Each individual is predisposed to do evil. It's not about taking averages over groups or anything like that. It also makes no attempt to measure quantities of evil, except to say that there is at least some amount of it.

There's a rich culture of black Christian slaves speaking of being heaven-bound (negro spirituals). And slaveowners allowed and encouraged their slaves to go to church. So... I think you're just completely wrong on the matter.

Edit: Notice how you keep repeating this heaven-bound theology... maybe you should talk a little bit about what you believe about heaven and those who go to heaven. A lot of your position is rooted in this. Specifically, your basic argument comes down to "if they believed such-and-such about heaven, they would treat so-and-so differently." Please elaborate on your thought process there.

And I'll also be up front in saying that no matter what *YOU* believe, it's a historical fact that they believed differently from you.

I dont understand why a religion forum is open here on a poker zone ...a game dedicated to satan

Where did I say they believed the same as me?

The point of my original statement was that it's not about a group of people being more evil than another. You don't disagree with that. I know it's not about taking averages and crunching numbers, it's just hard for me to say anything without it being subject to your nitpicking.

My thought process is, if you're committing genocide on a population, you probably don't think the victims have the potential to be accepted by God in the afterlife, you probably don't think the victims were created equal to you in the eyes of God. I was using the fact that these atrocities were committed to extrapolate on their thoughts of whether the victims could go to heaven, since I can't poll people of the past.

If you think a population consists of equal human beings, it's harder to commit genocide on them. I'm under the assumption that if you think a population is equal in the eyes of God, then you don't view that population as inferior, so you're less likely to find justification in murdering them.

I didn't know these were controversial assumptions. Of course I can be wrong, I can't claim to know what goes on in the minds of murderers. If they were capable of such irrational justifications, then there's no telling what other weird justifications they might have come up with given a different set of beliefs, so maybe there is no correlation between their murders and their theological beliefs.

The analogy is fine, it's just that you're comparing faith with driving so obviously there will be problems. It was your analogy to begin with, I just corrected it because it wasn't accurate to compare a rising devotion to a fixed speed.
If you could theoretically accelerate forever then the analogy would be fine. You claimed you were ever accelerating (being increasingly devout), and now you're standing still (no longer devout), so you could never have been increasingly accelerating (increasingly devout).

Analogies aside, you do see that beliefs and devotions are linked. I don't agree that you are exempt from those people that have faith and aren't completely devout simply because you lost your faith entirely. Some people struggle with their faith, and then act accordingly. Some people lose their faith entirely and act accordingly. You no longer believe and are not devout (obviously) and some people are questioning their beliefs and are not completely devout.

When people lose their faith, there is usually a progression. People just don't make up their mind in an instant and then completely change their actions. They slowly start to change their minds and behaviours. There are people with strong beliefs who are devout, and others who are struggling with their faith who are not as devout. It's really that simple. The fact that you were once devout and now are not, cannot make you exempt from that group just because you simply don't believe anymore. The people who you see as not being completely devoted are simply questioning their faith like you once did, except they haven't completely abandoned their beliefs.

Much different explanations have been presented itt before it changed gears. If I thought it was only a matter of people questioning their beliefs, then yeah I wouldn't be "exempting myself" and wouldn't be confused about people's behaviors. The issue is, I think a lot of non-devout people are plenty confident in their christian beliefs (in fact I know /have known plenty of people who fit that description).

I disagree with that by definition. If one were confident in his christian beliefs, he would be devout. If you see a man with sins obvious enough for you to see and to label him "non-devout" then you could find a problem in his beliefs to begin with. There is a lot of bad theology out there, and just because someone claims to be a christian, doesn't necessarily make him one.

The point is relevant, because your position is taking what you believe about a situation and applying it to their beliefs. I'm just saying that it doesn't really work that way.

Guess what? They justified it. And they justified it understanding that those people were heaven-worthy. So even if you find it hard to believe, that's what they believed. And so your objection doesn't go anywhere.

Correct. There's no comparative statement needed. And I intentionally avoided making such a comparison because that's not really that important.

You can't apply your thought process to their thought process. "I think it's like this." So what?

