"If gods existed, the only moral thing would be to oppose them"

[Emphyrio]

If Rand has a morality, which he necessarily has, otherwise he could not declare acts to be moral, he has a belief and therefore he also has a god. He just thinks his god to be superior to all other, older, gods. Foolish megalomania, in other words the devil at work.

Nah, there is a logically consistent atheist morality: Marquis de Sade. I assume that's what Rand is referring me to read rather than actually explain his beliefs.

[Anon]

Morality is the attempt to live up to God's nature. It is not an artificial, arbitrary thing separate from God and merely enforced by might but a fundamental aspect of reality.

I mostly agree but I'll quibble on this point. God may set rules for us that, as soveriegn, he is not obligated to follow himself. Obvious one: thou shalt not kill.

To quibble even further, I'd argue God isn't even killing anybody, the act of killing can only be made by somebody of similar nature, and God obviously isn't of the same nature of us. God simply gave us existence, and he has the right to end it whenever he wants, that's not "killing".

[rusty_shackleford]

Here's my question to the idea that people don't need God to be moral:
Why did it take less than a single generation for pagans and atheists to degenerate into having public homosexual orgies while forcing children to watch?

When your grandparent was a young adult, movies weren't allowed to show two adults kissing. Now we have grown men sitting in public piss pools waiting to be pissed on, endorsed by their local ethnically Jewish religiously Atheist politician. Spoilers for your sanity.

► Show Spoiler

[Emphyrio]

Morality is the attempt to live up to God's nature. It is not an artificial, arbitrary thing separate from God and merely enforced by might but a fundamental aspect of reality.

I mostly agree but I'll quibble on this point. God may set rules for us that, as soveriegn, he is not obligated to follow himself. Obvious one: thou shalt not kill.

To quibble even further, I'd argue God isn't even killing anybody, the act of killing can only be made by somebody of similar nature, and God obviously isn't of the same nature of us. God simply gave us existence, and he has the right to end it whenever he wants, that's not "killing".

what about angels amd satans

[ArcaneLurker]

You unconsciously mean education was good when it was directed by christians. Because christians (except the evangelical-zionist variety, these are only pretense farisees following the devil) see the importance of impartial, scientific education to comprehend the universe God has created and put us in.

I know they were certainly more Christian than the current Academia, but by caring about objective reality and matter, and not allowing their faiths or interpretations of religious texts to hinder their sense of truth or perception of reality, they were more materialistic than the Marxoid Atheists we have now, whom are literally 'Postmodernists' that assert lots of wild things as "their personal subjective truth".

I'd also say evidence suggests genetics plays a big role in behaviour, so:
A hysterical extreme leftist may come from parents who were fanatic Christians, what's the link? Their behaviour is similar despite being opposed in ideology. In eras of the past there was no real alternative to Christianity, but now, Leftist nonsense is the dominant culture, not Christianity, so their behaviour matches if it includes being motivated to join whatever seems like the dominant ideology (investment also plays into this).
The same applies to those that care about objective truth above other factors.

You're, unbeknownst to you, getting exactly the kind of materialistic education you always wished nowadays. Because marxists are the biggest materialists there are.

How can they be materialistic when they prioritise their own spiteful & envy-driven metaphysical ideas which are in direct contradiction to observable reality? They seem frustrated with nature if anything.
They have a blind faith that is greater than a lot of self-proclaimed Christians, but that faith is not in a deity, it's in much more vague concepts driven by the same underlying Egalitarianism that is in modern forms of Christianity. There are religions other than Christianity. It's not just a "Christianity or nothing" kind of deal. Sure, specific Machiavellian figures are materialistic, because they don't believe the ideals or nonsense they use to manipulate others.

Even the concept of blanket welfare/ economic equality is an inherently self-righteous, idealistic idea, not something derived from highly utilitarian materialism.
But it's even more obvious when it comes to stances on race.

There is an evolution from occultist or new age Socialists into the development of 'secular ethics' and it's super Jewish & dare I say: gnostic?

I was an atheist until my twenties, I totally get what you're saying.

I can only say atheism is ultimately a state of purposeless existence. Yeah as an atheist you can think you can make your own purpose, but that's too vague and ultimately a lie because you know it'll all be gone after you die or shortly after that. You don't believe there is anything to you after you die and that's ultimately purposeless.

You can't properly justify a solid moral system like the one Jesus Christ proposed because it doesn't make sense being "good" if there's nothing in the afterlife, no God to love, appease and fear. The only course of action that would make sense in an atheistic reality would be to be the most greedy and egotistical you could, so you could accumulate the most matter possible to extract the most you can of your superficial, materialistic existence, because that's all there is in a materialistic life, that's the hard limit.

It's all too superficial to me, that's why I couldn't stick with it for longer after I got some more conscience.

And to end, I'm a christian because Jesus Christ is the only one who conceptualized a moral system and metaphysical vision that make sense. The other religions are all materialistic almost the same way as being an atheist, a waste of time.

See the problem is: it doesn't make sense to me. And that's not for a lack of trying to make it make sense.
Atheism has it's own problems and I argue with Atheists too.

What purpose is there in the grand design of Christianity? Isn't it to be slain as Jesus was, to prove yourself a follower, or live to the end when the Second Coming arrives? And then?
I've thought about it and I don't like the sound of the promise of eternal life that is presented, and I don't believe it really adds any relief to any existential crisis.
Besides that, it only leaves the fear of eternal torture, which is not something I was ingrained with.

