[Serious] Christians what would change your mind?

[tackattack]

Earlier, we were told that the baggage was our problem.  I'm interested...is it inconceivable to our resident christians that any person could have any problem with their god which doesn't reduce to a personal problem?

It is very conceivable and likely that there is both systemic anti-theism and personal anti-theism for many atheists. The reasons for these are as wide as the sea as there are unlimited potential to what we can think.

However, as observation is completely personal and subjective I would say that all belief reduce to some degree to a personal belief and thus a personal problem. Specifically with relation to a personal God and a personal relationship with said God. You may gain some traction and fidelity by agreeing that IFBs are normally racist and hateful people at a broader sense. I would even pass on the agrumentum ad populum.  I might even whole heartily agree with the assessment and share the view. The point was that the sum of your reasons equate to Religion=Bad. The sum of my reasons equate to Religion=good. The only real conversation are what color are the lenses both of us use o come up with such differing opinions.
[/2 cents]

[Anomalocaris]

magic sky fairy

To have an honest debate, you have to be able to describe your opponent's position in terms that he would agree with. If you can't do that, then you aren't arguing against what he actually believes.

The sly assertion of Scrupulous inner intellectual honesty on the part of the Christians Comical.

[The Grand Nudger]

Earlier, we were told that the baggage was our problem.  I'm interested...is it inconceivable to our resident christians that any person could have any problem with their god which doesn't reduce to a personal problem?

It is very conceivable and likely that there is both systemic anti-theism and personal anti-theism for many atheists. The reasons for these are as wide as the sea as there are unlimited potential to what we can think.

However, as observation is completely personal and subjective I would say that all belief reduce to some degree to a personal belief and thus a personal problem. Specifically with relation to a personal God and a personal relationship with said God. You may gain some traction and fidelity by agreeing that IFBs are normally racist and hateful people at a broader sense. I would even pass on the agrumentum ad populum.  I might even whole heartily agree with the assessment and share the view. The point was that the sum of your reasons equate to Religion=Bad. The sum of my reasons equate to Religion=good. The only real conversation are what color are the lenses both of us use o come up with such differing opinions.
[/2 cents]

I don't know that I can get on board with all observation being personal and subjective - but it seems like the above is a long way to say no - you don't believe that any possible criticism of god or god belief is true.  Just an opinion.  Under that view, god skullfucking your neighbors kids isn't a god problem, it's a me problem.  That's one hell of a position to have cornered yourself in.  

It's useful to remember that anti-theism is not anti-religion.   I think that your god is bad, not that religion is bad.  If you're willing to reduce these statements to mere opinion, a personal problem, that would be a rather specific view of moral statements that we disagree on, not whether religion is good or bad (which, frankly, would be meaningless under that view of moral statements). Is your desire to shield a god from criticism so great that you would burn the moral field to the ground rather than be in the position of having to (potentially) agree that your god is bad?

[tackattack]

I don't think I'm razing the field. I do believe that criticisms or concepts of God and God belief could be true. To reword your statement for clarity, God skullfucking your neighbor would be a problem for God, you and the neighbor. I'm not trying to shield anyone from anything. Mere opinions seem to hold little weight to you but they hold a lot of weight to me. It's your mere opinion to trust that your chair will hold you up when you sit in it.

Do you feel my God is deontologicaly or teleogically bad? I believe God to be onotologically good. I'm not really arguing that it can/can't be true just that all beliefs are informative to our subjective selves. A collective set of subjective agreeance is a basis for the social constructs we use daily. ie. The witch hunts and crusades were teleologically bad from today's shared social perspective. Does that mean in every way they were bad at all points in time from all perspectives? I'd answer no to that.

[The Grand Nudger]

That belief is going to require that you twist yourself into knots over deontological and teleological failures - which is part of my objection to the belief, and is an objectionable belief itself.

It's a given that not everyone at every time sees a bad thing as bad from every angle and I would suggest that you, the witchhunter, and the crusader have directly equivalent situations in that regard.

You're of the opinion that these comments you've offered aren't explicitly relativist or subjectivist - and that's an opinion that can be wrong too, just as your belief that god is good can be wrong. I'd be interested to know whether you've ever encountered anything which challenges that belief internally. Is there (or has there been) any aspect of your beliefs and opinions about a god that causes you moral concern? An item where your beliefs and opinions about good comment on god, rather than your beliefs and opinions about god commenting on the good. An item where you have trouble believing that a good god could do, say, want, or be x - but nevertheless believe that x is true...?

