Why did God create atheists?

[ironduck]

It's fornication, so it's a sin. Sin is part of the topic currently.

What is sin?

 

[FearlessLeader2]

FredLC,
S'all right. Have a good one.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

What is sin?

Sin
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
This page is about sin in the context of religion. For other meanings, see Sin (disambiguation)
Sin has been a term most usually used in a religious context, and today describes any lack of conformity to the will of God; especially, any willful disregard for the norms revealed by God is a sin. The word is from the old English synn, presumed to be from Germanic *sun(d)jō[1] (http://www.bartleby.com/61/roots/IE133.html) (lit: "it is true"). It is recorded in use as early as the 9th century. The most common formal definition is an infraction against religious or moral law. Colloquially, any thought, word, or act considered faulty, shameful, harmful to oneself or to others, or which alienates self from others and especially from God, can be called a sin. Through sin, guilt is incurred; and according to guilt, punishment is deserved. Compare Impiety and Crime. Atonement is a concept of justice and mercy, and "payment" for one's sins. An example is found in traditions of animal sacrifice (as found in early Judaism, for example). Atonement for one's sins thought through the agency of a Messiah became the central idea of Christian theology. Repentance describes the acknowledgement of sin as well as the feelings, thoughts, and actions which accompany efforts to alleviate the effects of having sinned.

Any more disingenous questions?

 

[ironduck]

Any more disingenous questions?

Well, I've asked this question half a dozen times now to others who brought up sin, but then didn't want to follow through in what constituted sin. You provide the wikipedia version, which mentions it as being an infraction both against religious and moral law.

So if you agree with that, you find that a) according to Christianity sex (outside marriage I assume) and homosexuality is wrong, and b) it is also morally wrong.

Or are you only holding that it is wrong in terms of your religious belief (if so, I would like to learn how this works).

 

[Masquerouge]

How do you know he's not? Only 144,000 are going there, and they're described as men that have not defiled themselves with women, or a lot of other stuff.

So basically, free will is useless, right ? Since the chances are way too low I'll be one of these fews, I'd rather drink, have sex and sin like there's no tomorrow
Not that I don't anyway, mind you.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Well, I've asked this question half a dozen times now to others who brought up sin, but then didn't want to follow through in what constituted sin. You provide the wikipedia version, which mentions it as being an infraction both against religious and moral law.

So if you agree with that, you find that a) according to Christianity sex (outside marriage I assume) and homosexuality is wrong, and b) it is also morally wrong.

Got it right on the first try. Nicely done. It feels good when people comprehend what I type.

Now, I'm going to save you the trouble of asking me why homo/hetero-sexual intercourse between non-married adults is a sin, and just answer it now. (Ain't I a peach?)

Two versions:

1) Because God told us it was wrong.

2) A dispassionate examination of the subject (intercourse outside of marriage) shows it to be a severe detriment both to the individual and to society, to wit:

• Failed romances lead to jealousy, depression, suicide, and even murder.
• Having multiple sexual partners is a direct contributor to the spread of STDs.
• The inherent lack of stability in even a monogamous unmarried relationship leaves the door open for one partner to abandon the other in hard times, where in marriage there are strong penalties and social stigma involved.
• The cheapening and de-mystifying of sex makes it far too approachable to those members of society (teens) least able to deal with its consequences (pregnancy, monogamy, and STD's).

 

[FearlessLeader2]

So basically, free will is useless, right ? Since the chances are way too low I'll be one of these fews, I'd rather drink, have sex and sin like there's no tomorrow
Not that I don't anyway, mind you.

Why would you want to go to Heaven? You were born in a flesh and blood body, and it's the only frame of reference you know. Did it ever occur to you that maybe the reason a sizeable contingent of angels left Heaven to go play on earth with women was possibly because being a spirit creature blows monkey chunks? Or maybe just isn't very stimulating at all? I mean sure, hanging with Big G in the palace must be nice for the first few thousands of years, but around the time earth was condesing out of the protostar that became Sol, I'd a been slamming my head against the nearest neutron star in boredom. At least on earth there's stuff to DO.

And if I were going to live forever, that might be long enough to get good at most of it...

 

[ironduck]

Do you really believe this yourself? Is the world that black and white to you?

Got it right on the first try. Nicely done. It feels good when people comprehend what I type.

