Atheism, please note the capitalisation❤️

[Gordon]

St Augustine's theory of Original sin, differs from that of many of his Eastern peers, but that aside there is a secular version of it including "Society is to blame","We are all flawed individuals" " only human etc" plus an acknowledgement of the problems bequeathed to us from previous generations due to morally bad choices.
But if those troubles are rooted in history, then the buck has to stop somewhere in a much reduced historical population.

Is not 'people can do bad things' a totally different thing though from the Christian notion that at the point of our birth we are already 'sinful'?

My youngest grandchild is only 3 months old, and seems bizarre to consider that wee Kirsty is, in any sense, already a 'sinner'.
 

[Maeght]

It's his way of thinking. He's telling you that. Why is your way of thinking accurate, and his not? You both seem to be exprssing subjective ideas

I'm really not sure what it is you think I am saying, so will summarise again (It isn't deep or complicated). Basically Gonnagle said 'I know a couple of Atheists who sometimes show me that they have more Christianity in their little finger than I do in my whole body'

My point was that atheists cannot do that as being A Christian means you believe in God/Jesus etc and atheists don't. They may show behaviours Gonnagle associates with Christians but since such behaviours are not limited to Christians then it is inaccurate to descibe atheists in the way Gonnagle did - they don't have Christianity but may have compassion, empathy etc etc.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Is not 'people can do bad things' a totally different thing though from the Christian notion that at the point of our birth we are already 'sinful'?

My youngest grandchild is only 3 months old, and seems bizarre to consider that wee Kirsty is, in any sense, already a 'sinner'.

And as I've pointed out some of the Eastern early church fathers would have been with you on that. Not all Christians go to the ends that St Augustine reached.

However there are moral decisions and moral environments that have been handed down to us and we in turn hand our own contribution on. A contribution we tend to look at through Rose tinted spectacles.

[Gonnagle]

Don't understand that at all. First you say it is not a point of distinguishing, then you say that they are two totally different ways of thinking.
I'm saying it's not always possible to be sure which way the ancients intended a text to be read. We can of course read all sorts of things into an ancient text, and we may be right or completely wrong to do so.
For example, when Paul wrote "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive", most modern non-fundamentalists would interpret 'Adam' as meaning the typical flawed human animal who had not seen the possibility of a more deeply fulfilled life which Christ's life had made possible. It's just as likely that Paul believed in a literal original Adam, who sinned and caused all subsequent generations to sin. And "who shall deliver me from the body of this death?" Why Jesus of course...
Or maybe not.

Dear Dicky,

Correct, in future I am really going to try to make my point more clear when I post ( I am not the sharpest pencil ) a myth, its intention, for me, to only make you stop and think, Karen Armstrong tells me if a myth does not help you then discard it, move on, example, old Samson, I really don't think his hair was the problem, maybe it was his ego or more probably his penchant for the femme fatale, but then as I type this, we all suffer from ego, so it did make me stop and think

But Karen Armstrong's little book, a Short History of Myth explains it a hundred times better than my poor attempts, and on reading your post, by chove you got it, it made you think, cogitate.

Yes I am happy with this post, to err is human to forgive is divine, shutup Gonnagle, okay keep the heid big man.

Gonnagle.

[Gonnagle]

I'm really not sure what it is you think I am saying, so will summarise again (It isn't deep or complicated). Basically Gonnagle said 'I know a couple of Atheists who sometimes show me that they have more Christianity in their little finger than I do in my whole body'

My point was that atheists cannot do that as being A Christian means you believe in God/Jesus etc and atheists don't. They may show behaviours Gonnagle associates with Christians but since such behaviours are not limited to Christians then it is inaccurate to descibe atheists in the way Gonnagle did - they don't have Christianity but may have compassion, empathy etc etc.

Dear Maeght,

Jeez Louise ( don't blaspheme Gonnagle, weeelll!! ) okay they were better men than me, will that do, I simply say Christian because I happen to be one, fuck me, fuck me side ways, my cue for a shower and shave, I have the real world to deal with

Gonnagle.

[Gordon]

And as I've pointed out some of the Eastern early church fathers would have been with you on that. Not all Christians go to the ends that St Augustine reached.

However there are moral decisions and moral environments that have been handed down to us and we in turn hand our own contribution on. A contribution we tend to look at through Rose tinted spectacles.

We may have to clear up the mess our predecessors left behind, and even if their actions could later be described as 'sinful' (in Christian terms), we may have inherited the mess they left behind but we don't inherit their 'sin' at the point of our birth.

It seems incredibly contrived: we are born 'sinful' so by default we need a 'saviour' and hey presto Jesus pops up - it's nonsense on stilts of course.

[Maeght]

Dear Maeght,

Jeez Louise ( don't blaspheme Gonnagle, weeelll!! ) okay they were better men than me, will that do, I simply say Christian because I happen to be one, fuck me, fuck me side ways, my cue for a shower and shave, I have the real world to deal with

Gonnagle.

