Say, I give you a ticket for the movies. Would you refuse it with the argument that the movie will come to an end?
Funny you should mention that, because who can deny that life is all about the end, just like in a movie. Either we are racing toward annihilation, or we are racing toward judgment. If annihilation, then what we do doesn’t matter. If judgment, then everything we do matters.
Your religion allows for heinous crimes and yet be redeemed.
Atheists have no such convenient out.
That’s putting it lightly.
They have to live with the knowledge of their trespasses until they die.
True. And so does the religious person. I’ve never known a religious person who actually cared about sinning who didn’t feel tremendous remorse for the things they had done. Their hope was to be forgiven by God who can forgive all sins and so not be thrown into hell, and also maybe to be able to forget in eternity what happened in the world.
What is even worse, is the fact that religious people will accept the criminal in their midst, as long as he/she repents, yet you condemn atheists as being immoral just because they don’t believe in a god and therefore no redemption.
Absolutely! And not just religious people. People in general would rather be associated with a repentant criminal than a known atheist. That’s because the criminal seems to have a moral foundation. The atheist is just good at the time for no known reason, which means they might not be good five minutes from now. Not to mention, for those who know God, being around an atheist is literally being around someone who is spiritually dead, and that’s just a very negative environment.
Tell me who carries the greater burden of responsibility? Your assumption that a repentent person is “healed” from his sins is not only naive, but is an act of denial. Repentence and redemption is only allowed children, who do not yet know better and need to be taught. For you to compare me to a wanton child is an act of hubris and vanity. If, by your own admission, you want to remain a wanton child, fine have at it. But don’t presume to know the depth of my morality and dictate the way I should live my life.
Well, see, that’s just it. That’s what I was talking about. No one can tell you what is right and wrong. You won’t let them, so you might do anything. You say you are moral, but to most people a person judging themselves as good is not the best character witness. When whatshername says she is good for goodness sake, it’s practically nauseating. In fact, it’s downright scary.
I admit I’m not a good person by nature, but I believe in God. I believe God is watching and wants me to behave a certain way. Other people know that I believe I’m being watched by God all the time, so they trust in my integrity more. Not that I have integrity, but I have God.
Do I have to have that to be good? Yes. Do you? Yes.
And if a person is good because he/she won’t tolerate themselves to be bad, THAT IS MORALITY! Your version of morality is escaping responsibility.
It is you who is the dodger.
How is my version escaping responsibility? It’s because I am responsible that I am in danger of judgment.
And let me ask you this: If atheism is true, how do you ever come to the notion of something being good or bad? Things would just be what they are—no right or wrong about it.
This “helping hand” is practised by many higher order mammals. This is clearly evident in our emotional response to seeing a newborn baby or even an animal. Don’t we love and care for puppies and kittens? Don’t we try to heal a wounded animal?
Yes we do. Don’t we build chemical weapons and nuclear bombs and drop them on those same puppies and kittens and newborn babies? I find your statement about our innate goodness particularly appalling juxtaposed to the tortures in Africa where the newborn is cut out of the mother and then tossed up and caught on a bayonet. Or where we good Americans call waterboarding “enhanced interrogation techniques.”
As Marvin Yudal would say, “Sell crazy someplace else. We’re all stocked up here.”
Frankly I am getting sick of theist’s assertions that man is inherently evil or callous. IMO theists are evil because they can get away with murder in the name of their religion. And if is just murder they can still find forgiveness, redemption, and salvation in repentence. Give me a break!
Well, institutionalized religion and those who follow it are pretty jacked. They really aren’t much different than atheists. They say they believe in God, but they live as if He doesn’t exist. So, what’s the difference. But it’s not much better with atheists, because where the religious person can be forgiven, the atheists doesn’t need to be forgiven. So, again, what’s the difference?
The difference is that little word, “repentance.” Do you know what it means?