Admitting You're a Sinner

[The Grand Nudger]

Atheist?? Where in the world do you get that? He obviously believed in God. The opposite of Christian is not 'atheist', it's 'not Christian'. 

Tolstoy has the moral fruits you think come from christian salvation.  So do I. The only people we've so far considered who don't seem to have those fruits, according to you..is the majority of "christians". How come christianity doesn't work on christians, and why..in your estimation, are christians trash human beings relative to godfless anti-theists like myself, or heretical others™ like Tolstoy?

Why does everyone else keep getting the fruits, and why do christians need them in the first place?

Another difference that isn't there.  Deontological ethics are common and commonly secular.

Certainly not the same thing as following a objective, very specific list.

That's -exactly- what the term deontological ethics refers to. Bound by moral duty to a set of rules.

[vulcanlogician]

Atheist?? Where in the world do you get that? He obviously believed in God. The opposite of Christian is not 'atheist', it's 'not Christian'. 

Tolstoy has the moral fruits you think come from christian salvation.  So do I.  The only people we've so far considered who don't seem to have those fruits, according to you..is the majority of "christians".  

THIS! The ALWAYS CORRECT BOOK says you will know them by their fruits. It doesn't say that you will examine their doctrine, run through a checklist of congruences with your own beliefs and then draw conclusions about the genuineness of their faith based on that.

[The Grand Nudger]

I don't even care that magic book said it.  Ask two christians what magic book says and you'll get three opinions.  Steve told us that with-christianity the desire to do the right thing to the best of our abilities manifests itself.  Except when it doesn't, which is most of the time. 

-and yet it's manifesting itself all over the fucking place in we lowly heathens, or was always there.

In addition to these fruits (as it were), steve has told us that the difference between a christian and an atheist, morally, is that the christian has a set of rules that they must follow as part of their worldview. OFC that's not a difference between christians and atheists at all. Most of the time the two lists of specific rules are entirely the same things between christians and atheists. It's almost as if all the things steve believes about his silly beliefs are silly. I think he needs to drop the cultural christianity and find some fuckin jesus, like Tolstoy did.

[SteveII]

I don't even care that magic book said it.  Ask two christians what magic book says and you'll get three opinions.  Steve told us that with-christianity the desire to do the right thing to the best of our abilities manifests itself.  Except when it doesn't, which is most of the time. 

-and yet it's manifesting itself all over the fucking place in we lowly heathens, or was always there.

In addition to these fruits (as it were), steve has told us that the difference between a christian and an atheist, morally, is that the christian has a set of rules that they must follow as part of their worldview.  OFC that's not a difference between christians and atheists at all.  Most of the time the two lists of specific rules are entirely the same things between christians and atheists.  It's almost as if all the things steve believes about his silly beliefs are silly.  I think he needs to drop the cultural christianity and find some fuckin jesus, like Tolstoy did.

Assertion, opinion, assertion, opinion.

How about evidence:

Religious people give more money to charities.

About 75 percent of people who frequently attend religious services gave to congregations, and 60 percent gave to religious charities or nonreligious ones. By comparison, fewer than half of people who said they didn’t attend faith services regularly supported any charity, even a even secular one. https://www.philanthropy.com/article/Rel...ore/153973

http://www.philanthropyroundtable.org/al...tatistics/

Religious people volunteer more time.

We know the religious are also far more likely to volunteer. Among Americans who have volunteered within the last year, three quarters belong to a religious organization, one quarter do not. https://www.philanthropy.com/article/Rel...ore/153973

Seems like a person's worldview does impact his/her actions. Hmm. 

[The Grand Nudger]

I don't even care that magic book said it.  Ask two christians what magic book says and you'll get three opinions.  Steve told us that with-christianity the desire to do the right thing to the best of our abilities manifests itself.  Except when it doesn't, which is most of the time. 

-and yet it's manifesting itself all over the fucking place in we lowly heathens, or was always there.

In addition to these fruits (as it were), steve has told us that the difference between a christian and an atheist, morally, is that the christian has a set of rules that they must follow as part of their worldview.  OFC that's not a difference between christians and atheists at all.  Most of the time the two lists of specific rules are entirely the same things between christians and atheists.  It's almost as if all the things steve believes about his silly beliefs are silly.  I think he needs to drop the cultural christianity and find some fuckin jesus, like Tolstoy did.

