Does Atheism Lead to Immoral Behavior?

[nPeace]

First, let me begin by expressing my pessimism regarding entering into such discussions. To me, the examples are abundantly evident, so why would you need me to demonstrate them to you. The answer invariably is confirmation bias. You didn't see them before, and won't see them now, either, for the same reason. It's the difference between a science student not understanding how epigenetics works and an adult creationist not understanding how evolution works. My experience is that I can help in the first case, but not in the second because of the differences in the way the educated student and the fervent believer processes information.

Other examples are the person who says that there is no evidence that January 6th was a violent, failed insurrection, or wants to know what crimes Trump allegedly committed. People who ask or say such things are telling you that they didn't see what you saw before and won't now, either due to the confirmation bias that has them in that state now.

You are talking about yourself here, I have to assume. If not...

But I can accommodate you anyway. Some creationists continue to understand the Genesis creation story as history revealed by God, but others have accepted the science that tells us that the history of the evolution of the universe did not occur in six days. What to do? Just say that they didn't mean or believe that these days were 24 hours to make scripture seem to contradict the science less than it does.

Why would you have a problem with people who are willing to adjust their understanding?
I have adjusted my understanding of various texts.
Why would you think it is a cases of making the text say something other than what it meant?

You can't provide the example yourself? That only means that you don't see what the disinterested reader of scripture sees, which means a confirmation bias in play and little hope of your response to my examples not being motivated reasoning (rationalization). Pessimistic as I am for a critical assessment of my argument for the Bible being atheophobic, here it is. I offer these scriptures as examples of atheophobic hate speech If it you've already normalized that kind of thing and don't see a problem, substitute gay, black, or Jew for unbeliever and see how these read to you then:

[1] "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God.' They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good" - Psalm 14:1

Sounds about right.
That's which of the four? "homophobia, atheophobia, misogyny, or anti-intellectualism"?
Which one fits telling someone they have confirmation bias?

[2] "But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone, and all and the enemy of a good god." - Revelation 21:8

Again, which of the four, does this fit into... "homophobia, atheophobia, misogyny, or anti-intellectualism"?
How about telling someone they will spend the rest of their life in jail if they do X, or lose their job, if they do Y... or don't do Z... like get vaccinated, for example?
Which of those four fit here?

[3]"Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?"- Corinthians 6:14

Please say, which of the four, does this fit into... "homophobia, atheophobia, misogyny, or anti-intellectualism"?
Telling my children to stay away from bad associates is "homophobia, atheophobia, misogyny, or anti-intellectualism"?

[4] Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ." - 1 John 2:22

What? Are you serious?
So telling someone they are a liar, for denying that Donald Trump was ever president of the U.S.A. is being "homophobia, atheophobia, misogyny, or anti-intellectualism"?
You've got to be joking. Tell me you are kidding.

[5] "Whoever is not with me is against me" - Luke 11:23

Well, well, well.
I'm convince you just picked out some random texts, without any basis for your argument, since you weren't expecting to be asked to back up your assertion.
There's nothing wrong with you saying, if I am not with you, I am against you.
It's actually a true statement.

Altogether, this "holiness" manages to describe unbelievers as corrupt, vile, wicked, abominable, godless vessels of darkness in the service of evil, not one of whom does any good, to be shunned, and all of whom are fit to be burned alive forever as enemies of a good god and the moral equivalent of murderers and whoremongers.

You seem to be describing your feelings. Is that how you feel?

Actually, the people Jesus was speaking to, already felt far removed from God, and were seeking to be near.
They knew they needed a savior, and were looking for one.
They understood the state they were in.
Even those who did not feel that way, appreciated Jesus' words so much, they looked for him, and were happy to find him.
They felt better at hearing his words. Not worst.
Mark 1:35-37 ; Romans 10:20

You're speaking for yourself, again.

