Couldn't have said it better myself...

[muhammad_isa]

View attachment 67675

"If you need the threat of hell to be a good person..."

Faith is in two parts.
The hope in God's Mercy, and the fear of His wrath.
..and know that His Mercy is greater than His wrath.

What is "good"?
Almighty God knows best what is good or bad.
People without faith will have their own ideas.

 

[John D. Brey]

I sincerely doubt your claim. How are you going to support it? And once again, just because someone does not follow your particular version of Christianity does not make him an atheist. he may be as devout of a Christian as you are. He just has a different interpretation of the Bible. There is no group that can lay claim to the Bible and if on could it would probably be the Catholics. I have a feeling that you would not like that.

Second, I know how you love to focus on Hitler (who was more Christian than atheist) Stalin and Mao. You did not do so properly. What you should have done was to calculate deaths as a percentage of the population. When one does that the Christians may be the "winners" when it comes to killing the most people. In the wars of the Reformation alone upwards of 18 million people were killed in those Christian against Christian wars. I have a feeling that was a higher percentage of the population of Europe than Hitler's war. though I could be wrong.

European wars of religion - Wikipedia

Accurate history is no doubt tricky. We never have all the facts but only those made available to us. For instance, I noted that many of the Popes of the Medieval Church were atheists. Which ones? How many?

How many avowed theists in the Middle Ages were actually atheists, but, because of the biases of the day, wrapped themselves in a mantle of religion?

At one time homosexuality was frowned upon as atheism was once frowned upon. But today, since homosexuality isn't as frowned upon, socially, we see that many men who, in the 50's, would have hid their homosexuality, today flaunt it.

I think it's fair to say that many tyrants in the Middle Ages not only hid their atheism, but used religion, rose in a religious context, in order to affect their tyrannical goals, greed, and creed, most effectively.



John

 

[Quagmire]

I'm amazed how over-fussed you are at a cartoon.

It just bothers me when people think they can use this place as their personal bathroom wall, although I'm pretty sure trying to explain why to you would be a waste of time.

But the sentiment it contains has been made many times in these very forums -- most often in dialogue. It has been the subject of books ("Can We Be Good WIthout God" - Dr. Robert Buchman, 2002). (By the way, Buckman, now deceased was a friend of mine, President of the Canadian Humanist Association, a member of my book club, a Jew by ethnicity but non-practicing. Rob Buckman - Wikipedia)

Theists in these forums have argued, quite aggressively, in these forums that atheists have "no reason to be good, because they don't have the fear of God as a basis for absolute morality." I've participated in those debates, but can't be bothered trying to seach for them now (the search capabilities in PHPBB forums is pretty atrocious).

But the argument often goes like this:

Theist: "Without God you have no reason to be good."
Atheist: "I don't need God to be good, and if you do, then I question whether you are in fact good. I mean, if you lost your faith tomorrow, would you feel better about stealing or murdering somebody?"

Thus, no strawman, and no propaganda.

I'll respond to the rest of this study in evasion at some point when I have some time to waste.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Accurate history is no doubt tricky. We never have all the facts but only those made available to us. For instance, I noted that many of the Popes of the Medieval Church were atheists. Which ones? How many?

How many avowed theists in the Middle Ages were actually atheists, but, because of the biases of the day, wrapped themselves in a mantle of religion?

At one time homosexuality was frowned upon as atheism was once frowned upon. But today, since homosexuality isn't as frowned upon, socially, we see that many men who, in the 50's, would have hid their homosexuality, today flaunt it.

I think it's fair to say that many tyrants in the Middle Ages not only hid their atheism, but used religion, rose in a religious context, in order to affect their tyrannical goals, greed, and creed, most effectively.



John

So you made a claim about others that you cannot support. That is not very Christian at all.

 

[John D. Brey]

So you made a claim about others that you cannot support. That is not very Christian at all.

I made an interpretation of history which I can only support within the sketchy broad-brush of historical accounts.



John

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

It just bothers me when people think they can use this place as their personal bathroom wall, although I'm pretty sure trying to explain why to you would be a waste of time.



I'll respond to the rest of this study in evasion at some point when I have some time to waste.

There are many ways to frame the subject matter of an argument. It can certainly be done with a torrent of words, but as the saying goes, "a picture speaks a thousand words." And I considered that a valid way to express a point.

