Why I am not a Christian

[atheist1]

BTW…I believe the priests name was Paul Shanley…not sure about whether his bishop knew of his activities or not. I’ll see what I can find.

 

[PeterJ]

I never said you were immoral.
I said “some people” are weak.

You implied that I am both immoral and weak.

Catholicc:

I read the OP for the first time, and my conclusion is that **this is a classic example of someone who just wants to do whatever he feels like doing, and is too afraid to make the sarafices & changes in his life that God wants of us. **Some people are strong, but some people are weak and cannot resist their fallen desires. So, rather than try to be strong and do the difficult thing, they intellectualize their way out of it in order to ease their own conscience. The fact that the poster felt the need to post all of this stuff is proof that his conscience is bothering him: He seeks validation for his wayward beliefs, or else he seeks someone to show him that he’s wrong: One or the other. If he were truly comfortable with his new position he would never have bothered to come to this forum in the first plasce.

Yes, I do dismiss your arguments as rationalisations. Humans can often rationalize anything they wish of they are bent on doing it. And your arguments are erroneous, based on an obvious misunderstanding of Catholic teaching and morality.

Yet another unsubstantiated claim, what misunderstandings?

I suppose I could possibly be wrong as to the reason WHY you are not Christian, but your ultimate decision to reject Christianity IS wrong, and of that I have no doubt.

I provided reasons for my claims, you provided only insult and prejudice.

 

[Catholicc]

Apparently you have never heard of the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA).

The Godless descend into all manner of filth when left to their own designs

Wasn’t there a catholic priest who was very active in NAMBLA, with his bishops knowledge?

There are two kinds of Godless people: Those who are and admit it, and those who are but don’t admit is but pretend to be Godly. I would say that the priest falls under the latter.

 

[Deum_quaerens]

It’s sad that you can’t reason that child sexual abuse is wrong without god telling you it is.

What is sad is that you cannot come to terms with the logical implications of your own belief.

 

[bbarrick8383]

But we have christians who are guilty of enslaving a race of people and trying to wipe out another race of people. Believers are capable of commiting atrocities just as easily as atheists are…perhaps more so. I would say that as we in America move closer to becoming a secular society with less religious influence we will become more peaceful.

I haven’t read anyone explaining how “pick your favorite communist county” is founded upon atheism. I’m not sure what that means.

You have a much greater history of Africa enslaving its own people, than you do a history of America buying some slaves from that country. Most Americans are ignorant about slavery, most african americans think that we were horrible evil slavemasters when most of them were better off here than where they came from. As a matter of fact, most if not all african americans today are better off here to this day.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Do you really need god to tell you child abuse is wrong?

Are you suggesting that some things are universally wrong?

Yes…even liars like to be told the truth.

Hmmm…how did that happen?

Tread carefully here…this slippery slope leads to the conclusion that God does exist.

 

[Catholicc]

But we have christians who are guilty of enslaving a race of people and trying to wipe out another race of people.

Believe it or not, slavery or “indentured servitude” is not objectively immoral. Unfortunately the by-products of slavery, such as cruelty and bigotry and violence, are immoral, which is why it is probably best to avoid it.

One cannot judge centuries-old societies based on Amercan 21st century societal norms. Thats what some people try to do when they call the Founding Fathers immoral because they owned slaves. They were NOT immoral, they were just men of their times.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Wasn’t there a catholic priest who was very active in NAMBLA, with his bishops knowledge?

Regardless, I’m not sure what your post is supposed to show.

Nor yours. Do you believe that Christians claim to be perfect or without sin? No one would make such a claim, and expecting any group of people - even the leadership of the Catholic Church - to be without sin or sinners is and unrealistic and false standard.

As a percentage, though, how many atheists were members of NAMBLA? Since you declare that this type of behavior is wrong (though in the absence of any objective authority since God does not exist), shouldn’t you be more concerned with the group whose members make up the greater percentage of the offenders?

I’m willing to bet that there are many demographic groups that would provide you with a much larger target than the Catholic priesthood.

 

[atheist1]

Nor yours. Do you believe that Christians claim to be perfect or without sin? No one would make such a claim, and expecting any group of people - even the leadership of the Catholic Church - to be without sin or sinners is and unrealistic and false standard.

As a percentage, though, how many atheists were members of NAMBLA? Since you declare that this type of behavior is wrong (though in the absence of any objective authority since God does not exist), shouldn’t you be more concerned with the group whose members make up the greater percentage of the offenders?

I’m willing to bet that there are many demographic groups that would provide you with a much larger target than the Catholic priesthood.

Congratulations, you came in the middle of a discussion and completely missed the point.

I have no idea what the statistics will reveal about NAMBLA but it is probably a fair bet that there were more believers than atheists in their ranks given the society in which we live.

 

[atheist1]

Believe it or not, slavery or “indentured servitude” is not objectively immoral. Unfortunately the by-products of slavery, such as cruelty and bigotry and violence, are immoral, which is why it is probably best to avoid it.

One cannot judge centuries-old societies based on Amercan 21st century societal norms. Thats what some people try to do when they call the Founding Fathers immoral because they owned slaves. They were NOT immoral, they were just men of their times.

How can you say they were men of their times and hold to objective morality or absolute truth?

