List of Evidence Potent Enough to Convince Atheists of the Veracity of a Religion.

[andave_ya]

You are. Brushing teeth is individual practice with individual benefit. Scriptural laws are individual practice with (assumed) community benefit.

How is that? Being a Christian is all about having a personal relationship with God--why else would I fetter myself to all these rules and regulations unless I really believed in them?

Some individuals may be better off if they don't obey them, while others will have a direct interest in their application. We can argue in the same way that a dicatorship is good for the society, if everyone adheres to the tyrant's personality cult and no one makes choices that may potetially be repressed. Of course, that nonsensical.

How would they be better off if they don't obey them? If you are referring to Old Testament laws for sacrifice and the stuff inside the Temple, one of the reasons Jesus died was to make those obsolete. Other than that I do not see how not following scriptural laws can actually be good.

I concede your parallel to a dictatorship -- most Christians/religious people can be trusted to follow the principles of their beliefs, and yet it's not a dumb adherence to idiot rules here; we may be idealistic yet we believe in them and thus, we actually try to follow them from a sense of love, not necessity.

[JBI]

Adultery isn't a violation of a relationship, if you don't think it so. You're so closed minded - you don't know that polygamy has existed for thousands and thousands of years. Is it ok, lets say, for a man to have 4 wives? To have affairs? What about an open relationship? Is that less functional, or less moral than a closed one? The whole point of the law is the effect - as pointed out, the don't commit adultery is a relative law. As pointed out, if the law was changed, and you weren't supposed to get mad, then it wouldn't be a violation of the rules of the relationship anymore, and it would cease to be "immoral".

You are essentially equating everything to the "Morality" of scripture, yet you fail to realize half the commandments, if not more than half are silly and dated, and relative to the case.

[andave_ya]

Adultery isn't a violation of a relationship, if you don't think it so. You're so closed minded - you don't know that polygamy has existed for thousands and thousands of years. Is it ok, lets say, for a man to have 4 wives? To have affairs? What about an open relationship? Is that less functional, or less moral than a closed one? The whole point of the law is the effect - as pointed out, the don't commit adultery is a relative law. As pointed out, if the law was changed, and you weren't supposed to get mad, then it wouldn't be a violation of the rules of the relationship anymore, and it would cease to be "immoral".

You are essentially equating everything to the "Morality" of scripture, yet you fail to realize half the commandments, if not more than half are silly and dated, and relative to the case.

Yes, polygamy has existed for thousands of years. Why else would there be a commandment against it?

Furthermore, just because something wrong is being done openly and on a grand scale today means that the Bible is "silly," "dated," and "relative to the case?"

[JBI]

There isn't one! There is only one against women having more than one partner. The standard Christian doctrine used to condemn men marrying many women, actually comes from Saint Augustine, and from interpretations, and not from scripture. The Jewish Equivalent comes from the teachings of Gershom Ben Yehudah, in the 11th century. In other words, men can have more than one wife, but if a woman steps out of a relationship, according to scripture, she is to be stoned to death. Enjoy. Great morality. But it makes no difference - after that she is to rot in hell forever anyway.

By case, what I mean is, adultery is not necessarily bad. There is no general rule. You must go case by case. It is not unlawful, because people realized eventually that committing adultery has nothing to do with the law. The "immorality" of someone committing adultery then, can only be examined on a case by case basis - for instance, if the woman is beaten by her husband, and decides to have an affair, or if he is impotent, and she is a nymphomaniac, or some other such situation. A general rule of anything cannot be arrived at, simply because it is in one religion's scripture.

[Petronius]

I don't follow this logic. There is a huge difference between having sex with my neighbor's wife and my being jealous of my wife having sex with my neighbor. Adultery is a violation of a relationship - pure and simple. If people were faithful those those they married, how would that be a negative thing? Telling me not to experience a reasonable emotion (jealousy) in response to a violation of a very intimate and personal relationship is indeed arbitrary and virtually meaningless. That would solve nothing - because the injunction to not "feel" something is very different from the command to not DO something. The Bible's restriction against adultery protects relationships - your suggestion merely seeks to change how we respond - but what if we're "wired" to respond that way?