Arguments are made in different forms all the time: in music, in art, in theatre and poetry. See Frederick's opening number in A little Nightmusic,

Now
As the sweet imbecilities
Tumble so lavishly
Onto her lap...

or perhaps the opening scene of Act II of Tosca, between Scarpia and Tosca (ending with Tosca actually killing the villainous Scarpia).

The intention of an artist may well be expressed in his work, as is so often the case with Banksy, the great graffitist.

I think we should be open to all sorts of modes of expression.

 

[Quagmire]

There are many ways to frame the subject matter of an argument. It can certainly be done with a torrent of words, but as the saying goes, "a picture speaks a thousand words." And I considered that a valid way to express a point.

Which doesn't automatically make the point valid.

I think it's funny that, now that you've realized you don't have any rebuttal to my objections about the cartoons message, you're going to try and make it look like I'm objecting to cartoons in general.

Seems pretty desperate to me.

Arguments are made in different forms all the time: in music, in art, in theatre and poetry. See Frederick's opening number in A little Nightmusic,

Now
As the sweet imbecilities
Tumble so lavishly
Onto her lap...

or perhaps the opening scene of Act II of Tosca, between Scarpia and Tosca (ending with Tosca actually killing the villainous Scarpia).

The intention of an artist may well be expressed in his work, as is so often the case with Banksy, the great graffitist.

And Boise's the capital of Idaho, and what goes up must come down, and cats can climb trees but dogs can't, . . .

I think we should be open to all sorts of modes of expression.

Including propaganda apparently.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I made an interpretation of history which I can only support within the sketchy broad-brush of historical accounts.



John

And you stated those beliefs which appear to be fanaises as facts. You apoear to have a strange hatred of atheists. For example you have not owned up to your error with Hitler.

 

[John D. Brey]

And you stated those beliefs which appear to be fanaises as facts. You apoear to have a strange hatred of atheists. For example you have not owned up to your error with Hitler.

I'd be willing to bet quite a sum that I've read more about Hitler than anyone participating in this forum. Based on the majority of the historical accounts he was an atheist. And if he had any relationship to spirituality I'd say it was that he was possessed by a demon.

I don't hate anyone. Least of all atheists. I might hate the premise that atheism is based on. In some contexts it seems absurd and self-refuting in its circularity. But everyone's free to follow their gut, instincts, education, or whatever. Live and live until we die, and then let's see what happens.

I see Gomer Pyle welcoming atheists to the Last Judgment with a hearty: Surprise, Surprise, Surprise!


John

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'd be willing to bet quite a sum that I've read more about Hitler than anyone participating in this forum. Based on the majority of the historical accounts he was an atheist. And if he had any relationship to spirituality I'd say it was that he was possessed by a demon.

I don't hate anyone. Least of all atheists. I might hate the premise that atheism is based on. In some contexts it seems absurd and self-refuting in its circularity. But everyone's free to follow their gut, instincts, education, or whatever. Live and live until we die, and then let's see what happens.

I see Gomer Pyle welcoming atheists to the Last Judgment with a hearty: Surprise, Surprise, Surprise!


John

Even if your claim is true that is some very poor reasoning. Who wrote your articles? The actual history supports that he was a theist of some sort. He had his own version of Christianity. I don't think that you will be able to find any valid sources that support your claims. You can find all sorts of Christian apologists that will support you, but to even be an apologist one has to be willing to lie for Jesus. They are far from valid sources.

The proper thing to do would have been to support your claim. I can quote Hitler time and time again where he avers to be a Catholic. I have never seen him to deny the existence of a God.

And let's leave the immoral judgement of the Christian God out of it for now. We can discuss that some other time. Also you might want to tone down your projection a bit. Where have atheists used circular logic? That tends to be the tool of theists. Especially Christians.

 

[muhammad_isa]

The actual history supports that he was a theist of some sort. He had his own version of Christianity..

Not really..
Publicly, he appeared to be a Christian. He was a politician.
Privately, he denounced Christianity altogether.
Adolf Hitler - Wikipedia

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not really..
Publicly, he appeared to be a Christian. He was a politician.
Privately, he denounced Christianity altogether.
Adolf Hitler - Wikipedia

Where? He denounced some aspects of various religions, but if you read of his personal beliefs he seemed to believe in a God. I don't see how that article supports your claim.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

View attachment 67675

Maybe we just hold on to our own leashes?