To me, that's plainly obvious, but I assume that you cannot see it the way I do and will now explain to me that I've misunderstood and why what sounds like hate is actually love. That's what I mean by motivated (specious) reasoning. I expect that you find my reading of those scriptures unacceptable not because of their conclusions are unsound, but rather, because right or wrong, they are unacceptable to you and you will feel a need to mitigate my argument any way you can. The usual apologetics involve either citing a contradictory scripture as if it made all of the above go away as we see with the biblical rape and slavery discussions, where the mention of kid treatment somewhere makes all of the rest go away, or a reassignment of the meaning of the words, like where day no longer means day, and cut off your hand doesn't mean to cut off your hand, and turn the other cheek doesn't really mean that, either, when there is no reason to believe that the words didn't mean what they say, but good reason for the motivated reasoner to try to make them comport better with modern sensibilities.

You just think you are right, and those who don't agree with you, are wrong, and so they must be dishonest, in trying to deny the "obvious"... making excuses, in doing so.
Which of the four does that attitude fit into... "homophobia, atheophobia, misogyny, or anti-intellectualism"?

The conscience.

I began in my youth and had generated a fairly mature moral code by my mid-thirties.

Who taught you. Your parents; Your peers; Or do you imagine you taught yourself?

The rules of right behavior still get tweaked from time to time even now, but not the moral imperatives informing them. Sometimes, we see unintended consequences of our choices, and revise them to better comport with those imperatives - the trial-and-error that you demean next using the word stuck. Isn't it the man with the received morals that is stuck for his lack of any means to modify them as the rational ethicist plods forward updating mores that no longer serve? Look at the anti-abortionists stuck in ancient Judean times trying to increase the population as if that were still a need rather than a problem.

Scenario...
You are attracted to beautiful girls... in your young manhood.
You want to kiss and caress them, and make love to them... all of them.
According to your conscience, is that right, or wrong, and at what point did you think marriage was the right thing?

What double standards? What inability to make moral judgments?

You didn't read any of the information. Hence your questions. Read them, and see. No need to read the entire page.

I've tasted them as well, and found them flavorless. There is nothing in any holy book that I can use. Where scripture and I agree, it is not because of scripture, and where we disagree, I find the scriptural instruction flawed and reject it, so what use is such a book to such a person?

Tested them in ignorance, but that's okay. You aren't the only one.

No, but you knew that, right? I just gave you the examples of the Christian atheophobic and misogynistic anti-abortion positions being immoral by humanist standards. Add the homophobia we see with the demeaning and oppressing of all things LGBTQ+ including drag shows based in scripture calling it abomination (you asked for examples of homophobia earlier).

I didn't find any difference to you guys expressing your feelings about things.
The only difference is you go by what feels right to you, while we go by what God says is right... or wrong.

I'm sure they are. People are as proud to have kept the faith for a lifetime as I am of having tunneled out of it.

I think you want to know if I consider it immoral for others, since I've already answered regarding adultery for myself, but added that what others do is their business. This does not that I don't have opinions about the behavior of others.

You certainly don't hold back when it comes to saying what you think is immoral, when it comes to Christians.

Adultery is risky behavior if it's done secretly, which is usually the case. You might lose your wife or be killed by a jealous husband, for example. Those are good reasons for anybody to avoid that behavior including me, but because Jesus recommends it is not a good reason for me. And I'd like to repeat that betrayal in my case would be the moral infraction, not the sex per se, which would be perfectly moral if everybody involved were on board with it. I'd also add here that even if my wife gave me permission to take another lover either privately or as part of a threesome, I would decline, because I think it would be spiritually damaging to me and might affect my relationship with my wife adversely going forward anyway, even with permission.

I guess experience - what you see - tells you that.
We can look at what happens when we do A, and compare that with what happens when we do B, and know which works best.
So, it helps when we know that we have been directed to do A, because once we know that A works, we don't have to try out Bb, to find out if Aa works.
It's like having a map, you know is reliable.

 

[nPeace]

It gets so bad, that this person ( you ) completely ignores what is actually being said, and replaces it with the opposite. In other words, in our debate about slavery, you weren't debating me. You were debating yourself.

 

[YoursTrue]

So the answer is no? Which means that a woman doesn't actually have the resources to actually leave her husband if he mistreats her.

In some cases, they don't. Or they can't.

 

[YoursTrue]

Oh my. This just got a lot worse. Your views on women are appalling.