And we're also wired to be aroused and want to breed, regardless of social masquerades such as marriage. Why control one impulse and not the other? Jealousy is not a reasonable emotion. It's an ugly, bitter, harmful one. Much like hate and spite. What you don't seem to understand is that there would be no betrayal involved if sex outside marriage would be accepted by society and practiced in the open. You would know about it, not care about it or even delight in the idea. We are only jealous because we think we're etitled to.
Relationship is not a contract of ownership over one's body. It's a manifestation of trust. Can you explain to me how trust is broken if both parties agree to accept adultery?
Can you consider the situation when a man imerses himself in his career or some other activity after marriage, and becomes quite a different person from the attentive, lovingly obsessive guy he was before? If he feels safe with the rights of propriety given by the contract of marriage and starts to ignore his mate's needs so much that she is driven to seek love from another man, who truly betrayed the relationship's trust? No doubt the adulterous whore, nope?

Example, please.

Utopian communism, of course. If all wealth is shared, there is no idea of private ownership, and everyone respects this precept, the concept of theft becomes utterly nonsensical.

I'm sorry - I understand that people have big "bones of contention" with the church and that many people don't like being told what to do. What I don't understand is how the Bible's commands in terms of moral behavior are wrong. At their most basic level, the moral commands of the Bible protect relationship - that's what morality is ultimately about - protecting relationship. The Bible does not make salvation a result of moral behavior - churches that preach that are misleading and do not understand the New Testament. God encourages moral behavior because that behavior is reflective of His character - and believers are commanded to be like God in that they make moral choices. By acting in accordance with the character of God, the believer comes to better know Him - which is His primary desire - that we know Him. We are commanded to act morally to reflect God's character to the world. Sometimes we do so imperfectly, but this merely reinforces our humanity rather than God's perceived "shortcomings."

It is no more manipulative to tell people that moral behavior will make their lives and the lives of their community better than it is to tell smokers that smoking will cause cancer. How is it in the church's "selfish-self-interest" to tell people to give to the poor, respect your neighbor's marriage, don't take what's not yours, and tell the truth?

Moral behavior improves society - argue against that one.

Your problem is that you put God and your/my relationship with him to the forefront. I don't believe in God, and even if I did, the very idea that an entity more profound than our entire Universe would need to be pimped to us pathetic lifeforms by an organized institution and a dusty philosophy is at best amusing. If God truly existed, religion would be as absurd as the Church of Walking that preaches the word of Gravity.
As human-made philosophy, christianity becomes more interesting, and I can accept a great deal of wisdom and good intentions were, and still are, placed into it. But it is, after all, thousands of years old, and it is painfully obvious for some of us that we can do better.

How does being a moral authority help the church? Well, it gives its members acknowledgement (very treasured by humans, we all want to be right and be praised), respect, protection and means of survival for being nothing more than a billboard with principles.

Moral behavior can help, but it all depends how you define morals. Prejudice for example isn't moral. Ignorant, absolutist, "divine laws" that pretend us to obey and blame us if we're not happy with it are actually detrimental... they may not cause conflict, but will still prevent us from thinking through and finding better ways of life.

But adultery, lying, selfishness, stealing, gossip, etc ARE destructive. Come on - are you really going to take that position? How can you do so with a straight face? There may be legitimate gripes about how the church communicates its message, but how can you argue with the validty of moral behavior and the benefits it bestows upon a community?

There is nothing more destructive than not thinking, and that's what you seem to expect people to do... just accept stuff that are "good for them". Are you saying that trying to shape morals that are more acceptant and less possesive is a bad thing?



Andave, see my points about sexuality. Also, if people are kind and naive, some oportunistic elements of the society will take advantage of that: people may seek charity although they could work, for example. Also, there are people like me who would not "lay their life for their fellow man" unless they truly cared for that life, which would put me in the situation of either dying for some random person or being considered a bad guy, which could hurt my feelings.

[andave_ya]

There isn't one! There is only one against women having more than one partner. The standard Christian doctrine used to condemn men marrying many women, actually comes from Saint Augustine, and from interpretations, and not from scripture. The Jewish Equivalent comes from the teachings of Gershom Ben Yehudah, in the 11th century. In other words, men can have more than one wife, but if a woman steps out of a relationship, according to scripture, she is to be stoned to death. Enjoy. Great morality. But it makes no difference - after that she is to rot in hell forever anyway.