Do you mean other religions fail to build a coherent concept of the metaphysical?
That doesn't necessarily make them materialistic, it just makes them batshit insane.

[WhiteShark]

Morality is the attempt to live up to God's nature. It is not an artificial, arbitrary thing separate from God and merely enforced by might but a fundamental aspect of reality.

I mostly agree but I'll quibble on this point. God may set rules for us that, as soveriegn, he is not obligated to follow himself. Obvious one: thou shalt not kill.

You raise an interesting point, but that's not the best example of it, for that commandment were better translated, "Thou shalt not murder," because it is about unjustified killing. It's obvious from the Old Testament that there are many cases where it's justified, or even required, for one man to kill another.

A better example is the laws regarding cleanliness. It's clear they aren't essential morality from the way that Christians are not required to live under them, as per Saint Paul's teaching. On the other hand, I don't think the Israelites were judged for their formulaic hygeine so much as their obedience, and obedience is a virtue that is only truly put to the test when the act commanded is of unclear benefit, unpleasant, or contrary to one's wishes. Furthermore, obedience is one of God's virtues:

And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

So yes, I paritally concede this point. God can and does set artificial rules, but it is in the pursuit of cultivating man's obedience, which is itself an essential virtue.

[Anon]

I mostly agree but I'll quibble on this point. God may set rules for us that, as soveriegn, he is not obligated to follow himself. Obvious one: thou shalt not kill.

To quibble even further, I'd argue God isn't even killing anybody, the act of killing can only be made by somebody of similar nature, and God obviously isn't of the same nature of us. God simply gave us existence, and he has the right to end it whenever he wants, that's not "killing".

what about angels amd satans

When angels were killing people they were in human form as far as I know. But yeah I may be overreaching.

[Anon]

Morality is the attempt to live up to God's nature. It is not an artificial, arbitrary thing separate from God and merely enforced by might but a fundamental aspect of reality.

I mostly agree but I'll quibble on this point. God may set rules for us that, as soveriegn, he is not obligated to follow himself. Obvious one: thou shalt not kill.

You raise an interesting point, but that's not the best example of it, for that commandment were better translated, "Thou shalt not murder," because it is about unjustified killing. It's obvious from the Old Testament that there are many cases where it's justified, or even required, for one man to kill another.

A better example is the laws regarding cleanliness. It's clear they aren't essential morality from the way that Christians are not required to live under them, as per Saint Paul's teaching. On the other hand, I don't think the Israelites were judged for their formulaic hygeine so much as their obedience, and obedience is a virtue that is only truly put to the test when the act commanded is of unclear benefit, unpleasant, or contrary to one's wishes. Furthermore, obedience is one of God's virtues:

And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

So yes, I paritally concede this point. God can and does set artificial rules, but it is in the pursuit of cultivating man's obedience, which is itself an essential virtue.

Also about that, Jesus Christ himself said rules are not to be absolutely set in stone, and that they can be relativized in the name of a greater good, so while obedience is a virtue, mindless obedience might be a sin.

Matheus 12 quote, relativizing the rule of resting on Sabbath:

9 Going on from that place, he went into their synagogue, 10 and a man with a shriveled hand was there. Looking for a reason to bring charges against Jesus, they asked him, “Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?”

11 He said to them, “If any of you has a sheep and it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will you not take hold of it and lift it out? 12 How much more valuable is a person than a sheep! Therefore it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath.”

13 Then he said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” So he stretched it out and it was completely restored, just as sound as the other. 14 But the Pharisees went out and plotted how they might kill Jesus.

[Vergil]

Oh, I'm MUCH worse than that. I read most of the various gods' books and not only am I glad they don't exist, because they're utterly monstrous, but if they did exist, the only moral thing to do would be to oppose them.

You really thought this r/atheism autism was worth a whole thread?

[Anon]

You unconsciously mean education was good when it was directed by christians. Because christians (except the evangelical-zionist variety, these are only pretense farisees following the devil) see the importance of impartial, scientific education to comprehend the universe God has created and put us in.

I know they were certainly more Christian than the current Academia, but by caring about objective reality and matter, and not allowing their faiths or interpretations of religious texts to hinder their sense of truth or perception of reality, they were more materialistic than the Marxoid Atheists we have now, whom are literally 'Postmodernists' that assert lots of wild things as "their personal subjective truth".

I'd also say evidence suggests genetics plays a big role in behaviour, so:
A hysterical extreme leftist may come from parents who were fanatic Christians, what's the link? Their behaviour is similar despite being opposed in ideology. In eras of the past there was no real alternative to Christianity, but now, Leftist nonsense is the dominant culture, not Christianity, so their behaviour matches if it includes being motivated to join whatever seems like the dominant ideology (investment also plays into this).
The same applies to those that care about objective truth above other factors.

How can they be materialistic when they prioritise their own spiteful & envy-driven metaphysical ideas which are in direct contradiction to observable reality? They seem frustrated with nature if anything.
They have a blind faith that is greater than a lot of self-proclaimed Christians, but that faith is not in a deity, it's in much more vague concepts driven by the same underlying Egalitarianism that is in modern forms of Christianity. There are religions other than Christianity. It's not just a "Christianity or nothing" kind of deal. Sure, specific Machiavellian figures are materialistic, because they don't believe the ideals or nonsense they use to manipulate others.