Assertion, opinion, assertion, opinion.

Your assertions, your opinions..yes.  You asserted that there were fruits indicative of salvation.  You asserted that most "christians" don't have these fruits.  You asserted that deontological ethics were somehow different from....deontological ethics. It;s your opinion that most people are trash human beings in need of a change of heart.

How about evidence:

Religious people give more money to charities.

That's not evidence for any of your assertions.. it's evidence -directly -against- them.  If "christians" are more x y or moral z...it doesn't matter what you want to refer to here...then wouldn't that mean the "christians" have the fruits and don;t need a change of heart, including all the cultural christrians and hertics like Tolstoy? People whose charity you'll gladly claim even as you deny their christian beliefs and basic human decency?

Hey guess what...lol....atheists also have the fruit of charity.

Religious people volunteer more time.

The amount of people who do not attend services and give their time in your little quotemine exceeds the percentage of the populace that identifies as atheist. If this is supposed to be representative of a difference between atheists and believers...it falls, because 25% of your pie comes from 13% of the population.

Seems like a person's worldview does impact his/her actions. Hmm. 

If you'd like to walk back every ignorant thing you've said and lead off with that, instead.... I don't see why anyone would disagree.

[SteveII]

Another difference that isn't there.  Deontological ethics are common and commonly secular.

Certainly not the same thing as following a objective, very specific list.

That's -exactly- what the term deontological ethics refers to.  Bound by moral duty to a set of rules.

No, my point is that deontological ethics are not "commonly secular". Without an actual list, the underlying ethics that create the duties and obligation change from generation to generation and from culture to culture. Also, you are also limiting your comparison to western society. Without a doubt, Christianity has shaped western thinking as far as ethics. The commonality you see is a result of that.

[The Grand Nudger]

No, my point is that deontological ethics are not "commonly secular". Without an actual list, the underlying ethics that create the duties and obligation change from generation to generation and from culture to culture.

That's exactly what happened to christianity, yes. If your point is that deontological ethics are not commonly secular then your point is wrong. Full stop. Go read something other than your bible.

Also, you are also limiting your comparison to western society. Without a doubt, Christianity has shaped western thinking as far as ethics. The commonality you see is a result of that.

The thief is insisting that he be credited for the vaccine on account of having stolen it from the lab?  "Christian ethics" were shaped by western thinking.  The commonality we see is a result of that. They came up with the story about the god man, not their ethics. They borrowed those, it's alot easier to bullshit people about pixies than it is to come up with a cogent ethical system.

[Whateverist]

Assertion, opinion, assertion, opinion.

This again?

[Banned]

Admitting you are a sinner is saying that you have made mistakes and you are not immune to making mistakes. And it also includes understanding that having sinned you have damaged your faith in God.

A sinner is not born, and neither is sin an inherited condition as many teach.
In order to sin, you have to break the law of God in thought or deed.

We are born with the results of transgression on the human race, which necessitates compassion and not condemnation.

And it is not a case of inventing a need in order to sell something - sin is a fact or life.

[Magilla]

. . .
Religious people give more money to charities.
. . .
Religious people volunteer more time.
. . .
We know the religious are also far more likely to volunteer.
. . .
Seems like a person's worldview does impact his/her actions. Hmm. 

OK. But a graph shows nothing about motivations - why people are giving.
The reasons could be ones which the atheist/secularist would abhor. That's
not to say that giving is not a good thing.

On the other hand, giving has no bearing on the question: "Does a god exist?"
This question, is what I care about the most. Furthermore religions have historically
held power, that in many enlightened countries is now much less and weaker than
in centuries gone by. Religious groups have had a lot more time to become
organised - entrenched. It is no wonder that their influence was, and still is
significant.

Maybe given more time, the influence of religions will be further diminished, and
secular organisations can take up the slack, (and maybe not). Still, the behaviour
of the religious does nothing to support the "God" proposition, although the religious
will no doubt tell us otherwise.

Finally, if there is no god, then there is no sin, (if it is defined a contravening
"God's" will and commands). Of course a purely natural, physical universe explains
what the religious might call "sin", but in other ways than theological ones.