Mea culpa; not a commandment, you're right. But careful; it still is in Scripture. 1 Corinthians 7:2-4, Mark 10:6-8, and Genesis 2:24.

By case, what I mean is, adultery is not necessarily bad. There is no general rule. You must go case by case. It is not unlawful, because people realized eventually that committing adultery has nothing to do with the law. The "immorality" of someone committing adultery then, can only be examined on a case by case basis - for instance, if the woman is beaten by her husband, and decides to have an affair, or if he is impotent, and she is a nymphomaniac, or some other such situation. A general rule of anything cannot be arrived at, simply because it is in one religion's scripture.

It breaks up marriages -- that's not bad?? Exchanging a life together for a few hours, days, weeks of passion? Then what? Is it really worth it?And, there are no absolutes? All's fair in love and war?

Granted, there are times when a marriage doesn't work. Yet a woman having an affair because she's oversexed or her husband is impotent is rarely ever the answer. What does it solve?

And, "a general rule of anything cannot be arrived at, simply because it is in one religion's scripture??" Really? What then is the basis of any morality or principle at all? Some sort of inner enlightenment? So just because the Bible says do not kill doesn't mean it's wrong to kill?

[The Atheist]

Expressing the hope that the discussion doesn't become heated and lose an entertaining thread.

Interesting that so many theists are posting in a thread on what would convince atheists of a god's existence, while realising that being told what theists believe isn't going to be it.



_______________________________________

Commandments on sexuality are particularly weak, because psychological consequences to sexual acts come from the involved parts' view on sexuality, not from the acts themselves.

This is what encouraged me to join in - excellent point!

And excellent yet again, because I started a thread on this very subject in a christian forum a fortnight ago and had a great discussion. I had asked why their god was so interested in people's sex lives.

I find it incredible that priests, pastors and other church leaders don't just stick to adultery and leave out the following as being "sinful":

Sex between consenting, non-married people of legal age. Such obviously including all GLBT and heterosexual sexual relationships/acts etc.

The christians I was discussing it with were unable to come up with any kind of reason why it's bad, other than "god says so, so it must be bad".

There's no emoticon capable of displaying the absurdity of that kind of thinking.

And if christian thinking on sex doesn't scare you, islamic thinking bloody well ought to!

So, sorry - but I'd go further with religious commandments on sex being utterly ridiculous. On what grounds does one human being think he (and they are all "he") can tell someone else with whom and in what manner he or she may want. Talk about your victimless crime!

There is spiritual benefit to be gained from following some rules.

That is only true if one accepts that "spiritual benefit" is something able to be gained, and it's desirable to do so. I could program a computer to think that way.

How is that? Being a Christian is all about having a personal relationship with God--why else would I fetter myself to all these rules and regulations unless I really believed in them?

Good point.

That said, in what way is your personal relationship going to convince me to have the same?

Adultery isn't a violation of a relationship, if you don't think it so.

It is actually, unless it has been pretty well agreed fidelity isn't required. Thanks to thousands of years of religious interference in morality, we have fidelity as the default position for most societies.

Adultery is usually a reliable sign that a relationship is in deep trouble anyway, so having rules against it are self-defeating.

[JBI]

No, a general rule cannot be arrived at because everything needs to be taken at a case by case basis. Scripture tries to create a general rule, and religious people try to create a law based on that general rule, but in truth there is no general rule, because everything is relative to the case, or the society.


Look, a marraige failing is only bad to you because of your thoughts on marriage. Personally, I don't think failures of marriages are so bad. It's the lesser demon, if it can even be called that, than the people remaining together.

The myth of the sacredness of marriage again is a construct from your religious belief. The answer to the question of what does it solve is a) her wants. Quit imposing an artificial morality when one is dated to society. Divorce is a good thing, not a bad one, remember that.

And adultery isn't a bad thing either, it is just a thing. You only consider it bad because you value the relationship, yet the relationship clearly isn't valued by the person in it, if they step out, making your interpretation pointless. Clearly they want something more than the other, and they take it. Therefore they are making their own conscious choice, and your imposition of scripture to justify them being wrong is simply an attack on their freedom of choice. They aren't wrong, they are within the grounds of their moral code, and within the law of many countries.

[JBI]

It is actually, unless it has been pretty well agreed fidelity isn't required. Thanks to thousands of years of religious interference in morality, we have fidelity as the default position for most societies.

