Reason for converting Good Christians

[Ephrium]

To Luke:

You are still confused about the basic things being discussed here. It is mainly about the pros and cons of going around and converting Christians to atheism in the normal neighbourhoods/good churches.

Your last point may belong to another thread.

I will answer that we all have to admit there is currently no practical way society is going to move back to the stone ages to stone people. This wont happen, but if there are more Christians more good may be done in the society.




To Demonura:

" I can provide plenty of examples of good acting bad, the gay rights movment being supressed, The crusades and the 9/11 bombing to start"

The crusades are of ages long past, and 911 is not to be discussed here because by very very very very far chance, the average church in your neighbourhood will not more likely churn out a Christian version of Osama than some Atheist become some serial Killers.

So are Gay marriage rights, a negligible slight dent in Science in that children are taught creational science the so called only main 'bad' points you have mentioned? I take these every day against the potential increased chance of getting randomly assaulted, robbed or physical disability inflicted against me.

I have not said EVERYONE will do the bad things I have mentioned. I have always said an increase.

[LukeMC]

To Luke:

You are still confused about the basic things being discussed here. It is mainly about the pros and cons of going around and converting Christians to atheism in the normal neighbourhoods/good churches.

To quote your original post:

I will actually prefer if the whole world turns to proper Christians. Will it not make the world a better place?

That is what I'm debating.

I will answer that we all have to admit there is currently no practical way society is going to move back to the stone ages to stone people.

Because we have progressed fromt he violent, suppressive nature of the christian culture, and we've disregarded more and more of the bible whilst doing so. Most christians now are pseudochristians, and this is the type of person you're really talking about.

This wont happen, but if there are more Christians more good may be done in the society.

I don't think religion is the key to morality. I think it would be preferable to teach people how to behave well and cut out all the supernatural bogus. I personally don't believe that a nation of christians would be better than a nation of atheists, because they are judging their morality on a terrible book.

Also, have you considered the ethical implications of this idea? You're talking about a massive propoganda-run regime which is highly supressive and promotes the brainwashing of all its citizens. You're convincing people of talking snakes and magic trees. You're sacrificng the intellect and integrity of every human being alive just because you believe it may lower crime rates. I think you should take another approach, and instead, head towards a more open and skeptical society where people question things and come to intelligent conclusions. Christianity would be an utter theft of human thought.

Atheism is not going to make people more moral. Christianity is not going to make people more moral. Skepticism, rational inquiry and intelligent input will lead people closer to the right direction (and probably to atheism too. But atheism isn't the cause, it is an effect).

[Demonaura]

I don't think we're going to change our views much further. It seems to me that I put a lot more weight on the bad things the church does than you do. You seem to think that overall it does more good than bad, I look back and in every case I can think of those same good things will happen through secular means but, many of the bad things only happened because of religion motivation.

The loss of human rights, the destruction of the scientific process (compared to the off chance of being assulted on the street? what!?), and I will go ahead and mention 9/11 beause it was motivated by religion. No the average church wont create that man, but when millions of people sign a census, they create the powerbase. He would have been deemed insane for expecting 72 virgins if the majority weren't so busy worshiping their imaginary friend.

Overall I see no reason to keep religon around at all. I'm not even being specific with christianity right now, theistic beleifs overall have shown to have more bad than good in my eyes. The good, in every case (that I have seen) can come through secular means and much of the evil cannot. I apparently put much more weight on the bad things than you; and I definately cannot see your comparing the loss of human rights and loss of scientific process to random assult on the street. The scales are way off.

I say this because BOTH mean that religiously focused people control what our kids learn, and they are able to deny whoever they want human rights. This means the gradual loss of free thought for everyone, and a major screwup for our entire society. A world I'd rather not live in.

The loss of human rights for anyone for any reason to me, all by itself overshadows all the good things a church ever did.
Teaching random guesswork with 0 evidence as a scientific theory to our kids to me by itself by itself overshadows all the good things a church ever did.
The brainwashing of children, being taught to NEVER ever challenge what their parents tell them no matter what it is by itself overshadows all the good things a church ever did.

EDIT: I also agree with Luke up there, on every point I think. and I'm WAY off the topic.

[Ephrium]

"The good, in every case (that I have seen) can come through secular means and much of the evil cannot."