So to you, a woman who is abused by her husband is getting on "her high horse" if she opposes her husband and tries to leave him. But you just told me that a woman who is abused by her husband should leave him, But now, if she does actually want to leave, she's getting on a "high horse?" And of course this ignores what we were actually talking about which was that many Islamic women lack the financial means to leave their husbands.

So again, women in your eyes, are damned if they do, damned if they don't. Because your views don't respect women as equal human beings to men.

What if she doesn't have family? What if they live very far away from her and she lacks the financial means to reach them??????

No, I'm not lucky at all. I've worked for everything I have.
You just accused me of being a rich atheist who "get somebody else to pay for everything."
I'm definitely not rich and I definitely don't "get somebody else to pay for everything."

Would these be these wonderful Islamic countries that we keep hearing about? Why do you think the adult unemployment rate is so high there?

Also in response to @muhammad_isa , it was written that the man (Adam) would dominate the woman (Eve). And that Eve nevertheless, although possibly being unhappy, would still crave her husband. This was after the sin, not before.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

People aren’t good or evil, their actions are. This is an important distinction to maintain.

Evidence that their actions are.

 

[Audie]

Muhammad, I think that you are letting your emotional reaction to the “piling on” of you damage your thinking. You shouldn’t do that. There is no necessary connection between theism of atheism and wealth. I am about as poor as an American can be, and I am an atheist.

But of course it's easy to be an atheist.
No need to study phony books, crawl
up mountains, grow long fingernails,
oe in other ways give of your time and money.

Best of all no need to force yourself to believe
the unbelievable.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

But of course it's easy to be an atheist.
No need to study phony books, crawl
up mountains, grow long fingernails,
oe in other ways give of your time and money.

Best of all no need to force yourself to believe
the unbelievable.

So how do you morality, sociology and psychology?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Why would you have a problem with people who are willing to adjust their understanding?

They don't say that they are modifying their understanding. They say that the scripture always meant what prevailing understanding and sensibilities deem correct, or try to as much as possible - what I call motivated reading. I explained already what that term implies regarding their agenda, values, and methods. Ther purpose is to try to make what can now be seems an intellectually and morally flawed holy book consistent with the claim that it is the word of a tri-omni deity.

Sounds about right.
That's which of the four? "homophobia, atheophobia, misogyny, or anti-intellectualism"?

They're all atheophobic scriptures. I collected and summarized them for you. To your credit, you haven't gone into damage control mode trying to explain why they don't mean what they say - why what appears to be hate speech is actually the love of God misunderstood as hatred.

You seem to be describing your feelings

I wrote (in summary of those atheophobic scripture), "Altogether, this "holiness" manages to describe unbelievers as corrupt, vile, wicked, abominable, godless vessels of darkness in the service of evil, not one of whom does any good, to be shunned, and all of whom are fit to be burned alive forever as enemies of a good god and the moral equivalent of murderers and whoremongers." Those aren't my feelings. Those are the opinions of the Bible writers.

You just think you are right, and those who don't agree with you, are wrong, and so they must be dishonest, in trying to deny the "obvious"... making excuses, in doing so.

Dishonest wouldn't be my word. They are seeing the world through a faith-based confirmation bias. One of my favorite resources on the topic, which you might also find helpful, comes from a young earth creationist (YEC) and geologist, Glenn Morton, who became an old earth creationist (OEC) as he studied geology at university. He describes his confirmation bias as a YEC using the device of a demon who sat at the portal of his awareness screening ideas and throwing those that disagreed with his faith-based belief out to protect him from contradictory evidence. I find him and the description of his experience credible. The Talk.Origins Archive Post of the Month: February 2002 In his words:

"But one thing that those unaffected by this demon don't understand is that the victim is not lying about the data. The demon only lets his victim see what the demon wants him to see and thus the victim, whose sensory input is horribly askew, feels that he is totally honest about the data. The victim doesn't know that he is the host to an evil parasite and indeed many of their opponents don't know that as well since the demon is smart enough to be too small to be seen."

Who taught you. Your parents; Your peers; Or do you imagine you taught yourself?

My parents and teachers taught me right and wrong, as did friends later, but in the end, my system of values was built alone from the ground up beginning with the irresistible moral intuitions of my conscience. That process began in my mid-thirties, not long after leaving Christianity.