Adultery is usually a reliable sign that a relationship is in deep trouble anyway, so having rules against it are self-defeating.

The point I was making, is it isn't a general rule. Either way open relationships are gaining in popularity, and quite frankly, the term fidelity doesn't really apply. There are functional open or polygamous relationships out there. Simply our western conceptions of right and wrong, fueled with our obsession with material possession, create a situation where people think it is sinful to have sex with whom they want. Fidelity is honoring the agreed contract, and if the contract doesn't involve exclusive sex, then there is no breach in the relationship.

There are, for instance, pornographic actors who are married, and have families. Are we to assume they are all in bad marriages? Or they simply don't give a **** for the perceived taboos of society. Either way, I was just trying to destroy the general rule. If someone wants to engage in sexual acts with someone who isn't their spouse, I don't see why God should have any say in the matter.

[andave_ya]

Good point.

That said, in what way is your personal relationship going to convince me to have the same?

In no way at all. My personal relationship is between me and God -- all I can do is show you what God has done in my life and leave the rest to Him. There's a verse in the Bible that says "Paul planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the increase."

JBI:
...No matter what, I cannot see divorce as a 'good thing.'

A case by case basis. How is that possible?? Why is it that something considered wrong once is now considered right? What changed to make it so? Upon what basis? Society? And why did it change?

Yes, I think a marriage failing is bad. I think it's horrendous.
Adultery isn't a wrong thing, it's just a thing? So it's just sex, no holds barred.

Okay, forget about the "myth of the sacredness of marriage." Take it in a bigger context. So whatever choices one makes, are the right choices? What are we, to be so sure of that? What about discipline? I KNOW some of the things I really really want are not good for me and I've learned to discipline myself when it comes to those. Is it always good to get what you want?

Furthermore I am forcing no one to do anything; it's the principle of the thing.

If the body is a temple...If the body is a gift...how is there no breach in the relationship? There is a bigger picture here than just denying yourself sex because God said so.

[Joreads]

In no way at all. My personal relationship is between me and God -- all I can do is show you what God has done in my life and leave the rest to Him. There's a verse in the Bible that says "Paul planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the increase."

JBI:
...No matter what, I cannot see divorce as a 'good thing.'

.

andave_ya just interested if you mean divorce is a bad thing when Adultery is involved? What about when the there is domestic violence involved for example? Sometime divorce is the sane choice for everyone involved

[Redzeppelin]

Adultery isn't a violation of a relationship, if you don't think it so. You're so closed minded - ... As pointed out, if the law was changed, and you weren't supposed to get mad, then it wouldn't be a violation of the rules of the relationship anymore, and it would cease to be "immoral".

You cannot be serious - only someone who has not had the "pleasure" of such a betrayal could be so cavalier about it. The anger and bitterness at betrayal is not a learned response - humans are social creatures and there is no culture in the world where betrayal (especially sexual) is seen as a positive (or even neutral) thing. Human nature establishes this - not social convention.

If by "close-minded" you mean that there are certain things that I do not accept as valid, then sure. If it's just because I advocate some standard of morality, nah - you're wrong.

You are essentially equating everything to the "Morality" of scripture, yet you fail to realize half the commandments, if not more than half are silly and dated, and relative to the case.

Evidence, example, illlustration please. Claims without these are fairly insubstantial.

if a woman steps out of a relationship, according to scripture, she is to be stoned to death. Enjoy. Great morality. But it makes no difference - after that she is to rot in hell forever anyway.

Perhaps you should take a casual read through the New Testament - the two times Jesus had interactions with "fallen women" (the Samaritan woman at the well, the woman caught in the act of adultery) he was compassionate, non-judgmental, and loving.

By case, what I mean is, adultery is not necessarily bad. There is no general rule. You must go case by case. It is not unlawful, because people realized eventually that committing adultery has nothing to do with the law. The "immorality" of someone committing adultery then, can only be examined on a case by case basis - for instance, if the woman is beaten by her husband, and decides to have an affair, or if he is impotent, and she is a nymphomaniac, or some other such situation. A general rule of anything cannot be arrived at, simply because it is in one religion's scripture.

