No Jesus Christ, Judgement Day, Heaven or Hell

  • Thread starter Thread starter goodcatholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

goodcatholic

Guest
I am trying to imagine if convinced that Christianity was a fraud. That the atheists were right. No God. All we have is this life and we are only accountable to other people if we lead a sinful life. We might end up in jail, only if we get caught. Our family and friends will know what we are like so they will judge us.

I’m thinking I will place much more emphasis on status and what others think of me. My legacy will become paramount. I will focus more on becoming rich and thus ensuring my family and friends have some access to that wealth. I will aim to retire early if possible. Say 50. Then I can pursue pleasure full time. Golf, music, gym, pool, meet friends at the pub, some decadence as long as I stay healthy, because who cares, right? there is no final judgement. Life is meaningless, may as well enjoy it.

Would I be more self-centred than I am now?
These are all conjectures but I think it is a hypothetical worth exploring if for no other reason, than to strengthen our faith.
 
Taken to its rational end, true atheism can only result in nihilism because, no matter what we do, it will eventually all amount to nothing. Eventually, this universe will burn out, or collapse back in on itself, or freeze to death, and nothing of what any of us have said or done will amount to anything. Any meaning we create is temporary at best, and ultimately fleeting.

There is no reason, other than social approval, to help anybody, because they will all eventually die. There is also no reason not to maximize my own pleasure, through whatever means necessary (because, again, once we die none of this will matter anyways, so who cares.)

Any predilection modern atheists have towards charity or altruism are the result of the influence of Christian ideals on their worldview, whether they chose to admit that fact or not.
 
Last edited:
The suicide rate has increased, drastically. The rise of the modern atheism has seen a frightening increase in people taking their own lives, especially among younger people. Couple that with the demand for Euthanasia, and you can clearly see the fruits of a God-less worldview.

(Social media and technological isolation certainly hasn’t helped either, nor has the overemphasis on nihilistic ideals in “children’s” programming.)
 
Last edited:
Yet, would not there remain some concept of virtue and vice? Indeed, human beings devoid of faith still seem to have some sense that they should seek goodness and avoid evil. I doubt religion is the only factor keeping humanity from descending into the shadowy depths of hedonism, crime and narcissism as you describe them.
 
There is some aspect of natural law, ingrained in the hearts of all people, that tends towards order. However, in the last hundred years we’ve seen how easy it is the squash that natural law, especially when people look to government for guidance. At one point in time I would have agreed with you that a God-less society could still be ordered and good to an extent. Nowadays, I really can’t.
 
Indeed, the godless and ofyen violent ideologies of the 20th century often had as a main purpose to destroy one’s innate moral sense and replace it with worship of the leader or party or cause. Yet, a godless person not corrupted by such ideologies must retain some sense of morality. For these people are basically good. I have known many atheists who were decent and moral people.
 
I don’t disagree, though I do still say that their decency and morality finds its source in God, whether through ingrained Christian “social norms,” such as charity, or through the more important natural law, which is written on the hearts of all men.
 
Indeed. Such truths seem clear to those willing to see.
 
I really can’t either. Freedom is not free. And people cannot live without limits, self-discipline and a knowledge of right and wrong. The “best” result would be social anarchy and/or social isolation.
 
ProdglArchitect said:
Eventually, this universe will burn out, or collapse back in on itself, or freeze to death, and nothing of what any of us have said or done will amount to anything.
Click to expand...
Actually what scientists predict is the universe stops expanding, then all planets, stars, etc. become dust… a soup of particles to be precise… then eventually everything stops moving and because there is no change from one moment to the next… that is the end of time, time ceases to exist.
Just clarifying… I agree with your point.
 
ProdglArchitect said:
Any predilection modern atheists have towards charity or altruism are the result of the influence of Christian ideals on their worldview, whether they chose to admit that fact or not.
Click to expand...
Wouldn’t go that far. Buddhists are atheist and value compassion. And I dont think even Christian care for others is based on some future reward or punishment. A focus on what is best here and now is available to believers and unbelievers regardless of the rational for determining “best”.
 
I’ve never heard that theory before. I’ve heard the big freeze, great compression, and general collapse / burnout, but never dust. Cool.
TechieGuy said:
Stoicism is compatible with atheism
Click to expand...
Stoicism is about how you deal with hardship, not a philosophy for the meaning of existence. You would embrace your nihilistic perspective with stoicism.
 
Last edited:
Like I said, you don’t have to admit it for it to be true.

You can see the difference when you look at how pre-Christian pagan societies handled the poor. Put simply, they didn’t. Check out that book I mentioned, Hostile Witnesses. A few of the letters from the times of emerging Catholicism outline the leadership’s utter disregard for even the concept of charity, and show how foreign it was to their world view.

I’m not saying that there was no charity prior to Christianity, such things are part of the natural law; I’m just saying it wasn’t a codified aspect of social structure in the way it has become today.
 
ProdglArchitect said:
Like I said, you don’t have to admit it for it to be true.

You can see the difference when you look at how pre-Christian pagan societies handled the poor. Put simply, they didn’t. Check out that book I mentioned, Hostile Witnesses. A few of the letters from the times of emerging Catholicism outline the leadership’s utter disregard for even the concept of charity, and show how foreign it was to their world view.

I’m not saying that there was no charity prior to Christianity, such things are part of the natural law; I’m just saying it wasn’t a codified aspect of social structure in the way it has become today.
Click to expand...
I would attribute the world’s increased charity for the poor to the increased wealth and standard of living, more than any institution or influence. Christianity’s dogmas, which greatly reduce the empowerment of woman, have has as large of a negative impact on the poor as any other self-centered movements.
 
laylow said:
Christianity’s dogmas, which greatly reduce the empowerment of woman,
Click to expand...
LMFAO

Alright, now I know you don’t have the slightest clue what you’re talking about.

Do you have any idea, whatsoever, how Christianity spread?

It was driven, in large part, by the wives of the Pagan men. Do you know why this was? Because Christian ideals represeented a massive improvement in how society viewed them at the time. In Christianity, men and women are equal, both beloved children of God. Men are to love their women, and women are to love their men. They are to be subservient to each other, and the man has the obligation to die to him self for his wife, literally if necessary.

Women spread the faith because it empowered them. Far from lowering their position or stripping them of their rights and authority, the were drawn to Christianity because of the reverence and honor it bestowed on them.

I don’t expect you to believe this. In fact, I imagine you’re having a fairly visceral reaction against it right about now, but that doesn’t make it any less true. History is not subject to the whims of the individual, though sadly which parts of history get emphasized, and how they are emphasized, it greatly influenced by the teacher. I imagine this is why you have developed such a flawed understanding of the role women played and had in Christianity. The history is there if you’re actually interested in learning about it. I’ll see if I can find a few books that’ll help you out.
 
Last edited:
ProdglArchitect said:
Alright, now I know you don’t have the slightest clue what you’re talking about.
Click to expand...
There are many studies regarding the relationship of the empowerment of women to the alleviation of poverty. Here is one example: http://globalcentre.org/uploads/JADS 5-4 Poverty P 46-53.pdf

70% of the world’s poorest people are women.

Dated religious dogmas such as birth control restrictions and women subservience have helped keep the majority of the world’s women in a unempowered state.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top