Even the concept of blanket welfare/ economic equality is an inherently self-righteous, idealistic idea, not something derived from highly utilitarian materialism.
But it's even more obvious when it comes to stances on race.

There is an evolution from occultist or new age Socialists into the development of 'secular ethics' and it's super Jewish & dare I say: gnostic?

I mean that's also materialistic, just not in the sense that you enjoy. They want to superficially enjoy their perversions, "carpe diem" and all that, and that's the most extreme materialism you can get. And that means not giving a fuck about science. Because what value will science have after you die, if it somehow limits how further you can enjoy your material life? Better corrupt it while you're live so you can enjoy your depravities further without the slightest guilt in conscience.

In order to have serious, science that seek the truth, you need people in direction that believe in the greater good, and most of these will necessarily be religious. Atheists are also capable of that, but that's when they got a christian education, but they're far more susceptible into being corrupted than christians, so science is always at risk when it's directed by mostly atheists.

See the problem is: it doesn't make sense to me. And that's not for a lack of trying to make it make sense.
Atheism has it's own problems and I argue with Atheists too.

What purpose is there in the grand design of Christianity? Isn't it to be slain as Jesus was, to prove yourself a follower, or live to the end when the Second Coming arrives? And then?
I've thought about it and I don't like the sound of the promise of eternal life that is presented, and I don't believe it really adds any relief to any existential crisis.
Besides that, it only leaves the fear of eternal torture, which is not something I was ingrained with.

Do you mean other religions fail to build a coherent concept of the metaphysical?
That doesn't necessarily make them materialistic, it just makes them batshit insane.

The purpose is to find acceptance, satisfaction and happiness in your existence despite of all difficulties you may face. And that includes believing all your good actions are contributing to the greater good (and more important, being conscient that your wrongful actions are making things ultimately worse for everybody). Something you can't really justify as an atheist.

God isn't expecting people to be slain as Jesus was. Jesus came to earth and got slain exactly to save the most people he could. That doesn't mean people are insusceptible to face very bad and tragic lives, that we all know very well, but that certainly isn't God's fault...

I think reducing things to "eternal torture" is misinterpretating things. The point is everybody will be equal in the Judgement. So while in earth things are unjust, everything will be equalized in the Judgement. That means all unfair, unjust, and evil and wrongful things you've done in Earth will be made equal, the same for everything good and just, that all accounting unfair sufferings you had in your life and many other things God will consider, as his judgement will be absolute and holistic.

So you won't be eternally tortured, things will simply be made Just according to how you acted on your material life. And yeah that means certainly a lot of people will get fucked in the afterlife...

I think a lot of resentment you nourish towards christianism is ultimately from the sect you were indoctrinated earlier in your life. Most likely you were being directed by an evangelical-zionist agent of devil.

My suggestion is that you forget about any past sect teachings and read the Bible raw, without any judgement. I myself am not guided by any sect or any priest, my only guide is the Bible, more specifically Jesus Christ.

[ArcaneLurker]

I mean that's also materialistic, just not in the sense that you enjoy. They want to superficially enjoy their perversions, "carpe diem" and all that, and that's the most extreme materialism you can get. And that means not giving a fuck about science. Because what value will science have after you die, if it somehow limits how further you can enjoy your material life? Better corrupt it while you're live so you can enjoy your depravities further without the slightest guilt in conscience.

That's hedonistic, which is a separate thing from being materialistic in my understanding. Considering how many New Age hippies are hedonistic yet they believe in some kind of spiritual plane or force and a mother Goddess like Gaia, and that everyone has a soul, and will be made one again after the end... you could even say they adopted the religion to follow pursuits of pleasure, but calling it materialistic doesn't seem accurate.

Because they are atheist or agnostic they are inherently materialistic in that specific way, because they can't logically read between the lines when it comes to looking at DNA or things of that nature. There is a departure from the mysticism inherent to the source of their metaphysics or "ethical" values (which are still prioritised over objective material evidence).

In order to have serious, science that seek the truth, you need people in direction that believe in the greater good, and most of these will necessarily be religious. Atheists are also capable of that, but that's when they got a christian education, but they're war more susceptible into being corrupted than christians, so science is always at risk when it's directed by mostly atheists.

Atheists are more libtarded, in general, although that seems like a complex issue... like you say the average person just doesn't want to think about these things, just wants to engage in hedonism as much as possible, and do whatever is socially accepted in their environment, and that may be a chicken or the egg thing-- you could say the fact they're atheistic is what is causing this behaviour, or you could say it's in their nature to be more inclined towards that behaviour and conformity to the current regime/ culture, and that's why they're atheistic. Since most modern Christians are not really far off most Atheists anyway, there's a lot of overlap there.

The problem is cowardice. There have been atheists that have tried to go against the popularised Marxoid beliefs, but being turned into a social pariah and losing Academic privileges or job opportunities is enough to prevent that in most cases. Are you going to tell me that only a Christian faith creates bravery?

The purpose is to find acceptance, satisfaction and happiness in your existence despite of all difficulties you may face. And that includes believing all your good actions are contributing to the greater good (and more important, being conscient that your wrongful actions are making things ultimately worse for everybody). Something you can't really justify as an atheist.

More like an Agnostic or Deist.
I'm seeing religion being used to fuel more bad than good, especially when they have misguided high-minded ideals. A fanatic may think they are contributing to a greater good, but they may be bringing a greater darkness upon the world because they lack the capacity to understand what their enemies understand-- that's exactly how those Antifa think, despite not being a typical "religion," and even if their metaphysical beliefs are not something they reached in the same way as a religious person.