Now, I'm going to save you the trouble of asking me why homo/hetero-sexual intercourse between non-married adults is a sin, and just answer it now. (Ain't I a peach?)

Two versions:

1) Because God told us it was wrong.

2) A dispassionate examination of the subject (intercourse outside of marriage) shows it to be a severe detriment both to the individual and to society, to wit:

• Failed romances lead to jealousy, depression, suicide, and even murder.
• Having multiple sexual partners is a direct contributor to the spread of STDs.
• The inherent lack of stability in even a monogamous unmarried relationship leaves the door open for one partner to abandon the other in hard times, where in marriage there are strong penalties and social stigma involved.
• The cheapening and de-mystifying of sex makes it far too approachable to those members of society (teens) least able to deal with its consequences (pregnancy, monogamy, and STD's).

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Do you really believe this yourself? Is the world that black and white to you?

When dealing with the truth, belief is irrelevant. All that is needed is acceptance. I accept that the above is true, not because it meshes with some close-held personal belief, but because the facts are self-evident, and undeniable.

Belief? Save that for things that aren't in evidence, like God, Atheism, papal infallibility, Santa, and the Tooth Fairy. One of those I believe in, and He doesn't wear a red suit (that I know of).

 

[Ayatollah So]

My 2 cents about free will: I don't think free will is a good excuse for Hell. When Christians bring up that people have "free will," it seems to be almost invariably used to show that God is not responsible for the sin of humans. In said argument it is also usually implied that, for humans not to sin, we must necessarily be stripped of our free will. Why? Is it impossible that God use his power such that a person were so awed that he would not sin?

I suppose my overall point is that Christians, assuming that the Bible is true, assume away other possibilities for God's response to and treatment of humans, thus, in essence, putting a higher power over God.

Dang, you beat me to it! Well, let's apply the point to atheism, or more generally, unbelief.

I'm an unbeliever. As far as I can see, the evidence for God's existence is lacking. But maybe I'm wrong. There are two possibilities:

(1) The evidence is right there in front of my face, but I'm just too dense to see it. In that case, I demand a refund! I want a better brain, goshdarnit!

(2) The evidence is indeed not sufficient to convince an intelligent person. (And I may or may not stupid, to boot.) In that case, why not? Why create the circumstances that lead to unbelief? Especially, given the dire consequences for us unbelievers, being left out of resurrection and all.

And don't tell me the answer is that if God had made his existence fully evident, it would take away my free will. Nonsense. There are plenty of mathematical truths which are evident, but they don't reduce my freedom one iota. Evidently the presence of decisive evidence is no barrier to freedom. Nor is the evident limited to dry, abstract facts. The love of my wife is evident, too. Doesn't make me any less free.

So am I stupid, or just clueless? Inquiring minds want to know.

 

[ironduck]

The 'examination' you listed has nothing to do with truth. It is indeed tailored to a belief.

As for how you come to the conclusion that your god told you it was wrong I leave as your own personal headache.

When dealing with the truth, belief is irrelevant. All that is needed is acceptance. I accept that the above is true, not because it meshes with some close-held personal belief, but because the facts are self-evident, and undeniable.

Belief? Save that for things that aren't in evidence, like God, Atheism, papal infallibility, Santa, and the Tooth Fairy. One of those I believe in, and He doesn't wear a red suit (that I know of).

 

[FearlessLeader2]

The 'examination' you listed has nothing to do with truth. It is indeed tailored to a belief.

Feel free to critique any of those points. I welcome your commentary.

As for how you come to the conclusion that your god told you it was wrong I leave as your own personal headache.

S'all over the Bible.

 

[Tank_Guy#3]

He didn't, GOD DOES NOT EXIST.

 

[Birdjaguar]

When dealing with the truth, belief is irrelevant. All that is needed is acceptance. I accept that the above is true, not because it meshes with some close-held personal belief, but because the facts are self-evident, and undeniable.

Belief? Save that for things that aren't in evidence, like God, Atheism, papal infallibility, Santa, and the Tooth Fairy. One of those I believe in, and He doesn't wear a red suit (that I know of).

While I cannot say that we agree on very many things FL2, I do enjoy your new posting approach enormously. Put the big rocks in first and everything will fit.