You are attracted to beautiful girls... in your young manhood.
You want to kiss and caress them, and make love to them... all of them.
According to your conscience, is that right, or wrong

That is not immoral by my standards. There are no thought crimes in rational ethics. We do not understand ourselves as having our minds read or being judged by an outside moral agent with its own rules.

You certainly don't hold back when it comes to saying what you think is immoral, when it comes to Christians.

I don't judge them for what they do except when it affects others, especially unwilling unbelievers. But otherwise, I have no opinion about them except that what they want for themselves isn't right for me. Unfortunately, many believers don't share that view or return the favor. For them, what's right for them is right for all.

We can look at what happens when we do A, and compare that with what happens when we do B, and know which works best. So, it helps when we know that we have been directed to do A, because once we know that A works, we don't have to try out Bb, to find out if Aa works. It's like having a map, you know is reliable.

I can agree with that in the main. That's empiricism, or learning by trial-and-error. Where we part ways is when I discover that A worked better than B, I will still be interested in whether A1 works better than A2. We don't stop when we make progress.

But does the believer do that with his received moral values? You've seen the back-and-forth between a Muslim man whose values regarding marriage are an affront to most people reading them. I mentioned that friends helped teach me right and wrong. My conservative father was a bigot, and taught me to disrespect Mexicans. My liberal friends gave me a not-so-gentle correction, and I dropped that attitude and language, which were never really mine. The new me found life happier hating less and getting along with peers better. That's what I mean by moral education by trial-and-error, and why I ask if the theist with received moral values can do the same.

In a related area, does the believer modify his apologetics according to its effect if that effect is to reassure them that they made the right choice rejecting religion ? The creationists meta-message to critical thinkers is often that the path they have taken has been disastrous for them, leaving them Dunning-Kruger ignorant, or too uninformed to understand how overmatched they are in these discussions. If his purpose is to make his religion seem more reasonable and palatable to others, he is doing the opposite. Ask yourself if you think that they know what effect they have, if not why they don't, and if so, why they persist without modification.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

It's why the creationists have redefined the meaning of the word day in the days of creation or the day of rest. There was no reason to do this until modern science showed that the universe was assembled over billions of years, so the apologists simply declares that a day doesn't mean a day.

Why now and not a millennium ago? Because the idea didn't need to be defended then. It wasn't an obvious mistake then. What motivated the original translation was an interest in accurately reproducing its meaning as it was understood at that time. What motivates the retranslation, and why it's called motivated reasoning, is to reconcile the wrong guesses of the ancient mythologists with the correct answers learned much later.

Or, it could be that the writer of Genesis used the Hebrew word “yom”, to mean an indefinite length of time; that is one of its definitions.

In support of this meaning, in the same creation account did not God tell Adam, “in the day you eat from it [the tree], you will die”?

And when did Adam die? Over 900 years later. So, taking this usage as evidence, the writer did not mean a literal day, did he?

So saying “yom” means a literal day, is and always has been the misinterpreted view.

So long, my cousin. Have a great day!

 

[nPeace]

They don't say that they are modifying their understanding. They say that the scripture always meant what prevailing understanding and sensibilities deem correct, or try to as much as possible - what I call motivated reading. I explained already what that term implies regarding their agenda, values, and methods. Ther purpose is to try to make what can now be seems an intellectually and morally flawed holy book consistent with the claim that it is the word of a tri-omni deity.

So, if they say the scriptures always meant X, and they say they now believe X, is that not adjusting their understanding?
As far as I am aware, those professing Christianity, who hold the Bible as the inerrant word of God, consider what is says to be the unswerving truth.
So that means trying to understand that truth... which means they adjusting.

They're all atheophobic scriptures. I collected and summarized them for you. To your credit, you haven't gone into damage control mode trying to explain why they don't mean what they say - why what appears to be hate speech is actually the love of God misunderstood as hatred.

Truth can be harsh, depending on one's viewpoint, and disposition.
Hate speech to some people, is telling them their view is wrong, or they need to adjust their thinking and attitude, etc.
What's hate speech to you, is not hate speech at all.
Just truth being told.