God isn't expecting people to be slain as Jesus was. Jesus came to earth and got slain exactly to save the most people he could. That doesn't mean people are insusceptible to face very bad and tragic lives, that we all know very well, but that certainly isn't God's fault...

I'm sure you know "If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it" and there are many other texts on the topic which show how I've not just pulled this out of my ass. I'm sure there's some kind of theological excuse for why it doesn't always apply though.

I think reducing things to "eternal torture" is misinterpretating things.

It's the most common Christian interpretation. I was taught the, admittedly, more Karaite Jewish understanding, which is that Gehenna = 'eternal fires for the purpose of completely destroying refuse', meaning that it's not eternal torture like in the underworld of some "pagan" faiths but the "second death," which is the death from which there is no return.

These kinds of discussions or disagreements will never have a definitive resolution.

So you won't be eternally tortured, things will simply be made Just according to how you acted on your material life. And yeah that means certainly a lot of people will get fucked in the afterlife...

If you believe that then it seems like you'll be less motivated to create justice here, because you're assuming they'll get their just-deserts after death no matter what happens in life.
Much like how people can be complacent if they believe in Karma.
I find there is injustice in a religion that promises to forgive serial killers and put them in the same paradise as their young victims, whereas something as ambiguous as "resisting the holy spirit" is the only unforgivable offense, I thought "maybe that's something that necessarily includes most egregious motivations & actions" but it's impossible to know for sure. I also can't help but notice how Europeans have been used in spreading Christianity to tribal retards, yet they were used like a tool and presumably discarded, there is no other way for me to percieve this in such absence of divine guidance or intervention.

I also suspect that Christianity created selective pressures which in turn formed the various Puritan fanatic types who are now galivanting about under the banner of Karl Marx and various other manipulative Machiavellian figures. That isn't something I can really blame Christians for, it is what it is, but I think persistent ignorance in regards to genetics is not a good idea.
"If the rule you followed brought you to this, of what use was the rule?"

[Decline]

logically consistent atheist morality

Supposedly there's also dry water, cool fire and living dead.

[Anon]

I mean that's also materialistic, just not in the sense that you enjoy. They want to superficially enjoy their perversions, "carpe diem" and all that, and that's the most extreme materialism you can get. And that means not giving a fuck about science. Because what value will science have after you die, if it somehow limits how further you can enjoy your material life? Better corrupt it while you're live so you can enjoy your depravities further without the slightest guilt in conscience.

That's hedonistic, which is a separate thing from being materialistic in my understanding. Considering how many New Age hippies are hedonistic yet they believe in some kind of spiritual plane or force and a mother Goddess like Gaia, and that everyone has a soul, and will be made one again after the end... you could even say they adopted the religion to follow pursuits of pleasure, but calling it materialistic doesn't seem accurate.

Because they are atheist or agnostic they are inherently materialistic in that specific way, because they can't logically read between the lines when it comes to looking at DNA or things of that nature. There is a departure from the mysticism inherent to the source of their metaphysics or "ethical" values (which are still prioritised over objective material evidence).

Believing in some form of shallow spiritualism is materialistic as fuck. Mainly when they believe in these sort of things mostly as means of recognition and socialization, as you can see these people will never lose an opportunity to expose in social media how "spiritual" they are. This sort of thing for me is the epithome of materialism, more than a stubborn atheist, who's willing to even lose friends and get in unfavourable situations to defend his ideals and principles. That idealism transcends the materialism more than these shallow leftists will ever do, all these people seek is attention, clout and validation of their perversities.

Atheists are more libtarded, in general, although that seems like a complex issue... like you say the average person just doesn't want to think about these things, just wants to engage in hedonism as much as possible, and do whatever is socially accepted in their environment, and that may be a chicken or the egg thing-- you could say the fact they're atheistic is what is causing this behaviour, or you could say it's in their nature to be more inclined towards that behaviour and conformity to the current regime/ culture, and that's why they're atheistic. Since most modern Christians are not really far off most Atheists anyway, there's a lot of overlap there.

The problem is cowardice. There have been atheists that have tried to go against the popularised Marxoid beliefs, but being turned into a social pariah and losing Academic privileges or job opportunities is enough to prevent that in most cases. Are you going to tell me that only a Christian faith creates bravery?

This is not necessarily tied to atheism, I say about atheism because atheism is the conceptual rejection of anything metaphysical. But surely lots of religious people are extremely materialistic as well, often more materialistic in principle and values than plenty atheists as I mentioned before. Remember that quote I mentioned previously of Jesus Christ saying prostitutes are more likely to find salvation than lots of religious people? That's the idea.

More like an Agnostic or Deist.
I'm seeing religion being used to fuel more bad than good, especially when they have misguided high-minded ideals. A fanatic may think they are contributing to a greater good, but they may be bringing a greater darkness upon the world because they lack the capacity to understand what their enemies understand-- that's exactly how those Antifa think, despite not being a typical "religion," and even if their metaphysical beliefs are not something they reached in the same way as a religious person.

Any idea can be taken for fanaticism and used as an excuse to do evil, and indeed religion is a great fuel for that.

But at the same time religion is a necessity of humanity, we would've never have gotten so many well functioning societies as we have nowadays if we didn't have christianism unifying so many people that'd have been divided otherwise. Scientific development as we see nowadays is also consequence of scientific development largely done by christians.

