The Pope and "Redemption" for Atheists

[The Honorable Gidian Diva of Sass]

I'm an atheist, Gid. So I haven't offered my personal opinion on matters of 'salvation' at all, just my opinions on what I believe my parents' church taught as doctrine. And I'm certainly not suggesting that you're wrong or incorrect or misinformed about anything. I could be wrong about everything I believe. I could be a brain in a vat. But that's another debate.

You know what I meant. lol.

 

[Stephen Daidalus]

You know what I meant. lol.

Actually, I didn't. <laughing> Just want to make sure you don't think I'm proselytizing or anything like that. I don't think I have a dog in the race. Or at least if my dog is on the track, it's a slow, lumbering hound without a hope of winning -- yet.

 

[The Honorable Gidian Diva of Sass]

Actually, I didn't. <laughing> Just want to make sure you don't think I'm proselytizing or anything like that. I don't think I have a dog in the race. Or at least if my dog is on the track, it's a slow, lumbering hound without a hope of winning -- yet.

Proselytizing is too big of a word to fit in my vocabulary, much less accuse someone of. Lmao. Anyways, I'd forgotten that you were atheist when I was writing most of my posts. However, the same pleasentries (I can use big words too!) Are still extended to you

 

[Janus3003]

*pets Steve's dog*

 

[Hargood]

I could give a rat's ass what the Church says. They don't need to tell me I am a decent human being. .

Well why don't you try acting like a decent human being once so you can find out what they'd say?

 

[The Honorable Gidian Diva of Sass]

All in good fun... do me a favor and watch this video if the link works, idk how to post videos.
http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=y5gydvllKdM&desktop_uri=/watch?v=y5gydvllKdM

 

[Doctor Langstrom]

Well why don't you try acting like a decent human being once so you can find out what they'd say?

How long did it take you to come up with that dig?

 

[Medea]

I respect your views. No one has to do anything, they just have to pay for the consequences of their actions. And of course Religious leaders want to attract more followers of their religion. What religion wouldn't? In Christianities case, they believe they are saving them from the fiery pits of hell. No where near a lot of things in the bible are insane. That is pure opinion and a matter of your prespective. To say it has no place in a civilized world is just false, because without a higher standard to be held to, there would be nothing to keep people from commiting heinous crimes. No fear of the afterlife. Not everyone is breaking their own rules. Just that the people that do attract the most attention.

I respect your views as well. I'm not trying to smash anyone's faith. I believe to do so is wrong. I just don't think that old world religions actually have a place in modern society. It's not the religion per se, that makes one carry out suicide bombings or the fire bombing of abortion clinics, but it enables people that are unstable to begin with, and gives them a reason to do what they do, by indoctrinating them into believing what crime they are about to commit is actually "for the good of mankind". If I truly believed that I would spend eternity in Heaven for killing "infidels", what would I have to lose?

 

[Stephen Daidalus]

To say it has no place in a civilized world is just false, because without a higher standard to be held to, there would be nothing to keep people from commiting heinous crimes.

I didn't notice this until Medea quoted you.

This is exactly, of course, what atheists take issue with. The idea that we are incapable of moral behavior because we don't believe in a supernatural being is a bit offensive (I know you didn't mean it to be). It's clear that atheists are totally capable of moral behavior. If we weren't, the prisons would be full of us.

Some atheists would take it a step further and suggest that the one who is morally developed sufficiently enough that he can behave ethically on the basis of his own thoughts and who is capable of controlling his harmful urges simply because he believes in doing good for its own sake -- the one who needs neither the words of an authority nor the threat of punishment -- should be much less a target of judgment than the believer who requires an external force to do both his thinking and motivating.

Seriously, you need God to tell you that murder is wrong and that feeding the poor is good? Really? You need the threat of Hell to make you behave?

 

[Janus3003]

You need the threat of Hell to make you behave?

For what it's worth, my church and I imagine many others teach that you shouldn't be doing good just out of fear of punishment, but out of love for God (proving that love by following His word), love for your fellow humans, love for the warm fuzzies that come from doing good, etc.

So yeah, I agree with you that doing good for the sake of good is much higher than doing it out of fear of punishment, and it's something that some of us need to work for.

 

[Stephen Daidalus]

For what it's worth, my church and I imagine many others teach that you shouldn't be doing good just out of fear of punishment, but out of love for God (proving that love by following His word), love for your fellow humans, love for the warm fuzzies that come from doing good, etc.

So yeah, I agree with you that doing good for the sake of good is much higher than doing it out of fear of punishment, and it's something that some of us need to work for.

I meant it as a rhetorical question, since I assumed that most of us (believers and non-believers alike) would say that we didn't need such a threat in order to behave in a basically decent way. After all, most people do behave, regardless of what they believe. (I didn't mean to imply that religious people did, in fact, solely rely upon a fear of punishment. Sorry if it kind of came out that way.)

I think it gets harder on the softer issues. How much of our paychecks are we willing to give up in order to feed or house poor people who are complete strangers and who might not really, truly 'deserve it'?

Judging from the homeless in my city, up here, we're all doing an abysmally crappy job.

This is where I have to admit a little prick of conscience from a religious authority -- or even a well respected role model -- might make us consider our stance more carefully.