If that's true then I stand corrected. You usually have links, so I'm assuming you have some for this? I don't find it that surprising, whether it's true or not they weren't good christians and pretty much had to know it. So having one fewer justification may indeed not have stopped them.

Hm you might have a point there.

This is all food for thought. I do concede that there are a lot of people out there who say they are Christians and don't live up to the standard. I have also been a hypocrite in my life, so I can't really point my finger.

There are lot ways to make the case.

If you accept that there was at least some missionary element to Christopher Columbus' travels, then that immediately seems to say that he believed that the people in the lands he was exploring were heaven-worthy. Otherwise, why bother evangelizing?

So for example:

http://www.tfp.org/tfp-home/focus-on...-columbus.html

Regarding negro spirituals, heaven is a familiar theme:

https://www.google.com/search?source...rituals+heaven

So we see at least an internal reference to the idea (although it must be noted that such themes were sometimes more symbolic of freedom from slavery than heaven per se).

And we do see that many accepted the idea that slaves could be saved:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part2/2narr2.html

Is that sufficient?

Shoot, I've grown so tired of this thread that I'm thinking less and less clearly.

I originally said that back in the day, what you refer to as the "exclusive view" was probably much more common than it is now. You asked why I thought that. I even mentioned the infamous "God's Will" and the natives needing to be converted, but then like a post or 2 later I forgot all about the evangelizing and implied that the victims were viewed as "unsavable".

I take back those later remarks (not that it's a choice now). My original claim might still be true though (nothing you quoted above contradicts that position, because it was aimed at disproving my later, confused position). The "others" could be saved only if they were converted. That's what served as a justification. (One of) my train(s) of thought was that if the conquerors don't think the natives need saving, ie if they don't have the exclusive view, then they don't have that justification and it's maybe not as easy to commit the atrocities.

However, even if it's true that the exclusive view was more common, it's possible that they'd have just invented new justifications anyway in the absence of that view. Which would make the veracity of my claim nothing more than an accident.

I see that for the most part you weren't nitpicking. I was just all over the place and couldn't even get my own thoughts straight. Meh theology

I know I'm really late to this thread but it's still on the first page so I'll respond anyway. Your position and the position of the OP is actually very different from the position that I've seen many other atheists take. I've seen many atheists (and I've also talked to some) that said that even if Christianity is true, they would rather burn in Hell for all eternity than become a Christian and go to Heaven. The fact that the consequences are significant and important changes nothing for them.

Personally, I find that position baffling, but those types of statements from atheists are pretty common. I remember once discussing this with some atheists and trying to show just how awful that sort of torment would be, but they were unimpressed by the horrible consequences and still insisted that they would choose to go to Hell.

I almost feel like some of the responses are saying that if we start endlessly torturing criminals, then that will eliminate crime. It's almost that bad. I wonder what some people ITT think of the death penalty, and whether that deters people. It's often argued that even that won't deter criminals.

It's sometimes said that for a punishment to deter it should be swift, severe and certain. The idea that I might go to Hell in 50 years doesn't exactly strike me as a swift punishment. I haven't even been alive that long, so 50 years will seem like a pretty long time to me. I don't even worry about what I'll be doing 10 years from now. I don't know any Christians that think they will end up in Hell the next day, next week, next month or even next year if they sin today. The idea of going to Hell isn't going to seem like a swift punishment unless we think we're likely to die very soon. If someone has some doubts about their faith, then it's not going to seem like a very certain punishment either. In fact, it's often totally the opposite for Christians that believe they're already saved.

I usually see the opposite claims made by atheists. I've seen people criticize Christianity on the grounds that Christians are free to go on sinning because they know that Jesus will save them, so why shouldn't Christians have their fun and sin? All Christians have to do is accept Jesus. They don't have to be devout or think their religion is important. Just sin all the time and then accept Jesus on your deathbed.

I actually think that's a better criticism than the one given in the OP. I don't really care much for that criticism either, but it's kind of amusing to me that this thread even has responses like "Christians must not really believe in this stuff because they act like atheists," especially when I've seen the more common criticism that "Christians should act like atheists and then accept Christ on their deathbed if they really believe this stuff."