And that's only talking about the material plane. I also do believe people need religion and faith to live a full life in all senses.

I'm sure you know "If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it" and there are many other texts on the topic which show how I've not just pulled this out of my ass. I'm sure there's some kind of theological excuse for why it doesn't always apply though.

If you get the bible and read the new testament, you'll see it's a recurring theme that Jesus speaks by parables. He does that because he wants people to understand the spirit of his teachings, not being too attached to its form. He wants people to follow his teachings, and that's what he means by "taking his cross", not that he wants people to get crucified themselves obviously... Plus Jesus is well aware that most people that'll hear his teachings will not follow what he preaches anyway, as per the Parable of the Sower.

And by "losing his life" it's also evident he doesn't want you to suicide yourself or get killed, but rather that converting to christianity is adhering to a completely new vision of your life, in some ways detaching from your older self.

It's the most common Christian interpretation.

It's divination, because God has never said how he'll run his Judgement and the exact penalities as far as I know. He's only gave vague ideas of his criteria, through Jesus Christ's teachings.

I was taught the, admittedly, more Karaite Jewish understanding

So he was an evangelical-zionist as predicted. A farisee passing as christian, or rather, a wolf in sheep's clothing.

If you believe that then it seems like you'll be less motivated to create justice here, because you're assuming they'll get their just-deserts after death no matter what happens in life.

You couldn't be more wrong here.

You should be well aware that we're all sinners. That means theoretically we'd all get screwed in the Judgement, but that's obviously not the case. If you read the New Testament, you'd understand that the easiest way to get forgiven of your sins would be to do good in this world. And the easiest way to ease your Judgement is by forgiving other people who wrong you, because God will judge you according to how you judged people on Earth as well, that'll certainly be part of his criteria.

Yeah it can be compared to Karma but it's way more vague but holistic at the same time. It's not only about doing good to compensate your bad. It'll also depend on your condition in life (rich will get a harder judgement than the poor, the oppressed will be more favoured than the oppressor), among other criteria.

I find there is injustice in a religion that promises to forgive serial killers and put them in the same paradise as their young victims

Evangelical-zionists make it seem like it's an extremely straightforward Judgement when it isn't, and that gives this kind of impression, which is an extremely superficial way of seeing the Judgement. It's certain that serial killers will face a way harder judgement than the people they killed. I can't say their verdict though because that's an individual judgement and only God knows the result.

whereas something as ambiguous as "resisting the holy spirit" is the only unforgivable offense, I thought "maybe that's something that necessarily includes most egregious motivations & actions" but it's impossible to know for sure. I also can't help but notice how Europeans have been used in spreading Christianity to tribal retards, yet they were used like a tool and presumably discarded, there is no other way for me to percieve this in such absence of divine guidance or intervention.

I also suspect that Christianity created selective pressures which in turn formed the various Puritan fanatic types who are now galivanting about under the banner of Karl Marx and various other manipulative Machiavellian figures. That isn't something I can really blame Christians for, it is what it is, but I think persistent ignorance in regards to genetics is not a good idea.
"If the rule you followed brought you to this, of what use was the rule?"

About this, again, you're judging the religion based on actions of some of its followers. As you should be well aware, there are retards in any sect, any kind of thing that has a collective following.

The only source of true teachings is the Bible, more specifically the New Testament. Even the Old Testament should be taken with a grain of salt, as it's well known that parts of it were corrupted and manipulated by jews. Plus Jesus flexibilizes significant parts of it.

[KnightoftheWind]

Make a thread about a shitposter, get bargain basement, reddit-tier "musings" in return. Did we expect anything less, guys?. If I had a dollar for all the cockamamie, riff-raff opinions about "heckin' spirituality" and how "bad/boring Christianity is!" on the internet, I'd probably have $10000 in my pocket.

If it's not accepted Orthodox doctrine or works related to such, it's not worth paying any attention to. Period. Your nonsensical thoughts about "what sounds cooler to you" means less than the toilet paper I flush away on a daily basis, and that's a fact. Jannies, close this thread.

[Anon]

Jesus Christ sucks, overlord priest good

[KnightoftheWind]

Jesus Christ sucks, overlord priest good

Protestants like you are absolute children. You need your feefees coddled by your fast food "pastors" who yell sweet nothings into your ears, and have "christian rock concerts" sung to you so that you can go home and comfort yourselves with the thought of being "raptured" tomorrow. Prots should be tried in an imperial court for the degradation and humiliation of Western Christianity. Every single one should be held to account.

[Anon]

Jesus Christ sucks, overlord priest good

Protestants like you are absolute children. You need your feefees coddled by your fast food "pastors" who yell sweet nothings into your ears, and have "christian rock concerts" sung to you so that you can go home and comfort yourselves with the thought of being "raptured" tomorrow. Prots should be tried in an imperial court for the degradation and humiliation of Western Christianity. Every single one should be held to account.

I don't have a sect and I made that reasonably obvious, you fucking dumbass. Maybe you should've read texts like maybe the Bible instead of mindlessly hearing what your priest says so you wouldn't be such an illiterate fag.

[Emphyrio]

Protestants like you are absolute children. You need your feefees coddled by your fast food "pastors" who yell sweet nothings into your ears, and have "christian rock concerts" sung to you so that you can go home and comfort yourselves with the thought of being "raptured" tomorrow. Prots should be tried in an imperial court for the degradation and humiliation of Western Christianity. Every single one should be held to account.

