School for Christianity

[CleanShavenJesus]

There is NO SINGLE christian faith - there are literally tens of thousands of them

There is one BIBLE. Meanwhile, if there live ten million atheists, then there are ten million different versions of atheism.

There may be one Bible, but if you attended the ceremony of each different sect of Christianity, you'd think there were a thousand versions.

[Godscreated]

See the bold, there may not be requirements, but every atheist put standards to their non belief, so what is the difference.

Uh, that it's not a requirement? And therefore not a core part of what atheism is? Moreover, you're aware that those standards of non belief we atheists have vary from person to person too, right? Look around you, there are tons of atheists on this very forum that can attest to that.

This argument is so terrible: it'd be like if I held you accountable to some batshit crazy, violent fringe idea or some christian sect, not because you specifically hold that belief, but because some christians do. You'd rightly be annoyed that I did that, and you'd find it weak, as an argument, right?

You and every atheist on this site do just that, so stop your whining and I say again what's the difference. See CSJ comment above, you guys need to get on the same page.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Atheism = lack of belief in a god or gods. There is no requirement, as esquilax says, to believe in no deities. This is nothing more than a sleight of hand tactic to equalize the positions the theism and atheism and to insinuate a position of 'faith' in being an atheist.

Utter tosh!

I get sick of reading where people attempt to define what I [don't] believe in. Like I said, some atheists believe in all sorts of crazy woo and other nonsense, but as that's mutually exclusive to being an atheist, it doesn't matter one bit.

[Esquilax]

Uh, that it's not a requirement? And therefore not a core part of what atheism is? Moreover, you're aware that those standards of non belief we atheists have vary from person to person too, right? Look around you, there are tons of atheists on this very forum that can attest to that.

This argument is so terrible: it'd be like if I held you accountable to some batshit crazy, violent fringe idea or some christian sect, not because you specifically hold that belief, but because some christians do. You'd rightly be annoyed that I did that, and you'd find it weak, as an argument, right?

You and every atheist on this site do just that, so stop your whining and I say again what's the difference. See CSJ comment above, you guys need to get on the same page.

The difference, GC, is that atheists don't have, say, a holy book, filled with what they believe to be inerrant and perfect words from the creator of the universe, that they believe are binding edicts to the whole of humanity. Because words in a book remain the same, and the words in your holy book are pretty fucking terrible on their own, and yet somehow all thirty thousand some odd denominations of your religion interpret them a little differently, yet still see their version as binding divine edicts over anyone else's.

You see? The difference is that the religious are compelled to act in certain ways. There's no rulebook for atheism, no same page to be on, aside from a singular belief. There is no atheist worldview, just atheists. Not so for christians; the only difference between a christian in one sect and a christian in another is how they've managed to distort the fables they follow, but it's the same source, the same page, so to speak.

Atheism is just one concept. Religion is an entire rulebook for existence.

[Drich]

The core message of christianity is all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. That means our deeds and works hold no real value in of themselves, other than to lift ourselves up before other men. So in order to be found righteous before God we must seek atonement for sin.

The answer is no to your follow up. For if we had no God then there could be no atonement.

[Esquilax]

The answer is no to your follow up. For if we had no God then there could be no atonement.

Kind of a glass half empty conclusion there, Drich: the optimist would say that if we had no god, we wouldn't be inherently fallen and evil.

[CleanShavenJesus]

The core message of christianity is all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. That means our deeds and works hold no real value in of themselves, other than to lift ourselves up before other men.

Or for ourselves. To do good for others is just the kind thing to do. One does not need the promise of salvation or the promise of looking good before others in order to do good works.

[fr0d0]

...and those good works are valueless without salvation.

[Whateverist]

...and those good works are valueless without salvation.

That sounds dangerously close to saying there is no value in good works unless there is eternal reward or at least a "job well done" from God in the end. Good is good, and what you do in order to pay the price of an expected reward is less so.

[Esquilax]

...and those good works are valueless without salvation.

Seriously? There's no value in just being a good person? Helping people? When I volunteer at a charity, there's no value to my actions at all because I'm not doing it with the expectation of a reward? You can't see any value in being good beyond heaven?