Nobody who has experienced the betrayal of adultery would agree with your assessment. As well, your justifications listed above are all weak. The "impotence" and "nymphomaniac" excuses suggest that the bond of marriage only exists for sexual satisfaction - no need to get married if that's all marriage boils down to; as well, I would think that an abused woman's first priority would be safety and security - not sexual expression. If those are the best you can offer, then your position is indeed weak. Most marriages are accompanied by vows - adultery violates those vows - and they violate a trust that is tacit in most relationships. The only time adultery does not do so is when the partners explicitly agree up front to have an "open marriage" - but I question exactly how happy and fulfilling such relationships truly are.

As well, scripture may not establish morality so much as describe the "instruction manual" for humanity; if we accept that God created us and then inspired scripture, it makes sense that what He's doing is telling us how we best operate.

And we're also wired to be aroused and want to breed, regardless of social masquerades such as marriage.

Not all impulses we humans feel ought to be indulged; morality helps us in that it tells us which impulses ought to be resisted for the good of my relationships - both personal and communal.

Why control one impulse and not the other? Jealousy is not a reasonable emotion. It's an ugly, bitter, harmful one. Much like hate and spite.

The obvious answer is that some impulses are less destructive than others. Jealousy in and of itself is harmful if I choose to act destructively in response to it (I assault or victimize someone) - by itself it will hurt me if I nurse or revel in it - but it is our action as a result of an impulse that is wrong. THere are times when jealousy or hate is an appropriate response.

What you don't seem to understand is that there would be no betrayal involved if sex outside marriage would be accepted by society and practiced in the open. You would know about it, not care about it or even delight in the idea. We are only jealous because we think we're etitled to.

You are only correct if our feelings and emotional responses are nothing more than social conditioning. By your reasoning, our reactions to murder, rape, torture and theft could also be a mere by-product of social conditioning - right?

Relationship is not a contract of ownership over one's body. It's a manifestation of trust. Can you explain to me how trust is broken if both parties agree to accept adultery?

Sex is a bonding act - science has established that bonding chemicals are released during sex (especially orgasm) - that suggests an intention that a couple be bonded together. If both parties agree, then there was no trust to be broken - but that is not the norm - that is an unusual exception - and I would challenge that such a mutual agreement is not always mutual (a needy partner might accept the arrangement in order to not lose the other partner), nor would I accept that such arrangements contribute to a healthy, satisfying existence.

Can you consider the situation when a man imerses himself in his career or some other activity after marriage, and becomes quite a different person from the attentive, lovingly obsessive guy he was before? If he feels safe with the rights of propriety given by the contract of marriage and starts to ignore his mate's needs so much that she is driven to seek love from another man, who truly betrayed the relationship's trust? No doubt the adulterous whore, nope?

I would expect the dissatisfied spouse to have enough respect to end the relationship and seek satisfaction elsewhere. Betrayal is not justified - especially because of "unhappiness." Nobody is "driven" to be unfaithful - I have more confidence in the human ability to control the sexual appetite. A lack of satisfaction does not entitle one to betray a mate - even an unloving, inconsiderate one.

Utopian communism, of course. If all wealth is shared, there is no idea of private ownership, and everyone respects this precept, the concept of theft becomes utterly nonsensical.

Using a failed ideology as support isn't very convicing.

Your problem is that you put God and your/my relationship with him to the forefront. I don't believe in God, and even if I did, the very idea that an entity more profound than our entire Universe would need to be pimped to us pathetic lifeforms by an organized institution and a dusty philosophy is at best amusing. If God truly existed, religion would be as absurd as the Church of Walking that preaches the word of Gravity.

Sorry - just as you are predisposed to ignore God, I am predisposed to put Him in the forefront - I do not expect you to do as I, nor should you expect me to do as you.

God does not need humanity to teach the world about Him -but He has chosen, for whatever reason, to let us participate; that we sometimes do it badly, apparently, is not reason enough for Him to deny us the privilege. This is especailly true in that we often respond more to things that are right in front of us.

How does being a moral authority help the church? Well, it gives its members acknowledgement (very treasured by humans, we all want to be right and be praised), respect, protection and means of survival for being nothing more than a billboard with principles.

You do not understand the church even a little bit.

Moral behavior can help, but it all depends how you define morals. Prejudice for example isn't moral. Ignorant, absolutist, "divine laws" that pretend us to obey and blame us if we're not happy with it are actually detrimental... they may not cause conflict, but will still prevent us from thinking through and finding better ways of life.