Also if the OP was really as happy as he says he was, then he would be by far the happiest person I've ever seen, and it's somewhat puzzling to me why he would change his worldview to one that even he seems to suggest makes him less happy, especially when he suggests that Christians should be acting in ways that make them as happy as they can be.

I recently saw this point put to William Lane Craig by Shelly Kagan. WLC's reply was that no 'genuine christian' would think like that.


I'm not sure what 'act like atheists' says about what the people who made those comments think about the morality of atheists. I'm atheist and I'd consider myself no less moral than most theists I've encountered, and I do it because I think it's the right thing to do and is supported by good reasons, not because I'm scared of the consequences or that I'm motivated by some promised reward in an after life.

You're making the assumption here that everyone wants to "act like atheists" which is not at all true. First you would have to define what that is to begin with, and secondly you have to realize that because someone likes to live a certain way doesn't mean everyone does. You needn't even be a Christian to agree with that statement.

Christians also do it because they think its the right thing to do, and is supported by good reasons. One of their reasons may be "I dont want to go to hell" , and they may think its the right thing to do because "god said so", but its no less a valid reason than yours (whatever they may be)

Again you are treating religion as a separate thing, and painting religious people in as negative a light as possible in order to make your point.

I also imagine that at least some of your motivations and reasons are just as suspect as the ones you attribute to religious people.

I wasn't painting religious people in a negative light so it's interesting that they came off that way to you when you read my post. I was attempting to paint atheists in a good light, because of the 'act like atheists' comment, by pointing out that we have no reason to be moral than that we think it's the right thing to do. I don't have to fear divine retribution or be encouraged by promises of eternal bliss. So, do you think thests didn't look so good in comparison?

I like that that you think that christian reasons (which come from God almighty himself) are no less valid than mine. Good to know

the phrase you used "scared of the consequences or that I'm motivated by some promised reward in an after life", is clearly painting theists as motivated by fear, being greedy and grabbing, and not at all motivated by any more positive human behaviours. But w/e .

And you are clearly painting yourself as some sort of saint, who does things because they are "right", and not because you are motivated by fear of prison, or social ostrascism....

Yes, I think fear is a factor. You don't?

I haven't said, or implied, that about christians at all, you're putting words into my mouth. I believe that because my morality is 'voluntary', unlike that of theists, I can show that it's not fair to say 'act like atheists' as a negative contrast with 'acting like a theist' where theistic morality is assumed. It's not an accurate reflection of the situation, in fact, it's somewhat discriminatory and insulting.

My sense of right and wrong has nothing to do with any feelings I may have about those things, it certainly isn't motivated or caused by them.

I think this is a prejudiced reading of Mightyboosh's statement. You are criticizing his beliefs, not what he actually said. I would be willing to say of myself almost exactly the same thing that Mightyboosh said, but I doubt if I did that you would assume I was trying to make a super negative comment about religious people.

Its possible that I am prejudiced, yes. Do you think I should accept MBs statement ,that he wasnt painting religious people in a negative light, at face value?

Not exactly. I'm saying that your criticism of Mightyboosh's statement is unwarranted. The implications you draw out of it about Mightyboosh's beliefs are not really there. Thus you are really just criticizing his beliefs about religion, which you know from previous conversations, rather than anything in what he said here.

I don't have a problem with you criticizing those beliefs (I also disagree with Mightyboosh's moral criticism of religion), but you lessen the credibility of that criticism when you begin with such an uncharitable reading.

It would be interesting to hear you elaborate on what causes your sense of right and wrong if you don't believe that they are motivated by social factors or societal consequences.

Did they give reasons for why they'd prefer Hell? What sane person would rather suffer unimaginable torture than unimaginable happiness?

Are you sure they didn't just mean, rather risk Hell than become Christian?

I was also happier around Christmas time when I still believed in Santa Claus. Changing my religious views wasn't a choice. Thinking about philosophy was, and doing that led to a change in my beliefs. Once those beliefs changed, I couldn't pretend (to myself) to believe in Christianity any better than I could pretend to believe in Santa.

And yes I was probably up there as one of the happiest people alive. When I flew on planes or rode on roller coasters, I didn't have the slightest bit of fear because I remember thinking, so what if it crashes, then I'll probably go to Heaven which will be even more fun! That kind of mindset is better than winning the lottery.