I wrote (in summary of those atheophobic scripture), "Altogether, this "holiness" manages to describe unbelievers as corrupt, vile, wicked, abominable, godless vessels of darkness in the service of evil, not one of whom does any good, to be shunned, and all of whom are fit to be burned alive forever as enemies of a good god and the moral equivalent of murderers and whoremongers." Those aren't my feelings. Those are the opinions of the Bible writers.

If someone likes to... say... fondle little girl's privates, saying of that person, they are sick in their mind, and needs help, is not hate speech.
It's stating something you consider truth, and which you state with 'good' reason.
The person may think pedophilia is just fine, and those who disagree are just backwards, and needs help.
He might think you are promoting hate speech... but are you?

Dishonest wouldn't be my word. They are seeing the world through a faith-based confirmation bias. One of my favorite resources on the topic, which you might also find helpful, comes from a young earth creationist (YEC) and geologist, Glenn Morton, who became an old earth creationist (OEC) as he studied geology at university. He describes his confirmation bias as a YEC using the device of a demon who sat at the portal of his awareness screening ideas and throwing those that disagreed with his faith-based belief out to protect him from contradictory evidence. I find him and the description of his experience credible. The Talk.Origins Archive Post of the Month: February 2002 In his words:

I don't think you should use individuals to speak in general term. I think that's to distort the way the Bible is written, and the view the Christian has.

"But one thing that those unaffected by this demon don't understand is that the victim is not lying about the data. The demon only lets his victim see what the demon wants him to see and thus the victim, whose sensory input is horribly askew, feels that he is totally honest about the data. The victim doesn't know that he is the host to an evil parasite and indeed many of their opponents don't know that as well since the demon is smart enough to be too small to be seen."

Lol.
I think if you consider that others aren't seemingly affected by this demon, who obviously wouldn't be picky, as to whom it wants to fool, it might prompt the question, Why are some fooled but others are not?
Could it be, it's not really a matter of how smart the demon is, but rather, how blinded the victim is, by his desire to believe the lie?

That's how it works apparently. It a case of allowing persons to have what they want... on God's part. 2 Thessalonians 2:9-12

My parents and teachers taught me right and wrong, as did friends later, but in the end, my system of values was built alone from the ground up beginning with the irresistible moral intuitions of my conscience. That process began in my mid-thirties, not long after leaving Christianity.

How do you know that they taught you right and wrong... or do you mean they concept and view of right and wrong?

 

[nPeace]

That is not immoral by my standards. There are no thought crimes in rational ethics. We do not understand ourselves as having our minds read or being judged by an outside moral agent with its own rules.

That's it, isn't it. By your standard.

That's the problem with atheism
Atheists do not know that they are unrighteous, greedy...

Since they go by what feels right to them, to them there is no right or wrong, except what is decided by them... by their own standard. Hence, it cannot be said that the atheist loves righteousness.
It can be said that the atheist loves what they decide is right to them. In other words, the atheist loves to do what they desire... and that can be anything from pedophilia to bestiality. So long as it's not outside their standard.

The atheist does not know that he is greedy, when pursuing his sexual desires. He does not acknowledge what greed really is.
To him, greed is not lusting after women, or worshiping the sexual organ. It's perfectly normal to him.
So, being greedy is relative to what the atheist does not like.

It is understandable then, why the Bible says, they "are suppressing the truth in an unrighteous way", and "they became empty-headed in their reasonings and their senseless hearts became darkened". Romans 1:18-22
It is accurate to say they are fools, as stated in Psalms 14:1.

While you might not agree, that doesn't mean that by God's standards, you are not fool.