Lets take the case of non-psychopathic serial killers. Unfortunately, newspapers when they come out do not list the religious views of them.

With God and the church, the people are taught what God wants and are indoctrinated in concepts of what God wants and do not want, Good deeds and sin, righteousness and evil, rewards and punishment. These are concepts which have a prohibitive effect of them doing serial killing.

What can Atheism provide against it? A vague concept of morality? Or a rewards and punishment reality that you will be punished ONLY if you get caught?





You are right that many atheists have a concept of morality in them, taught or in born. But you have to accept that many do not. What on Earth is there to stop them from doing crime if a situation of greater risk of rewards vs smaller risk of getting caught presents?

A god, with "With God and the church, the people are taught what God wants and are indoctrinated in concepts of what God wants and do not want, Good deeds and sin, righteousness and evil, rewards and punishment" can greatly induce these people to not commit these.

The assualted in the street is only one of many posiible scenario. Virtually anything, any crimes, anywhere are included. Like I have said, I will impose Christianity, which in most likely hoods are going to result in a better society. To me the ends justify the means.

---

I will be willing to trade children's right to knowledge of evolution for a safer enviornment anyday.

Christians do not go against science unnecessarily. They go against it ONLY when it clashes with the biblical teachings, and even then tries to go around them.

For example, the When it is implied in the bible Earth is 6000 years old, they now say each of the beginning days can represent an x period.

So virtually the ONLY area, or should I call it point, of science which they ddo not let pass is abiogenesis. This is just a speck in the whole area of science.

[True Unbeliever]

But are there good reasons for converting good Christians to Atheism?

I will actually prefer if the whole world turns to proper Christians. Will it not make the world a better place?

I don't know any atheist with the mission to convert Christains. Atheism is an opposing view to the belief in God. It stems from being fed up with religious doctrine that denies the scientific data that supports evolution (not intellectual design).

Your 'shucks why can't we just all get along' attitude is nice in a niave sort of way but when political decisions are made to accomodate religious belief then I AM affected i.e stem cell research, abortion, euthanasia. If religious self-serving could keep its nose out of moral/ethical decision making then it may be possible.

---

If my aim is to make more Christians, which it is, I wont mind them not knowing much about evolution. Knowing much about it wont bring much benefits nor happiness anyways, unless you are a scientist, which you will get to know about it in this day and age anyways.

Sorry but I don't want to live in a head space where the moon is made of cheese. And 'no benefit in knowing about evolution' is just ignorant. But if you feel ignorance is bliss then it's your choice. I thank Santa everyday for curious minds of the scientific community.

[lukec]

With God and the church, the people are taught what God wants and are indoctrinated in concepts of what God wants and do not want, Good deeds and sin, righteousness and evil, rewards and punishment. These are concepts which have a prohibitive effect of them doing serial killing.

What can Atheism provide against it? A vague concept of morality? Or a rewards and punishment reality that you will be punished ONLY if you get caught?You are right that many atheists have a concept of morality in them, taught or in born. But you have to accept that many do not. What on Earth is there to stop them from doing crime if a situation of greater risk of rewards vs smaller risk of getting caught presents?

You actually think that it is moral to not do something only because someone is watching? Morality is not morality if it stems from an outside source- if you only do good things because you are afraid that someone is watching, then you are not good at all. You are as "good" as a robot which is programmed to do good things. If, on the other hand, you took a humanist view and try to be good because it is the right thing to do, then your morality flows from yourself.

If you substitute "God-fearing society" with "Dictator society" then you should see what I mean. If there were cameras everywhere, and could see everything everyone was doing at all times, this condition would erase the whole point of doing good/bad- the only reason people wouldn't commit crimes would be because they were being watched.

I personally am absolutely against the idea of a totally christian world. Although everyone would be united in one faith, it is just silly to assume all problems of crime would disappear. Frankly, you're being naive if you think religion is the cure for crime.

The assualted in the street is only one of many posiible scenario. Virtually anything, any crimes, anywhere are included. Like I have said, I will impose Christianity, which in most likely hoods are going to result in a better society. To me the ends justify the means.

---

I will be willing to trade children's right to knowledge of evolution for a safer enviornment anyday.