‘Where is Paradise, and where is Hell?’… The one is reunion with Me; the other thine own self. – Baha’u’llah, Epistle to the Son of the Wolf, p. 132.

Regards Tony

 

[muhammad_isa]

Where? He denounced some aspects of various religions, but if you read of his personal beliefs he seemed to believe in a God. I don't see how that article supports your claim.

Believe in a God?
I think you see what you want to see.
He was his own god. He promoted evil.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Believe in a God?
I think you see what you want to see.
He was his own god. He promoted evil.

Please don't accuse others of your,sins. Like it or not he was almost certainly a theist. A lot of his beliefs about Jews may have come from Luther who was also quite an anti-semite. Throughout history there have been countless believers in gods that killed freely. That is partially how the major religions passed on their beliefs.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Like it or not he was almost certainly a theist.

No. Neither you or I can say for sure what was going on in his mind.
I can quote people who said he was anti-clerical and wanted to get rid of the Christian churches..

"In early 1937 he was declaring that 'Christianity was ripe for destruction', and that the Churches must yield to the "primacy of the state", railing against any compromise with "the most horrible institution imaginable".

..so if he believed in God, he had a funny way of showing it.
In any case, each and every one of us has to answer for our deeds..
..believer or not.

 

[Nakosis]

Yes, that's not the way to approach it. The Catholic Church agrees. From Wikipedia:

"Perfect contrition (also called contrition of charity) is a repentance for sin that is motivated by faith and the love of God. It contrasts with imperfect contrition, which arises from a less pure motive, such as common decency or fear of Hell."

Fear of hell can be a useful motivator to change your behavior to start with but you're supposed to go beyond that. It's spiritually immature.

So you're just saying the OP doesn't apply to you.
When I was a Christian, it didn't apply to Christians. It only applied to bad people who were going to have to pay for the bad things they've done.
So I never saw it as a threat use to keep my behavior in line.
Just a common idea that bad behavior ought to be punished, good behavior ought to be rewarded from a sense of justice, not motivation.

 

[Quagmire]

So you're just saying the OP doesn't apply to you.
When I was a Christian, it didn't apply to Christians. It only applied to bad people who were going to have to pay for the bad things they've done.
So I never saw it as a threat use to keep my behavior in line.
Just a common idea that bad behavior ought to be punished, good behavior ought to be rewarded from a sense of justice, not motivation.

Exactly. I was raised Catholic and the only time I heard any version of be good or you'll go to hell is when parents were trying to keep their kids in line. It wasn't something the church actually taught.

 

[SkepticThinker]

What is evil or horrible if we are just intelligent animals?
Nothing.

You really can't think of any way to determine whether something is good or bad? Really?

 

[Mister Emu]

But the argument often goes like this:

Theist: "Without God you have no reason to be good."
Atheist: "I don't need God to be good, and if you do, then I question whether you are in fact good. I mean, if you lost your faith tomorrow, would you feel better about stealing or murdering somebody?"

Thus, no strawman, and no propaganda.

There are two meanings to an argument that without God there is no reason to being good.

The first, shallow and in my experience a contrivance is that only the threat of God's punishment is what holds people back from sin/evil. No church in the history of churching* has ever taught that we are good so as to avoid punishment. My experience of churches runs that gamut from evangelical/fundamentalist protestant to traditionalist Catholic; it just isn't a mainstream Christian perspective.

The second, is that you have no reasoned grounds to support the metaphysical structure of morality. There is no good and bad, because without God you can't support the compulsive aspect of those statements. If there are actual rules to our behavior that exist outside social recognition, there has to be a rules maker. If they are just social recognition, you've lost the judgement/valuation aspects of morality. Slavery, women as spoils as war, torture aren't evil, they are just things we, at this particular time and place and in this specific cultural context, don't like and we have to acknowledge we have no privileged position in determining what society will or will not recognize.

But, in the spirit of debate, I'm going to go one step further and offer up that in the history of the philosophy of ethics, whether someone who is by nature good or someone who is by nature evil in some way but fights his nature to be good is a better person.

If you don't have an urge to steal, and don't? Good for you in expending no effort. If you are kleptomaniac and don't steal, because you fought for your status you are necessarily "better", even if you had to use a crutch of punishment, you have done more work towards being good. It is only in our fight against the evil within us that we show the true power of our moral nature.

*I swear if you "well, actually" my obvious hyperbole, I might actually need the fear of God to lay a hold on my response