The Bible says...
Hence, God, in keeping with the desires of their hearts, gave them up to uncleanness, so that their bodies might be dishonored among them.
They exchanged the truth of God for the lie and venerated* and rendered sacred service to the creation rather than the Creator, who is praised forever.
That is why God gave them over to disgraceful sexual passion, for their females changed the natural use of themselves into one contrary to nature; likewise also the males left the natural use of the female and became violently inflamed in their lust toward one another, males with males, working what is obscene and receiving in themselves the full penalty, which was due for their error.
Just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them over to a disapproved mental state, to do the things not fitting, and they were filled with

• all unrighteousness,
• wickedness,
• greed,
• badness,
• being full of envy,
• murder,
• strife,
• deceit,
• malice,
• being whisperers,
• backbiters,
• haters of God,
• insolent,
• haughty,
• boastful,
• schemers of what is harmful,
• disobedient to parents,
• without understanding,
• false to agreements,
• having no natural affection,
• merciless.

Although these know full well the righteous decree of God - that those practicing such things are deserving of death - they not only keep on doing them but also approve of those practicing them.

Out of that list, do you see any that applies to you?
Do you say none, or can you identify some?

The atheist is like that boy or girl that doesn't know right and wrong, but want to set their own standard - basically do what feels right to them.
So they say, "Why must I go to bed now. I want to stay up and do xyz. Why can't I do abc. I want to do abc."
That child wants to set his or her own rules... do what they want... mind you... they don't know what's right or wrong. That concept is simply based on what feels right to them.

I don't judge them for what they do except when it affects others, especially unwilling unbelievers. But otherwise, I have no opinion about them except that what they want for themselves isn't right for me. Unfortunately, many believers don't share that view or return the favor. For them, what's right for them is right for all.

Tell me something. Please... why did you get married? Do you think marriage is good - the right thing to do?
If so, when did you decide that, and based on what?

I can agree with that in the main. That's empiricism, or learning by trial-and-error. Where we part ways is when I discover that A worked better than B, I will still be interested in whether A1 works better than A2. We don't stop when we make progress.

That's the way many think.
The problem with that, is finding out that A1 doesn't work, often comes with terrible consequences. Some irreversible.

Problems on top of problems, upon problems.
How much better, if we had good reason to know that A1 wouldn't work.

But does the believer do that with his received moral values? You've seen the back-and-forth between a Muslim man whose values regarding marriage are an affront to most people reading them. I mentioned that friends helped teach me right and wrong. My conservative father was a bigot, and taught me to disrespect Mexicans. My liberal friends gave me a not-so-gentle correction, and I dropped that attitude and language, which were never really mine. The new me found life happier hating less and getting along with peers better. That's what I mean by moral education by trial-and-error, and why

Who taught your parents? Do you know the origin of their values?
What about your dad... could his attitude have been different, if he had that education or influence?
It's true people choose to do differently, even in the midst of 'good' education, and they in turn, teach and influence others, but how important education proves to be.

The question is... what kind of education, and where does the best education come from?

I ask if the theist with received moral values can do the same.

Huh? Aren't they? Or are you looking at particular individuals, and then generalizing based on them?

In a related area, does the believer modify his apologetics according to its effect if that effect is to reassure them that they made the right choice rejecting religion ? The creationists meta-message to critical thinkers is often that the path they have taken has been disastrous for them, leaving them Dunning-Kruger ignorant, or too uninformed to understand how overmatched they are in these discussions. If his purpose is to make his religion seem more reasonable and palatable to others, he is doing the opposite. Ask yourself if you think that they know what effect they have, if not why they don't, and if so, why they persist without modification.

I think you should try taking to me without the magnifying lens focused on your eyesores.
In other words, I can only speak for those living by the Bible's standards. Not those whom you seem to think, are.

 

[Nakosis]

And right here, you are assuming things not in evidence.

There’s no evidence that mindless natural processes, without guidance, can originate any type of simple life (if there is such a thing), let alone the complex interactions within & between living organisms themselves.

Fair enough, science could be 100% wrong about it at this time, but when it does get figured out, that'll be science. You have to consider that there was some physical process involved that can be discovered. Unless you are a proponent of magical thinking. In which case you don't even need a God, just a magic wand.

Have you ever heard of Dr. Barry Taff?

Do you think invisible spirit life, let alone the ability to interact with it, has been “discredited by the sciences”?

If any of his theories or ideas get validated, then that will be science.
Science will be the only way we get any answers beyond waving the magic wand.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...
Science will be the only way we get any answers beyond waving the magic wand.