Your shtick is getting old.

[rusty_shackleford]

He's got a point.

[Nammu Archag]

why does god/gods have to be good or evil?

[Anon]

To be clear I also loathe protestants in general (especially considering most of them are zionists) and I also think more traditional/orthodox doctrines are better and truer to christianity. I am baptized and will marry in the Catholic Apostolic church, even though I don't follow any of them in particular, I only try to follow Christ's word by the Bible in reservation and anonimity, only seeking knowledge from more enlightned sources in eventual excerpts.

[KnightoftheWind]

Protestants like you are absolute children. You need your feefees coddled by your fast food "pastors" who yell sweet nothings into your ears, and have "christian rock concerts" sung to you so that you can go home and comfort yourselves with the thought of being "raptured" tomorrow. Prots should be tried in an imperial court for the degradation and humiliation of Western Christianity. Every single one should be held to account.

Your shtick is getting old.

Why do you assume everyone is acting ironically?. Can there not be a genuine man around, with genuine faith in genuine things?.

[Tweed]

Orthodox and Catholics are the Canadians of Christianity, they can never ever shut the fuck up about not being Protestant.

[ArcaneLurker]

Believing in some form of shallow spiritualism is materialistic as fuck. Mainly when they believe in these sort of things mostly as means of recognition and socialization, as you can see these people will never lose an opportunity to expose in social media how "spiritual" they are. This sort of thing for me is the epithome of materialism, more than a stubborn atheist, who's willing to even lose friends and get in unfavourable situations to defend his ideals and principles. That idealism transcends the materialism more than these shallow leftists will ever do, all these people seek is attention, clout and validation of their perversities.

"Believing in and prioritising metaphysical concepts is materialistic as fuck." Respectfully: No. That makes no sense. I mean "materialistic" is usually used as a pejorative, and even that wouldn't fit.
And whether it's shallow or not doesn't matter because most of Christians have shallow beliefs.
Shallow in the sense that they wouldn't really kill for their supposed beliefs like Muslims, and also shallow in the sense that they don't ponder it much, and just accept whatever they're told or read.
But in the sense that I mean it, mostly because you used the word to describe me initially, it's where you prioritise objectivity over metaphysical theories & texts.

If you have a definition of "materialistic" which is essentially just everyone that you don't like then why would that invite self-reflection? Why would I care?

This is not necessarily tied to atheism, I say about atheism because atheism is the conceptual rejection of anything metaphysical. But surely lots of religious people are extremely materialistic as well, often more materialistic in principle and values than plenty atheists as I mentioned before. Remember that quote I mentioned previously of Jesus Christ saying prostitutes are more likely to find salvation than lots of religious people? That's the idea.

They reject the supernatural, which is not the same as rejecting "metaphysical" things in general. They have metaphysical concepts and theories which are prioritised.
To be honest, there are self-proclaimed atheists or agnostics that do actually believe in the supernatural, like a belief in ghosts or horoscopes?

Any idea can be taken for fanaticism and used as an excuse to do evil, and indeed religion is a great fuel for that.

But at the same time religion is a necessity of humanity, we would've never have gotten so many well functioning societies as we have nowadays if we didn't have christianism unifying so many people that'd have been divided otherwise. Scientific development as we see nowadays is also consequence of scientific development largely done by christians.

And that's only talking about the material plane. I also do believe people need religion and faith to live a full life in all senses.

So because of the incidental positives of Christianity in the past, I owe allegiance to something that doesn't make sense and may compound certain societal issues?

If you get the bible and read the new testament, you'll see it's a recurring theme that Jesus speaks by parables. He does that because he wants people to understand the spirit of his teachings, not being too attached to its form. He wants people to follow his teachings, and that's what he means by "taking his cross", not that he wants people to get crucified themselves obviously... Plus Jesus is well aware that most people that'll hear his teachings will not follow what he preaches anyway, as per the Parable of the Sower.

I understand the differences. Obviously it doesn't mean a literal crucification, but it is related to martyrdom. That's exactly what the Apostles did-- going out of your way to sacrifice your life in service to his cause, even becoming penniless, and then dying for it, if needs be. He did say not everyone would be called for that, but the willingness to self-sacrifice is still expected.

And by "losing his life" it's also evident he doesn't want you to suicide yourself or get killed, but rather that converting to christianity is adhering to a completely new vision of your life, in some ways detaching from your older self.

Highly debatable.

It's divination, because God has never said how he'll run his Judgement and the exact penalities as far as I know. He's only gave vague ideas of his criteria, through Jesus Christ's teachings.

Isn't divination when you ask spirits the future?

So he was an evangelical-zionist as predicted. A farisee passing as christian, or rather, a wolf in sheep's clothing.

He? Who? What?
They were Zionist back in WW2, and then became anti-Zionist. Hope that narrows it down. It's generally moronic, but the arguments about hell still stick-- especially compared to what the average Catholic has to say on it.
Catholic conception of hell comes from Etruscan beliefs more so than anything in the Bible.

And the easiest way to ease your Judgement is by forgiving other people who wrong you

I have a major problem with this.

Yeah it can be compared to Karma but it's way more vague but holistic at the same time. It's not only about doing good to compensate your bad. It'll also depend on your condition in life (rich will get a harder judgement than the poor, the oppressed will be more favoured than the oppressor), among other criteria.

The point is when they're wronged or conspired against they just shrug and accept it.