These are the sorts of items that would be candidates for christian moral degeneracy in belief and in practice. You believe in christ, as an example, but do you believe that the redemptive scheme which confers the title of christ was a moral one. Would you be comfortable arranging our society to mirror the assertion that some better persons blood and death meaningfully addresses sin, or evil, or misdeed? As I've asked others so many times - would you string somebody up to cover your parking tickets?

[tackattack]

@The Grand Nudger to answer your questions..

I have personally experienced problems understanding why God allows infants to be born with catastrophic issues, and that families have to struggle with the fears of losing them and years of standing on the precipice. I'm certain there are other similar issues,but none come to mind right off the bat like this one. To phrase it as you put it I have a problem with a good God being Love and wanting people to love each other would need to create evil, but I do believe He does need evil and does want people to love each other.

As we're moving into societal conversations we currently do assert that some better person's sacrifice addresses the misdeeds of others. That "better" person isn't usually morally better, just wealthier and more influential. I believer society has intrinsically twisted what "better" is and is formed in a way that speeds that corruption along the parejto distribution to extremes. I would like to see a society where the "best" are servants of the people and regularly promote unity through sacrifice. I would like to see personal accountability and repentance as qualifiers, as much, if not more than need.

I take it we'll be moving into personal accountability vs redemptive sacrifice territory now?

[Mister Agenda]

On a personal note, when I was a theist I did look for evidence that I was wrong, that's why I'm an atheist. Now that I'm an atheist I would be very interested in learning of any evidence that the theistic claims of any religion or holy scripture are actually true. My commitment has always been to understand what is true about such potentially important matters.

Granted, I feel the same way about vampires, if there are bloodsucking undead fiends repelled by garlic, I want to know about it, If they're real and in my area, I'll stock up on garlic; but their actual existence seems astronomically doubtful for multiple reasons. That goes for gods too, so far.

[The Grand Nudger]

@tackattack 

I love your idea for a better society, but..as you seem to be aware, it's not a society based on vicarious redemption.  Is there anywhere on earth that asserts that a parking ticket is worth x amount of dead palestinians?  Is there anywhere on earth that asserts a civil servants death will do anything to the issues that they failed to resolve in life?

If you had issues with god and infants, the manner in which you resolve this will likely be the same.  Assert that a good god must need or do evil for some greater good.  That rationale is serviceable - but it answers the question I asked by it's assertion.  Do you think that vicarious redemption is the (or even a) moral choice?  No.  You think it's an immoral choice with value as an instrumental good to some desired end.

I've done and believed in bad things on account of loving people too.  I can relate.

---

On a personal note, when I was a theist I did look for evidence that I was wrong, that's why I'm an atheist. Now that I'm an atheist I would be very interested in learning of any evidence that the theistic claims of any religion or holy scripture are actually true. My commitment has always been to understand what is true about such potentially important matters.

 I prefer to consider what things would be true if such potential matters were true.  Christian moral degeneracy, for example.  Earth as a meatgrinding soul forge, that sort of thing. How and why it would be wrong even if...especially if..it were true.

[tackattack]

vicarious redemption is practiced in any selfless act. You sacrifice yourself for other's wants/needs. It's also practiced in societies that sacrifice the one for the many ie. the death penalty. Just because someone practices the sacrifice for the many does not necessarily absolve personal accountability. I believe this part is where we differ the most. To restate your position for my clarity, I believe you claim that no society practices exemption from accountability based on vicarious sacrifice. ??

[Mister Agenda]

vicarious redemption is practiced in any selfless act. You sacrifice yourself for other's wants/needs. It's also practiced in societies that sacrifice the one for the many ie. the death penalty.  Just because someone practices the sacrifice for the many does not necessarily absolve personal accountability. I believe this part is where we differ the most. To restate your position for my clarity, I believe you claim that no society practices exemption from accountability based on vicarious sacrifice. ??

None of that redeems other people's sins. If I help someone, they're helped, end of story. If someone is executed for their crimes, that does not absolve anyone else. The person (hopefully) guilty of the crimes is held accountable and if they are not guilty their punishment still does nothing to absolve the real criminal, it just means they got away with their crimes. These things are not examples of vicarious redemption. The death penalty may be a bad idea but is not a human sacrifice for the purpose of absolving unpunished but guilty people.

I suppose there are still cultures that practice literal scapegoating or still have 'sin eaters', that may be more what you're looking for.