Contingent on that methodological naturalism is correct, off course. If that is wrong, then science is wrong.
You really have to learn the difference between that one and philosophical naturalism.

 

[SkepticThinker]

That's it, isn't it. By your standard.

That's the problem with atheism
Atheists do not know that they are unrighteous, greedy...

Since they go by what feels right to them, to them there is no right or wrong, except what is decided by them... by their own standard. Hence, it cannot be said that the atheist loves righteousness.
It can be said that the atheist loves what they decide is right to them. In other words, the atheist loves to do what they desire... and that can be anything from pedophilia to bestiality. So long as it's not outside their standard.

The atheist does not know that he is greedy, when pursuing his sexual desires. He does not acknowledge what greed really is.
To him, greed is not lusting after women, or worshiping the sexual organ. It's perfectly normal to him.
So, being greedy is relative to what the atheist does not like.

It is understandable then, why the Bible says, they "are suppressing the truth in an unrighteous way", and "they became empty-headed in their reasonings and their senseless hearts became darkened". Romans 1:18-22
It is accurate to say they are fools, as stated in Psalms 14:1.

While you might not agree, that doesn't mean that by God's standards, you are not fool.

The Bible says...
Hence, God, in keeping with the desires of their hearts, gave them up to uncleanness, so that their bodies might be dishonored among them.
They exchanged the truth of God for the lie and venerated* and rendered sacred service to the creation rather than the Creator, who is praised forever.
That is why God gave them over to disgraceful sexual passion, for their females changed the natural use of themselves into one contrary to nature; likewise also the males left the natural use of the female and became violently inflamed in their lust toward one another, males with males, working what is obscene and receiving in themselves the full penalty, which was due for their error.
Just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them over to a disapproved mental state, to do the things not fitting, and they were filled with

• all unrighteousness,
• wickedness,
• greed,
• badness,
• being full of envy,
• murder,
• strife,
• deceit,
• malice,
• being whisperers,
• backbiters,
• haters of God,
• insolent,
• haughty,
• boastful,
• schemers of what is harmful,
• disobedient to parents,
• without understanding,
• false to agreements,
• having no natural affection,
• merciless.

Although these know full well the righteous decree of God - that those practicing such things are deserving of death - they not only keep on doing them but also approve of those practicing them.

Out of that list, do you see any that applies to you?
Do you say none, or can you identify some?

The atheist is like that boy or girl that doesn't know right and wrong, but want to set their own standard - basically do what feels right to them.
So they say, "Why must I go to bed now. I want to stay up and do xyz. Why can't I do abc. I want to do abc."
That child wants to set his or her own rules... do what they want... mind you... they don't know what's right or wrong. That concept is simply based on what feels right to them.


Tell me something. Please... why did you get married? Do you think marriage is good - the right thing to do?
If so, when did you decide that, and based on what?


That's the way many think.
The problem with that, is finding out that A1 doesn't work, often comes with terrible consequences. Some irreversible.

Problems on top of problems, upon problems.
How much better, if we had good reason to know that A1 wouldn't work.


Who taught your parents? Do you know the origin of their values?
What about your dad... could his attitude have been different, if he had that education or influence?
It's true people choose to do differently, even in the midst of 'good' education, and they in turn, teach and influence others, but how important education proves to be.

The question is... what kind of education, and where does the best education come from?


Huh? Aren't they? Or are you looking at particular individuals, and then generalizing based on them?


I think you should try taking to me without the magnifying lens focused on your eyesores.
In other words, I can only speak for those living by the Bible's standards. Not those whom you seem to think, are.

This is like two posts in a row here, where you basically equate atheists with pedophiles, while completely ignoring the poster's point and displaying the exact behaviour said poster accused you of, all while proclaiming that you're just being "truthful" with your use of hate speech.

I've read just about as much as I can take, I think.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I appreciate your reply. (Except for the magic innuendo.)

Science will be the only way we get any answers ….

There is another way: it could be these invisible entities might reveal their own existence to everyone, be it willingly or unwillingly, ie., they are forced to do it.

I’m thinking it could be the latter, since revealing themselves willfully would defeat their on-going goal of control & deception.