 

[Quasar1011]

I'm an unbeliever....
So am I stupid, or just clueless? Inquiring minds want to know.

Probably neither. Consider possibility #3.

2 Corinthians 4:4
The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

By the way, the god of this age =

 

[JonathanValjean]

Narz, I don't think God created Atheists. He created human beings with free moral agency and the ability to choose whether or not to believe in him. About 90% of humans believe in him; that's a pretty good percentage.

 

[shortguy]

Probably neither. Consider possibility #3.

2 Corinthians 4:4
The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

By the way, the god of this age =

Sucks for us, I guess.

 

[Lord Parkin]

Narz, I don't think God created Atheists. He created human beings with free moral agency and the ability to choose whether or not to believe in him. About 90% of humans believe in him; that's a pretty good percentage.

Uh... way too high percent, dude...

 

[nonconformist]

A far better question is "Is anybody in Hell?"

Since there is no Hell and it's not a tenet of Christianity, let's ignore it as a strawman argument.

Thank you for

a) bothering to answer my question
b)answeing it in your own words, in a reasonable manner.

 

[ironduck]

You asked for a critique of your points, but I have a hard time believing you would seriously consider it, not only since your tone is quite condescending which does not indicate an interest in listening, but also because I don't think this forum is the right place to show you the colours that exist in this world rather than the black and white view you present.

All of your points are extreme generalisations that could just as easily be turned around. They fail to examine the individual situation and instead paints with a broad brush in the direction you want them to.

1) *Some* failed romances may lead to that, most lead to just carrying on with one's life. Similarly, failed marriages lead to the same things you just listed in *some* instances, in most cases they do not. And no, marriages do not mainly fail due to extramarital affairs, but due to communication problems, lack of love in the first place, or people growing apart as they they find new paths important for their well-being and growth as humans.

2) Sure, multiple sex partners means higher risk of stds. Any sex at all means higher risk at stds than no sex! So let's just skip sex altogether and never create another child in this world, eh? Making love is one of the most beautiful things in this world, to consider this a sin is so far beyond my understanding that you might as well claim murder to be a virtue. Taking care with sex through testing and protection minimizes the risk of disease to a degree that they would be almost eliminated within a generation if anyone did so. The reason for spread of stds has everything to do with carelessness and ignorance like the kind you propose in point 4.

In fact, most diseases between humans spread through direct contact. Your argument could just as well be used for people always needing to stand 10 metres away from each other, and never touching. In fact, they should wear gloves and masks just to be sure. The point is, that diseases spread through all human interaction, and by far the most of them have nothing to do with sex.

3) You know, I thought marriage was based on love, but I see that in your world it's based on terms like penalties and social stigma to keep it together. Again, this is the exact opposite of how I see the world. People get together because they love each other, and that is why they stay together. They should not stay together out of fear of how society might judge them. What kind of relationship is that, one of fear of other's judgement? Terrible. There is no less stability in a serious monogamous relationship regardless of a formal ceremony. Rather, what you suggest causes pain and suffering for so many people in this world that it is heart breaking. I know of a good deal of people who are trapped in marriages with a partner that no longer treats them fairly, yet they feel obligued to stay due to social stigma and judgement. All for nothing, they get no love from that, just pain. Women across the world are mistreated by their husbands and trapped due to various rules of marriage, both legally and socially.

4) On the contrary, openness about sex is what is needed. Teaching teenagers about consequences makes them capable of making their own decisions. You cannot take the hormones out of them, they are human beings with desires. Instead, let them know how sex works so they don't make their discoveries in the dark without full knowledge of diseases and pregnancy. Sex becomes no less frequent because you shroud it under a dark veil, it just becomes hidden and secret. Why you would want to hide nature from people is beyond me, once again.

2) A dispassionate examination of the subject (intercourse outside of marriage) shows it to be a severe detriment both to the individual and to society, to wit:

• Failed romances lead to jealousy, depression, suicide, and even murder.
• Having multiple sexual partners is a direct contributor to the spread of STDs.
• The inherent lack of stability in even a monogamous unmarried relationship leaves the door open for one partner to abandon the other in hard times, where in marriage there are strong penalties and social stigma involved.
• The cheapening and de-mystifying of sex makes it far too approachable to those members of society (teens) least able to deal with its consequences (pregnancy, monogamy, and STD's).