Then I suggest you lock your children in an isolated jail where no one can hurt them and where you can watch over them at all times. Again, it is foolish to assume first of all that your religion is right, and second of all that it will actually do any good for people to have god. For thousands of years virtually all people everywhere believed in some sort of god, and still, oddly enough, crimes were committed. Even among your vaunted christian elite horrible crimes such as pedophilia come to pass, and are hidden from the public eye. Enforcing religion on everyone would more likely lead to a totalitarian state where there is no freedom than to this amazing crime-free world you for some reason imagine.

Christians do not go against science unnecessarily. They go against it ONLY when it clashes with the biblical teachings, and even then tries to go around them.

For example, the When it is implied in the bible Earth is 6000 years old, they now say each of the beginning days can represent an x period.

So virtually the ONLY area, or should I call it point, of science which they ddo not let pass is abiogenesis. This is just a speck in the whole area of science.

Of course they go against it only when it clashes with biblical teachings, why bother even pointing that out?

However, when you say that the only scientific point Christians are against is abiogenesis, you are flat wrong. Google evolution for me, you will quickly see that many of the posts are about how wrong evolution is. Or, look up the Omphalos argument, the idea that light from the distant stars was "Created" already on its way to earth. The bible contradicts much of science, and we can clearly see that science is actually backed up by evidence, which is why it is science. When creationists attack one part of science, they are attacking the scientific method, and science on a whole.

[Edwardo Piet]

Its not my mission to convert anyone. I think its better if they do happen to be converted though, and here's 2 main reasons I can think of:

1. The truth matters. Delusion is bad (at least overall! To say the least. Believing in Santa Claus isn't so bad. But its bad pretty much otherwise - in general - I think!)
2. Religious moderation helps provide the ground for fundamentalism to flourish. When the more reasonable religious moderates generally support the idea that religion should not be criticised, - like its a special case - this allows fundamentalism to happen more easily. Its easier to take books really literally and become fanatical - and a fundamentalist - when its considered taboo to criticise your religion.

[Ephrium]

Demonura and me Have stated most of our points. Of the posters here in this thread, I think Luke , demonura and me are the more rational ones. Since we have stated our points, take it or leave it. I wont spend much more time on this.

True unbeliever, my point, if you have read the whole thread, was not about getting along. It was that normal people may have more tendency to refrain from crime and do good deeds if they believe in God. Hence it is better to have more Christians.





Luke

"Although everyone would be united in one faith, it is just silly to assume all problems of crime would disappear."

See, twisting my words again. I have never said it would disappear. I have always used tendency against crimes or increase or decrease words.



"moral to not do something only because someone is watching"

I have answered this already. As long as the net effect is less crime is commiteed in the end, I do not care about their hearts.



Lastly, to EvidencevsFaith

Ihave also said in one of my posts to take a realistic view that the workld as it is now is not going toreverse to what it once was. So keep God here to bring benefits as long as it will last.

[Demonaura]

Demonura and me Have stated most of our points. Of the posters here in this thread, I think Luke , demonura and me are the more rational ones. Since we have stated our points, take it or leave it. I wont spend much more time on this.

I'm in agreement actually, both sides have their reasons and their biases. I know it was fun seeing it from the other side of the field and while I still disagree I did come from the conversation with new knwoledge as it also forced me to think of my own views and defend them.

[Edwardo Piet]

Ihave also said in one of my posts to take a realistic view that the workld as it is now is not going toreverse to what it once was. So keep God here to bring benefits as long as it will last.

Keeping God here is worse than it is good. As I said in my 2 points.

I said I don't go about trying to convert anyone. But if it does happen I think its a good thing.

I'm not talking about changing the whole world (and certainly not all at once!).

But there's nothing wrong with small change.

If there's less delusion I think thats generally good thing but both moral and intellectual reasons.

Or have I missed something? I had a bit of trouble understanding what you mean by reverse to what it once was?

Back in history - in many respects things were a lot worse were they not?

More racism and sexism. And atheism was completely unacceptable if you go far back enough (at least in some cultures) I believe?

We have more tools to do harm now. But its about what you do with them. Because we also have a lot better medicine and live a lot longer than in the past (on average).

Or have I misunderstood something? I can imagine that I easily could have?

What do you mean by reverse back?
Evf