It would be awesome if science could discover the realm in which they inhabit, and the form of energy they take to exist!
They don’t have the capacity anymore to fully materialize. From what I understand.

 

[muhammad_isa]

This is like two posts in a row here, where you basically equate atheists with pedophiles, while completely ignoring the poster's point and displaying the exact behaviour said poster accused you of, all while proclaiming that you're just being "truthful" with your use of hate speech..

..right .. just like your accusation of my "hate-speech" against women..

 

[SkepticThinker]

..right .. just like your accusation of my "hate-speech" against women..

I'd say your views on women are chauvinistic in nature.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

That's it, isn't it. By your standard.

That's the problem with atheism
Atheists do not know that they are unrighteous, greedy...

Since they go by what feels right to them, to them there is no right or wrong, except what is decided by them... by their own standard. Hence, it cannot be said that the atheist loves righteousness.
It can be said that the atheist loves what they decide is right to them. In other words, the atheist loves to do what they desire... and that can be anything from pedophilia to bestiality. So long as it's not outside their standard.

The atheist does not know that he is greedy, when pursuing his sexual desires. He does not acknowledge what greed really is.
To him, greed is not lusting after women, or worshiping the sexual organ. It's perfectly normal to him.
So, being greedy is relative to what the atheist does not like.

It is understandable then, why the Bible says, they "are suppressing the truth in an unrighteous way", and "they became empty-headed in their reasonings and their senseless hearts became darkened". Romans 1:18-22
It is accurate to say they are fools, as stated in Psalms 14:1.

While you might not agree, that doesn't mean that by God's standards, you are not fool.

The Bible says...
Hence, God, in keeping with the desires of their hearts, gave them up to uncleanness, so that their bodies might be dishonored among them.
They exchanged the truth of God for the lie and venerated* and rendered sacred service to the creation rather than the Creator, who is praised forever.
That is why God gave them over to disgraceful sexual passion, for their females changed the natural use of themselves into one contrary to nature; likewise also the males left the natural use of the female and became violently inflamed in their lust toward one another, males with males, working what is obscene and receiving in themselves the full penalty, which was due for their error.
Just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them over to a disapproved mental state, to do the things not fitting, and they were filled with

• all unrighteousness,
• wickedness,
• greed,
• badness,
• being full of envy,
• murder,
• strife,
• deceit,
• malice,
• being whisperers,
• backbiters,
• haters of God,
• insolent,
• haughty,
• boastful,
• schemers of what is harmful,
• disobedient to parents,
• without understanding,
• false to agreements,
• having no natural affection,
• merciless.

Although these know full well the righteous decree of God - that those practicing such things are deserving of death - they not only keep on doing them but also approve of those practicing them.

Out of that list, do you see any that applies to you?
Do you say none, or can you identify some?

The atheist is like that boy or girl that doesn't know right and wrong, but want to set their own standard - basically do what feels right to them.
So they say, "Why must I go to bed now. I want to stay up and do xyz. Why can't I do abc. I want to do abc."
That child wants to set his or her own rules... do what they want... mind you... they don't know what's right or wrong. That concept is simply based on what feels right to them.

Fortunately, unless some are psychopaths or sociopaths, people do have a conscience. And I think most people, including atheists, are guided by that to some degree.
I used to work with an avowed atheist, and he was a caring and kind individual! Oh, we definitely had differing worldviews, but we were friends! Still are.


What I can’t put up with, or even fathom for that matter, are groups like the Siciliano Mafia! The majority claiming to be Catholic (which is thought to be synonymous with Christian), while blatantly ignoring “the Law of the Christ” (the law of love), going to the other extreme by condoning murder and other illegalities! They’re an extreme case, but rarely does anybody think of questioning their “Christian” claims!

Such hypocrisy, coupled with numerous contradictory false dogmas among those professing Christianity, has destroyed the very credibility & essence of it.

It’s just more evidence for

1 John 5:19 - Concluding Remarks

We know that we are of God, and that the whole world is under the power of the evil one.

biblehub.com

 

[Audie]

Im so glad my government keeps Christians
and moslems from spreading their beliefs
here..

 

[Audie]

I'd say your views on women are chauvinistic in nature.

I'd use much stronger words