Evangelical-zionists make it seem like it's an extremely straightforward Judgement when it isn't, and that gives this kind of impression, which is an extremely superficial way of seeing the Judgement. It's certain that serial killers will face a way harder judgement than the people they killed. I can't say their verdict though because that's an individual judgement and only God knows the result.

Theorising about how God judges or not isn't the point, the point is what beliefs people have now because of the religion-- that it's possible for the serial killer to 'repent' or be redeemed, therefore they operate on that assumption.

About this, again, you're judging the religion based on actions of some of its followers. As you should be well aware, there are retards in any sect, any kind of thing that has a collective following.

The only source of true teachings is the Bible, more specifically the New Testament. Even the Old Testament should be taken with a grain of salt, as it's well known that parts of it were corrupted and manipulated by jews. Plus Jesus flexibilizes significant parts of it.

So you can't even trust your own holy text fully, and you also recognise that there are not really any proper sects or factions that offer a fully coherent set of interpretations.

I was talking about the impact of Christianity on selection processes over a thousand years... It's obvious someone like yourself isn't going to come to the same understanding though.
Which is part of the problem, there is an inherent blank slatism there, that everyone must have the same means of achieving 'salvation,' therefore in the ways that matter, they are all capable of altering their own thinking/ behaviour with the magic of religion.

Pretty sure that the 'resisting the holy spirit' verse is NT, not OT, since the OT is not about forgiveness but instead promotes communal stoning of @Slavic Sorcerer

[Anon]

I'm answering your quote but I'm thinking that at this point we've made our visions of this subject pretty clear and I'm feeling like there's nothing much more meaningful to discuss beyond that. You're free to quote me back again if you find it worth it but I probably won't answer back. I enjoyed the discussion, not many chances to have a meaningful conversation about this subject.

Believing in some form of shallow spiritualism is materialistic as fuck. Mainly when they believe in these sort of things mostly as means of recognition and socialization, as you can see these people will never lose an opportunity to expose in social media how "spiritual" they are. This sort of thing for me is the epithome of materialism, more than a stubborn atheist, who's willing to even lose friends and get in unfavourable situations to defend his ideals and principles. That idealism transcends the materialism more than these shallow leftists will ever do, all these people seek is attention, clout and validation of their perversities.

"Believing in and prioritising metaphysical concepts is materialistic as fuck." Respectfully: No. That makes no sense. I mean "materialistic" is usually used as a pejorative, and even that wouldn't fit.
And whether it's shallow or not doesn't matter because most of Christians have shallow beliefs.
Shallow in the sense that they wouldn't really kill for their supposed beliefs like Muslims, and also shallow in the sense that they don't ponder it much, and just accept whatever they're told or read.
But in the sense that I mean it, mostly because you used the word to describe me initially, it's where you prioritise objectivity over metaphysical theories & texts.

If you have a definition of "materialistic" which is essentially just everyone that you don't like then why would that invite self-reflection? Why would I care?

I've liberally used different concepts of materialism and that was my bad. When I say buddhist tiktokers or corrupt pastors are materialistic people, I mean that they prioritize their materialistic desires (luxury, greed, seeking attention, cumulating wealth etc) over their faith, even if they supposedly have one. In that regard I honestly don't see much difference between them or an atheist, except lower morals as supposedly they should've known better.

That's what I meant as "shallow", because these "spiritual tiktokers" are using their supposed faith exclusively for material gain.

They reject the supernatural, which is not the same as rejecting "metaphysical" things in general. They have metaphysical concepts and theories which are prioritised.
To be honest, there are self-proclaimed atheists or agnostics that do actually believe in the supernatural, like a belief in ghosts or horoscopes?

Fair enough.

Yes indeed there are atheists who believe in ghosts and horoscope, which doesn't make any fucking sense.

So because of the incidental positives of Christianity in the past, I owe allegiance to something that doesn't make sense and may compound certain societal issues?

No, and I don't see how what I said can give this logical conclusion.

I understand the differences. Obviously it doesn't mean a literal crucification, but it is related to martyrdom. That's exactly what the Apostles did-- going out of your way to sacrifice your life in service to his cause, even becoming penniless, and then dying for it, if needs be. He did say not everyone would be called for that, but the willingness to self-sacrifice is still expected.

Well apostles are a different case. And to be honest, I'd also sacrifice everything if a guy like Jesus Christ appeared in front of me and invited me to be his apostle for sure.

Isn't divination when you ask spirits the future?

Not necessarily. It's trying to see/guess the "occult" in general.

He? Who? What?
They were Zionist back in WW2, and then became anti-Zionist. Hope that narrows it down. It's generally moronic, but the arguments about hell still stick-- especially compared to what the average Catholic has to say on it.
Catholic conception of hell comes from Etruscan beliefs more so than anything in the Bible.

I've mistaken it, thought you were talking about a teacher/priest in particular.

I have a major problem with this.

I definitely understand it. But to a degree forgiveness is important in society as well. "treating others as one would want to be treated". I know I've wronged people and I'd like to be forgiven by them, the same way I try to forgive people who wrong me.

Obviously forgiving a serial killer who killed your son is something totally out of league compared to anything we ever did in life (I don't know you but I assume so). But in the christian faith forgiving somebody in this context would also mean you'd have a great boon in the Judgement. I can totally get you not agreeing with it though, especially if you don't believe in an eternal afterlife. If you do, then wrong things that happen to you in earth are extremely smaller in comparison so forgiving them becomes easier.