Enjoy your day in the real world.

[Stranger]

Well,yes because I see the obvious conclusion that free will doesn't exist as uninteresting because on a daily basis because we act as if it does...

I agree. The argument with Alan is because he needs to believe the impossible type of 'free will' because he thinks it demonstrates that his God exists and he needs free will to make sense with respect to an omniscient and omnipotent creator.

...whereas you desperatly need to deny that, rather like AB, using an argumentum ad consequentiam that fatalism which I don't argue for is wrong, because that's the caricature you need to make.

What are you on about and have you even been paying attention to what has been said?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

We may have to clear up the mess our predecessors left behind, and even if their actions could later be described as 'sinful' (in Christian terms), we may have inherited the mess they left behind but we don't inherit their 'sin' at the point of our birth.

It seems incredibly contrived: we are born 'sinful' so by default we need a 'saviour' and hey presto Jesus pops up - it's nonsense on stilts of course.

And yert atheists and Humanists have often an extremely simplistic take on the matter usually ending in trite and unexamined platitudes like 'people do bad things' and 'We can be good without God" stuff with not much thought but a lot of rose tinted thinking.

The atheist rejoinder that we must face the purposeless bleakness of the universe doesn't it seems, stretch to the bleak darkness of the moral universe.

In other words it's not that Jesus is too optimistic a notion it's that the Atheist and humanist take on wrong doing isn't nearly dark or comprehensive enough.

[Nearly Sane]

I agree. The argument with Alan is because he needs to believe the impossible type of 'free will' because he thinks it demonstrates that his God exists and he needs free will to make sense with respect to an omniscient and omnipotent creator.

What are you on about and have you even been paying attention to what has been said?

Yes, and your self regard is getting in the way of your thinking, else you wouldn't have come up with the nonsense about fatalism

[Stranger]

Yes, and your self regard is getting in the way of your thinking, else you wouldn't have come up with the nonsense about fatalism

You seem to have forgotten what you were arguing about. You were criticising me for the heinous crime of suggesting people could have their minds changed, because we don't choose our beliefs.

Why not just post a stream of insults, get it all off your chest....?

[Nearly Sane]

You seem to have forgotten what you were arguing about. You were criticising me for the heinous crime of suggesting people could have their minds changed, because we don't choose our beliefs.

Why not just post a stream of insults, get it all off your chest....?

Well yiu are fairly adept at insults yourself jysr add hypocrite to the list.


As ti peopke havung their minds changed, of course, I think people's minds change, your lack of thinking has lead you to a lot of straw.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gonners,

Jeez Louise ( don't blaspheme Gonnagle, weeelll!! ) okay they were better men than me, will that do, I simply say Christian because I happen to be one, fuck me, fuck me side ways, my cue for a shower and shave, I have the real world to deal with

Possibly the confusion here is your use of "Christian" (upper case, proper noun) rather than "christian" (lower case, adjective). The former implies a subscriber to the faith; the latter implies behaviours that some people – eg, (upper case) Christians – think to be desirable.   

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

And yert atheists and Humanists have often an extremely simplistic take on the matter usually ending in trite and unexamined platitudes like 'people do bad things' and 'We can be good without God" stuff with not much thought but a lot of rose tinted thinking.

Absent any other evidence for that statement, presumably by "have often an extremely simplistic take on the matter" you actually mean something like, "do not share my bind faith beliefs"?

The atheist rejoinder that we must face the purposeless bleakness of the universe doesn't it seems, stretch to the bleak darkness of the moral universe.

Gibberish.

In other words it's not that Jesus is too optimistic a notion it's that the Atheist and humanist take on wrong doing isn't nearly dark or comprehensive enough.

More gibberish, with a sprinkle of the argument fom consequences to boot. What are you even trying to say here?

Oh, and still no sign of your correction re your repeated screw up about the Courtier's Reply I see. Funny that.

[Nearly Sane]

I'm really not sure what it is you think I am saying, so will summarise again (It isn't deep or complicated). Basically Gonnagle said 'I know a couple of Atheists who sometimes show me that they have more Christianity in their little finger than I do in my whole body'

My point was that atheists cannot do that as being A Christian means you believe in God/Jesus etc and atheists don't. They may show behaviours Gonnagle associates with Christians but since such behaviours are not limited to Christians then it is inaccurate to descibe atheists in the way Gonnagle did - they don't have Christianity but may have compassion, empathy etc etc.

You are using your definition of what amounts to a Christian, he is using his. They are both just opinions.

[Nearly Sane]

Gonners,

Possibly the confusion here is your use of "Christian" (upper case, proper noun) rather than "christian" (lower case, adjective). The former implies a subscriber to the faith; the latter implies behaviours that some people – eg, (upper case) Christians – think to be desirable.   