If anything, this is one of the main things Pope Francis hopes to accomplish. I hope he succeeds.

 

[Janus3003]

(I didn't mean to imply that religious people did, in fact, solely rely upon a fear of punishment. Sorry if it kind of came out that way.)

No worries, it's just an insinuation I hear all the time and quickly tired of.

 

[The Honorable Gidian Diva of Sass]

I respect your views as well. I'm not trying to smash anyone's faith. I believe to do so is wrong. I just don't think that old world religions actually have a place in modern society. It's not the religion per se, that makes one carry out suicide bombings or the fire bombing of abortion clinics, but it enables people that are unstable to begin with, and gives them a reason to do what they do, by indoctrinating them into believing what crime they are about to commit is actually "for the good of mankind". If I truly believed that I would spend eternity in Heaven for killing "infidels", what would I have to lose?

That's only one side of the coin, and a double edged sword. People will always find a reason to kill.

I didn't notice this until Medea quoted you.

This is exactly, of course, what atheists take issue with. The idea that we are incapable of moral behavior because we don't believe in a supernatural being is a bit offensive (I know you didn't mean it to be). It's clear that atheists are totally capable of moral behavior. If we weren't, the prisons would be full of us.

Some atheists would take it a step further and suggest that the one who is morally developed sufficiently enough that he can behave ethically on the basis of his own thoughts and who is capable of controlling his harmful urges simply because he believes in doing good for its own sake -- the one who needs neither the words of an authority nor the threat of punishment -- should be much less a target of judgment than the believer who requires an external force to do both his thinking and motivating.

Seriously, you need God to tell you that murder is wrong and that feeding the poor is good? Really? You need the threat of Hell to make you behave?

I think you are misinterpreting what I said. Look at it this way, if there is no higher standard, no higher morale value to be held to, than right and wrong becomes a matter of perspective. Who's to say that Hitler's holocaust was good or bad? There would be no definite standard to be held to, is what I'm trying to say. (I'm not saying Hitler's Holocaust was right, personally I believe it was evil)

 

[Docta Corvina]

My two cents:

 

[Stephen Daidalus]

My two cents:

Exactly. If you put yourself in another's place and find that you would have great cause to object to what you are about to do, it's safe to say, it's not a good thing.

Of course, if you live according to the compassion compass, you will have trouble justifying war.

Then again, that's something religions have been used for -- to justify extreme violence, despite all the indications that it is very wrong.

 

[Pretty Vampires]

Oh, how I miss the days of calling out youth pastors, and their 'cool' Christian muzik. Funny times.

 

[Hargood]

How long did it take you to come up with that dig?

View attachment 5464

Uh,, yeah, that's a wierd question.

Answer: "Right when i read your post"?

...or were you asking "Did It take days and days to read all of your other posts to come up with how "Wonderful" and "Tolerant" you are?"

.. Idk, I think you let people understand you pretty well right off the bat ...don't ya think?

 

[Doctor Langstrom]

Uh,, yeah, that's a wierd question.

Answer: "Right when i read your post"?

...or do you mean that I took days and days to read all of your other posts to come up with how "Wonderful" and "Tolerant" you are?

 

[Anouck]

It's probably already said in this thread but I'm going to say it anyway..

The church has a history of propaganda. Back in the dark ages, when pretty much everyone was religious, the church made people belief they could actually 'buy' a spot in heaven by donating money to the church. It didn't matter what evil deeds you committed, as long as you payed a fee to the church God forgave you. If someone died family members actually had to pay money to the local priest to make sure their loved one wouldn't end up in hell.
One of the main reasons people believed this crap was because the Bible was written in Latin. And only nobles and dignitaries were able to read back then (let alone in Latin) so no one actually understood what was in the Bible.
Martin Luther, a German priest, was furious about it and tried to get rid of this unfair system. He translated the Bible so normal people could read it too and kick-started a revolution. The Protestantism was born.

Obviously people had lost their trust and loyalty to the church. Therefor there was a lot of propaganda to restore their reputation again. And to be honest, this case reminds me of that.
The church messes up and people are outraging all over the world. So what do they do? They make the pope say things people like to regain their trust, respect and loyalty.
As far as I'm concerned this has something to do with the child abuse that recently came out. I bet this is just one of their popularity contests.

 

[DemonOfFate]

I'm Greek Orthodox, and my opinion on this is that if he is truly going to do what he is saying, then by all means it is good. But the catholic church has a habit of alternate agendas, I partially think they are just trying to please everyone, because they are kinda going against what their faith says.

Regarding the good people go to hell if they don't believe issue, here is my opinion on that: If you've never heard of god, but are a good person, I believe you will go to heaven. If you have heard of god, are a good person, but deny him you shall go to hell, if you are a bad person and claim to believe in god but still commit murder/rape and the like, you shall go to hell, for none who truly believe would continue to do those actions.

One other thing is this, you don't need religion to be morally right, but I'm of the opinion that it surely helps. And babies don't go to hell, for they are still pure beings. Respect my beliefs and I shall respect yours. If anything everyone can surely agree that the concept of Christianity in and of itself is a good thing. That's my 2 cents.