The point is when they're wronged or conspired against they just shrug and accept it.

Yes it can definitely be argued that Jesus is indoctrinating people into being subservient to their lords and oppressors. As a christian I find it more about giving some comfort to people who have a miserable existence, while also not necessarily denying them the possibility to fight back and change to a better reality if there's a possibility to do so. Again a concept that appears inacceptable if you don't believe in an eternal afterlife.

So you can't even trust your own holy text fully, and you also recognise that there are not really any proper sects or factions that offer a fully coherent set of interpretations.

Christianity holy text that matters is the new testament, that one I trust fully. The Old Testament is more like an old version that's more for historic purposes and adding context (though certainly reading it is also of fundamental importance).

I was talking about the impact of Christianity on selection processes over a thousand years... It's obvious someone like yourself isn't going to come to the same understanding though.
Which is part of the problem, there is an inherent blank slatism there, that everyone must have the same means of achieving 'salvation,' therefore in the ways that matter, they are all capable of altering their own thinking/ behaviour with the magic of religion.

It's after Judgement that everybody will be made equal (which also means paying for your wrongdoings in due proportion), but in the material plane each person has his own life and his own path to walk, as God gave us all total freedom of will. So of course people will find salvation through different means.

Don't know if that's what you meant.

Pretty sure that the 'resisting the holy spirit' verse is NT, not OT, since the OT is not about forgiveness but instead promotes communal stoning of @Slavic Sorcerer

I think you're referring to this excerpt

"Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come."


Again, this is a parable and is open to interpretation. Christ says words against him can be forgiven, that would mean superflous blasphemy can indeed be forgiven. Speaking against the Holy Spirit is more comparable to the jews who constantly desecrate prophets and killed Jesus Christ himself, that's what God couldn't forgive. But then again, God hasn't given a clear red line of where this ultimate sin would be committed or not. Maybe somebody more enlightened than me could provide a better answer, but that's what I know.

[A Chinese opium den]

What do you fellas think about whether all humans are under the protection and grace of God or if only the elect have a connection to God. I'm no calvanist but the only way I can reconcile the great differences between the base natures of peoples in the world is that only some have the light of God so to speak, with the inborn natural morality and the feeling of needing to obey the laws of nature/God.

[rusty_shackleford]

What do you fellas think about whether all humans are under the protection and grace of God or if only the elect have a connection to God. I'm no calvanist but the only way I can reconcile the great differences between the base natures of peoples in the world is that only some have the light of God so to speak, with the inborn natural morality and the feeling of needing to obey the laws of nature/God.

It's the opposite, Christianity stops the masses from becoming savages. We can infer this from how fast things have fallen once Christianity was discarded.
Atheism is similar to lolbertarianism in that the adherents lack the ability to understand that just because they can function outside of society's rules(or moral framework) does not mean everyone can, or that most would be better off without them. Atheism, and lolbertarianism, are therefore extremely selfish ideologies.

This is actually disregarding validity of religion altogether and merely about overall good.

[A Chinese opium den]

What do you fellas think about whether all humans are under the protection and grace of God or if only the elect have a connection to God. I'm no calvanist but the only way I can reconcile the great differences between the base natures of peoples in the world is that only some have the light of God so to speak, with the inborn natural morality and the feeling of needing to obey the laws of nature/God.

It's the opposite, Christianity stops the masses from becoming savages. We can infer this from how fast things have fallen once Christianity was discarded.
Atheism is similar to lolbertarianism in that the adherents lack the ability to understand that just because they can function outside of society's rules(or moral framework) does not mean everyone can, or that most would be better off without them. Atheism, and lolbertarianism, are therefore extremely selfish ideologies.

This is actually disregarding validity of religion altogether and merely about overall good.

I suppose I agree with you but from a perspective of the idea of Christianity keeps people from being savages, but that doesn't transmit the grace of god to someone just because you have made them understand that they will be punished for something. The best way I can say it is this; just because you have shown a heavily autistic man that he will be punished for punching his mom when she makes him mad and therefore it is a bad action, at his core he still isn't guided by the principal that its bad to punch your mom just because she makes you angry, he simply knows now that he cannot do this action. In the same way even if you teach a nigger the doctrine of Christ he will still shoot you over a carjacking gone wrong while thinking himself a good Christian who "just did the one sin" because he doesn't truly understand and doesn't have the inner morality holding him accountable, for the non-elect its purely a transactional understanding that if they are a good boy in this life they will be rewarded. I think in that sense Christianity is 100% indispensable because without it they would be lawless, but it doesn't seem to me that just because you teach someone the faith they will ever really understand.

[Rand]

Oh, I'm MUCH worse than that. I read most of the various gods' books and not only am I glad they don't exist, because they're utterly monstrous, but if they did exist, the only moral thing to do would be to oppose them.

You really thought this r/atheism autism was worth a whole thread?

No. I just like annoying Humbaba when he gets off his meds and on his high horse.

[jcd]

Morality is the attempt to live up to God's nature. It is not an artificial, arbitrary thing separate from God and merely enforced by might but a fundamental aspect of reality.

I mostly agree but I'll quibble on this point. God may set rules for us that, as soveriegn, he is not obligated to follow himself. Obvious one: thou shalt not kill.

Do as I say, not as I do. What a great and moral rule for the supreme being to live by. And you're shocked that many state outright that he's a blind idiot god clueless about the reality he created and want nothing more than to kill him.