 

[atheist1]

Are you suggesting that some things are universally wrong?

Yes…even liars like to be told the truth.

Hmmm…how did that happen?

Tread carefully here…this slippery slope leads to the conclusion that God does exist.

I don’t know how you want to phrase it but yes, child sexual abuse is wrong. Good luck trying to prove the slippery slope.

 

[atheist1]

You have a much greater history of Africa enslaving its own people, than you do a history of America buying some slaves from that country. Most Americans are ignorant about slavery, most african americans think that we were horrible evil slavemasters when most of them were better off here than where they came from. As a matter of fact, most if not all african americans today are better off here to this day.

Are you justifying slavery? I can’t imagine that’s the point of your post but that’s how I read it.

 

[Deum_quaerens]

I don’t know how you want to phrase it but yes, child sexual abuse is wrong. Good luck trying to prove the slippery slope.

Once again, you just assert that child abuse is wrong without any basis for doing so. As I have said, if you were honest to yourself, you would recognize that your worldview, wherein human beings are nothing but accidental accretion of atoms, implies an equivalence between your morality and that of a child abuser.

 

[atheist1]

What is sad is that you cannot come to terms with the logical implications of your own belief.

What I usually encounter are believers who have never considered that they could be wrong or have listened to maybe one debate between a believer and an atheist and then declare themselves experts on the subject of atheism.

Do you really need your god to explain to you what is right and wrong in every instance?

 

[Deum_quaerens]

Do you really need your god to explain to you what is right and wrong in every instance?

It really is quite simple: without God, there can be no objective right and wrong. One cannot construe an objective morality from matter.

 

[Catholicc]

Believe it or not, slavery or “indentured servitude” is not objectively immoral. Unfortunately the by-products of slavery, such as cruelty and bigotry and violence, are immoral, which is why it is probably best to avoid it.

One cannot judge centuries-old societies based on Amercan 21st century societal norms. Thats what some people try to do when they call the Founding Fathers immoral because they owned slaves. They were NOT immoral, they were just men of their times.

Are you justifying slavery? I can’t imagine that’s the point of your post but that’s how I read it.

I don’t need to justify it, because it id not objectively immoral. Your problem is that you have a pop-culture view of slavery, just like you have a pop-culture view of God and morality. Everything that you have been posting is subjective and not objective.

In Old Testament times, people who served a particular house were often very close with the owner’s of the house, and they often had great affection for each other. There was not the sort of brutality invloved as there was with American slavery.

At any rate, I am merely trying to show that your previous post about Christians taking slaves is totally irrelavant.

 

[atheist1]

What is sad is that you cannot come to terms with the logical implications of your own belief.

While I can’t argue for the case of an “absolute” morality (I don’t think one can do a very good job w/out a belief in a deity of some kind) it seems to me to be obvious the consequences associated with child sexual abuse, the horrific damage it does to a child, would render the act immoral.

Are you really unable to see that?

 

[atheist1]

I don’t need to justify it, because it id not objectively immoral. Your problem is that you have a pop-culture view of slavery, just like you have a pop-culture view of God and morality. Everything that you have been posting is subjective and not objective.

In Old Testament times, people who served a particular house were often very close with the owner’s of the house, and they often had great affection for each other. There was not the sort of brutality invloved as there was with American slavery.

At any rate, I am merely trying to show that your previous post about Christians taking slaves is totally irrelavant.

I don’t have a “pop culture” view of either and in fact, based on my limited discussion of slavery, it would be rather difficult to form much of any opinion about my knowledge of the subject.

I did not discuss OT slavery but the slavery which took place on our soil and brought it up only to show that believers are sometimes not consistent with their various creeds and holy books. Like it or not, Christians too act immorally from time to time.

To you I guess the American slave trade was both brutal (I think it was finally condemned by your church as immoral) and in some sense a blessing since, at least according to you, the slaves were better off as slaves on a plantation than free in Africa.

 

[Deum_quaerens]

While I can’t argue for the case of an “absolute” morality (I don’t think one can do a very good job w/out a belief in a deity of some kind) it seems to me to be obvious the consequences associated with child sexual abuse, the horrific damage it does to a child, would render the act immoral.

Are you really unable to see that?

On which basis do you say that the consequences of child abuse are “horrific”? You can say that they consist in a notable alteration of the psychological state of the victim, but you cannot judge that alteration as being “good” or “bad”, since you must consider it a psychological process ultimately rooted in matter, on which no morality can be elaborated.

Are you really unable to see that?

 

[atheist1]

The idea that there is no God is mathematically impossible. Basic probability tells you that the odds of a blob of primordial ooze morphing into a man, regardless of how much time has passed, are so remote that mathematicians regard it as impossible. Emile Borel and Fred Hoyle are just two mathematicians who reject evolution on statistical grounds. The idea is a “Statistcal Immposibility”. For example, it is theoretically possible that you could blow up a junk yard and all the flying pieces would land and form themselves into a Cadillac - that is possible. But the odds against it are so high that it constitutes a “Statistcal Immposibility”. Same goes for evolution out of nothing. That only leaves one possibility: God. There’s your proof, mathematically arrived at.

This is creatinist hucksterism at it’s best/worst.

If you are interested in a very brief rebuttal go to:
csicop.org/intelligentdesignwatch/probability-one.html