atheists who made these commandments were doing so not because of the goodness of the Bible's version, but because Judeo-Christian beliefs dominate the western culture. Had Scientology been the prevalent religion in the region, I bet we'd see people creating their own improved version of that dogma.
As for the underlined: excuse me, but that wasn't my opinion. In fact, I'd really rather you completely take it out of your mind that this is a conversation about what's valuable or what's not valuable. So this:
Is a really silly question because you and I are also NOT arguing about what's true and what's not, instead we're trying to see what are the moral shaping of atheism. Or at least I was under the impression that that's what my curiosity was conveying: a desire to see how atheists belief relate to the individual contrasted with how christian beliefs relate to the individual. I am familiar with one (the latter), but not the other (the former). So I sought out for a discussion with a person who appears to be one (you). But alas, I can see how my praising christianity may have prompted you to show me there's nothing worthy of praise, except I was actually praising the creators for well...creating something (albeit with the aid of other previous religious beliefs) that would stick so well for a couple of thousand years.
Well it was you assigning value to one phenomena over another. My question back was me being a bit facetious ... I was trying to demonstrate the absurdity of thinking there's something particularly special about the prevalence of these beliefs. I may have leaped to the conclusion that you were saying that since they have withstood the test of time, therefore they're true. I apologize.
I really do, but there's a lot to read and my time is short. Unless you can narrow down what it is I need to read and how it contributes to our discussion. It'd be much appreciated.
Um... well nothing short. But just, in your free time, look up Constantine and the spread of Christianity. As long as you're open to the idea that maybe this religion spreading wasn't necessarily because of God, then I'm happy ... we at least have some common ground.
The universe is chaotic so heaven and hell are a good way to
motivate people. Since – as you've pretty much noticed by now I'm sure – fear of the unknown is a very strong motivator for humans at least where
maintaining order is concerned.
For better or worse the atheist perspective (as I understand it) rejects the above notion, and I'd like to know how that measures up. Can humans be motivated to do good if they've got nothing to fear except for a probability of facing the consequences for their actions? I wonder.
You seem to have a pretty good answer to that:
Easy. Because good actions generally do breed positive benefit... even if that benefit is simply feeling good about doing good. Sure, people don't always suffer direct negative consequences for bad acts, but it's more likely that they would. But if I do something good for you, it's more likely that you will reciprocate ... it's the same if I harmed you.
Maybe you're right, analyzing reality as a probability game seems to be sufficient enough. But these probabilities you make an appeal to are so fluctuating that I don't think it'll stop people from hoping for better when faced with a reality they feel they have no control over...thus the basis for the desire of a better life in the after-death (heaven). And the desire for a worse life in the after-death to all those who've hurt you and got away with it (hell).
Sure... and maybe religion will never go away, which I'm okay with. If someone uses religion to do good, then I have no problem with that. I just wish they would do good because of the real or Earthly benefits.
That's the biggest + for Christianity, as I see it at least. Karma fails OR eludes us all the time, most people realize that and pray for something more reliable and Christianity/Islam/Judaism/Bhuddism gives them that something...what does Atheism give where that area is concerned?
But this isn't what Christianity teaches ... I don't see how people don't see this ... or maybe they just don't think about it hard enough.
Christianity, or at least the brand I was brought up in, doesn't have this sense of ultimate justice. I mean, it CLAIMS to have, but when you really examine the belief it doesn't. It teaches that God sent his son to die and absolve all the sins of mankind. So even though we're all wicked, ie we all have sinned, any wrongdoing can ultimately be forgiven, as long as you believe in Christ and attempt to live as he wants you to. This system isn't justice ... A merciful god contradicts the idea of justice. Let's say you are raped, and your rapist doesn't get caught by police, realizes the error of his ways and prays for forgiveness. According to this theology, God may ultimately forgive him, and he can spend eternity in heaven, never having paid for his crime. Christianity cannot address this problem.
Atheism = "not" theist = not belief in God. Learn some latin breh.
The irony is that believing there is no God is a belief, that's the irony of being an atheist.
...) this flick. I'm into heterosexual JAV.
......