To open up morality to personal definition is to make it meaningless. If the word "dog" can mean a rock, pencil, car, tree, star, or dog - it really has become a meaningless word. Morality is no different.

Your establishment of happiness as the highest good is disturbing to say the least - personal happiness is used as a justification to break-up marriages, abandon children, abort children, and all manner of selfish decisions. Those who have chosen to serve our country in the military did not choose to do so because it makes them "happy" - and they do not face death daily because it makes them "happy."

Unfettered freedom - freedom without the morals of scripture is not freedom - it is simply bondage to the vice of your choice. Few who embrace such freedom are truly happy.

There is nothing more destructive than not thinking, and that's what you seem to expect people to do... just accept stuff that are "good for them". Are you saying that trying to shape morals that are more acceptant and less possesive is a bad thing?

Far from it - does it sound like I'm not thinking here? What makes you think I've not tried living an amoral life and discovered that it doesn't work - that it doesn't bring the happiness it promises? You have no way of knowing how I've arrived at my beliefs - you assume (wrongly like many nonbelievers) that those of us who hold strong beliefs just sat in church and swallowed that stuff without question - and that generalization couldn't be more wrong. Many of us arrived at our convictions through experience - and we realized that there was merit in what the Bible said.

No, a general rule cannot be arrived at because everything needs to be taken at a case by case basis. Scripture tries to create a general rule, and religious people try to create a law based on that general rule, but in truth there is no general rule, because everything is relative to the case, or the society.

Everything is not relative; there must be a stable "ground" from which we evaluate the rightness or wrongness of things; once everything is "relative" we can now not have anything known as "right" and "wrong" and all becomes little more than personal preference (which you cannot morally judge).

Look, a marraige failing is only bad to you because of your thoughts on marriage. Personally, I don't think failures of marriages are so bad. It's the lesser demon, if it can even be called that, than the people remaining together.

Beyond absurd; studies show that a) children who experience divorce suffer lifetime consequences; spouses still experience anger and bitterness even into 10-15 years after the fact. Even though divorce might be preferable, it is not without serious ramifications.

Quit imposing an artificial morality when one is dated to society. Divorce is a good thing, not a bad one, remember that.

Spoken again by someone who assumedly has never experienced divorce either as an adult or child. I could be wrong, but I've run into few people who have gone through divorce and would honesty speak as you have.

And adultery isn't a bad thing either, it is just a thing. You only consider it bad because you value the relationship, yet the relationship clearly isn't valued by the person in it, if they step out, making your interpretation pointless.

No - that you think the bad behavior of one person justifies the bad behavior of another speaks to the kind of character you think is acceptable. I prefer to think that it's still better to take the high road than to drop down to someone else's level. There is a classy way to respond and a trashy way - you have chosen the trashy way as a legitimate response.

[andave_ya]

andave_ya just interested if you mean divorce is a bad thing when Adultery is involved? What about when the there is domestic violence involved for example? Sometime divorce is the sane choice for everyone involved

I should restate that, Joreads, you're right. When there is abuse divorce is indeed the sensible choice -- it's just going the way of adultery to get out of a marriage or to be spiteful that's wrong.

By the way, call me andave or andya. It's easier than the full name .

[Joreads]

I should restate that, Joreads, you're right. When there is abuse divorce is indeed the sensible choice -- it's just going the way of adultery to get out of a marriage or to be spiteful that's wrong.

By the way, call me andave or andya. It's easier than the full name .

Andya thanks for clearing that up I just wasn't sure where you were coming from. That being said I did not read back all that far.

And you are right if you are unhappy leave with out the adultery. I agree with Redzeppelin on this one. Adultery is the one betrayal I don't think I could ever forgive. Let's hope that none of us ever need to find out.


Jo is fine for me by the way.


thanks again.

[JBI]

I should restate that, Joreads, you're right. When there is abuse divorce is indeed the sensible choice -- it's just going the way of adultery to get out of a marriage or to be spiteful that's wrong.

By the way, call me andave or andya. It's easier than the full name .

And hence, we have a case by case, relative way of understanding the morality, or immorality of divorce, since all is relative to a) the judge, and b) the circumstance.