Surely though there is no absolute defibition of Chritian, and therefore both Gonzo and Maeght aee exoressing their opinion.


Sassy doesn't believe thet Jesus was the son of god, for example. Does that make her a Christian or not? I think we take self definition as an easier approach and ask people what they mean by it.

[Stranger]

As ti peopke havung their minds changed, of course, I think people's minds change, your lack of thinking has lead you to a lot of straw.

You do appear to have developed a tendency to just have a rant for the sake of it, every so often. 

Critical thinking is a skill that people can learn. Nobody's perfect at it but you can try to have an attitude of questioning what you believe and the reasons you do so, as well as taking note of any new information and how it might change your reasoning. Perhaps you should try it? 

Your smugness is overwhelming, and your inability to carry out consistent logical thinking is underlined by your post. All your beliefs are not chosen. You are creating the idea that there is a real choice in the above which goes beyond the 'word jugglery' of compatibilism.

[Nearly Sane]

Your smugness is overwhelming, and your inability to carry out consistent logical thinking is underlined by your post. All your beliefs are not chosen. You are creating the idea that there is a real choice in the above which goes beyond the 'word jugglery' of compatibilism.

Saying that people don't chose their beliefs doesn't mean that those beliefs can't change

[Gordon]

And yert atheists and Humanists have often an extremely simplistic take on the matter usually ending in trite and unexamined platitudes like 'people do bad things' and 'We can be good without God" stuff with not much thought but a lot of rose tinted thinking.

The atheist rejoinder that we must face the purposeless bleakness of the universe doesn't it seems, stretch to the bleak darkness of the moral universe.

In other words it's not that Jesus is too optimistic a notion it's that the Atheist and humanist take on wrong doing isn't nearly dark or comprehensive enough.

I doubt many of us on the atheist side of the fence are relaxed on the subject of how bleak 'bad things' can be: after all, there is no shortage of current or historical examples.

Anyway, do you subscribe to the Christian doctrine that implies that babies are born in a 'sinful' state?

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Surely though there is no absolute defibition of Chritian, and therefore both Gonzo and Maeght aee exoressing their opinion.


Sassy doesn't believe thet Jesus was the son of god, for example. Does that make her a Christian or not? I think we take self definition as an easier approach and ask people what they mean by it.

Yes of course, but that doesn't take away from the point. An (upper case) Christian may be anywhere on the spectrum of degrees of belief but is still on that spectrum; (lower case) christian behaviour on the other may just be helping little old ladies across the road while while simultaneously rejecting everything about the Christian faith.   

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

Yes of course, but that doesn't take away from the point. An (upper case) Christian may be anywhere on the spectrum of degrees of belief but is still on that spectrum; (lower case) christian behaviour on the other may just be helping little old ladies across the road while while simultaneously rejecting everything about the Christian faith.

If it's self deginung and Gonzo decides  he doesn't see the need to believe as part pf it. It's just a matter of opinion .

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

If it's self deginung and Gonzo decides  he doesn't see the need to believe as part pf it. It's just a matter of opinion .

But my point was simply that Gonners' use of (upper case) "Christian" set hares running that likely would have stayed in their hutches (do hares have hutches?) had he used (lower case) "christian" instead. Not meant to be a big deal, and doubtless he'll answer for himself if he's so minded.     

[Stranger]

Saying that people don't chose their beliefs doesn't mean that those beliefs can't change

Indeed, but then why respond as you did to my post pointing out that critical thinking was a skill people can learn?

What was I to make of "All your beliefs are not chosen. You are creating the idea that there is a real choice in the above which goes beyond the 'word jugglery' of compatibilism.", if not that you thought suggesting that people could learn critical thinking was pointless because people's beliefs are not chosen, so cannot be changed to study something which might change their other beliefs.

What were you trying to say?

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

But my point was simply that Gonners' use of (upper case) "Christian" set hares running that likely would have stayed in their hutches (do hares have hutches?) had he used (lower case) "christian" instead. Not meant to be a big deal, and doubtless he'll answer for himself if he's so minded.     

But he already has answered, quite fully.

[Nearly Sane]

Indeed, but then why respond as you did to my post pointing out that critical thinking was a skill people can learn?

What was I to make of "All your beliefs are not chosen. You are creating the idea that there is a real choice in the above which goes beyond the 'word jugglery' of compatibilism.", if not that you thought suggesting that people could learn critical thinking was pointless because people's beliefs are not chosen, so cannot be changed to study something which might change their other beliefs.

What were you trying to say?

You can't really be this dumb? Wanting to learn critical thinking is a belief. You didn't chose that and yet here you are desperately patting yourself on the back for just being you.

As already covered, that free will makes no sense isn't at all imporatant, abd when you make it so as you are doung it means your self congratulation is contradictory in that light.