Christianity is Morally Bankrupt

Nope. I have consistently said that whatever version of hell that you choose, it's morally indefensible unless a decent bloke can get to heaven.Then, I would add, if a good bloke CAN get to heaven without accepting Christ as the saviour, religious belief is redundant.Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

Good. Then we can move on. Correct. It means unnecessary.It seems that we're done here.

I suspect that you know that the evidence you accept is a bit less than inconclusive.From what you say, you went looking for an answer and, not surprisingly, you found one.

There's too much short hand in the labels being used here.There's evidence for and against a god that may or may not have created the universe and there's evidence for and against a particular religion that worships that God. Deism and Theism in other words.Believers understandably fuse the two and atheists get bored of having to point out that the difference is vital. Most atheists would say if asked, that they do not believe in any theistic postion because the evidence is not only non-existent but actually proveably wrong, but would concede a roughly agnostic position on deism.

quote:

---

Instead of showing where the evidence is faulty you just dismiss it and don't provide any evidence for the atheistic position. What evidence do you have for atheism?

---

Now that's unworthy of you. Surely I don't need to take you through the Russell teapot stuff?

Not at all. I can legitimately conclude that Christianity is bunkum without having a moment's thought about whether a God exists or not. It fails on its own terms. Which is, I would guess, how you feel about all the other religions that are not Christianity.However, if I did agree that we had to start with deciding that there was a God or not - regardless of what kind, I would conclude that if there is, it is certainly not the kind of interventionist god that behaves in the way Christians tell us he does - sending his son to earth, performing miracles, answering prayers and so on. That is plainly absurd and it totally unsupported by any evidence. (In fact, flatly contradicted by the evidence.) More or less; but it's more nuanced than that because: It's the opposite of an easy out - it's an admission that there is room for doubt. The position is best explained by the Atheist Bus campaign here in the UK, "There probably is no god, now stop worrying and enjoy your life" Atheist Bus Campaign - Wikipedia The evidence is to be found in the sciences and the fact that we have never found any evidence for anything other that natural processes. But this is not the place to discuss all that - there are a thousand other threads here that do.

Me too.But I congratulate you on you're restraint, that's the very best interpretation.

Sure, we all discover the Golden rule whatever religion or non-religion we have - that's because it's necessary for us to survive in a complex community and has nothing at all to do with religion.But that also has nothing to do with our discussion, which was about whether the concept of hell is immoral.You disagree with all the other religions because you believe that Christ was resurrected and so on. Part of the Christian belief system is the concept of heaven and hell.I think you have agreed with me that if it was the case that a good bloke can't get to heaven simply because he doesn't believe in Christ - for whatever reason - then it would be unjust.You also have said - I think - that you believe that the good bloke could in fact get to heaven regardless of belief.Which says that the whole religious belief is irrelevant as far as my chances of getting into heaven and avoiding hell is concerned.
(We are ignoring for the moment that others believe that God can do anything he likes regardless of whether we minions believe it to be immoral.) But you have already conceded, that I can get into heaven without believing in the resurrection........You can, as our universal 'good bloke,' do all the good works as an atheist and stop wasting your time on worship and meet both objectives of leading a good life and pleasing your maker more efficiently. Well, you completely missed the point. You said that declaring myself agnostic on a particular point was a cop out. I was explaining that atheists do not normally utterly rule out the possibility of a no-interventionist God because it's not rationally possible to do that.I wasn't accusing you of worrying.But hey-ho. 'Probably' the best atheist bus campaign ever | Ariane Sherine | The Guardian

I don't think there's much point commenting on what you believe about God because basically you can make up whatever you like then believe in it, but for the evolutionary perspective, there's no reason at all to suppose that there would be any consistency in what we understand about the world. In fact it would be astonishing beyond belief - if we did.What we understand about the world is a complex of experience, learning, culture, tradition and beliefs. None of that is standardised in any way - it's a mess. I doubt very much that atheists would agree that we have a conscience - at least not in the way I assume you mean - but you'd need to tell us what a conscience is first.

We are very likely to differ on what we think a conscience is because because for me it's another religious invention like a soul or free will that has no meaning except in a literary or allegorical way.We know that our sense of morality is not the voice of god, instead it's a brain function carried on mostly in the pre-frontal cortex and temporo-parietal junction. Our sense of morality can be interfered with by drugs, surgery and even magnetic interference and it developes as we learn and grow. It's clever, but it's not magic or supernatural.

Sure, but it pushes your god even further back. Once god was personally responsible for the creation of species, now we know he isn't.If/when replicating life is shown to form spontaneously from simple chemistry it's difficult, even impossible, to say that we're special and a planned action.

Well sure, you have a very flexible view of your religion. Others differ. Well it can't make any difference to my understanding of how the universe works because abiogenesis is expected.It will be pretty seismic for others though - similar to Darwin I would suggest.

Those that still need to believe in the creation stories will have to invent their own chemistry to add to their versions of biology, physics and geology. I quite admire the otherwise abhorrent Catholics on this stuff - they follow the science - eventually. Francis Collins advised his fellow born agains not to pitch their tent on a slope because inevitably they'll find themselves at the bottom of the hill come the morning.All very admirable. I just wonder where the actual breaking point will be. If/ when there becomes a scientific consensus around the Hawking idea that the universe is quite capable of popping itself into existence from nothing (whatever that is) without the need for intervention of any kind - what then?Probably nothing, other than believers will gradually be replaced by non-believers and soppy liberal 'christianity'- as has happened in most of Northern Europe.

Well that would obviously be incorrect as something that pops itself into existence does not require a third party to do it. That's beyond both of our understandings, but by definition, the answer is no it wouldn't, it would keep it firmly in the realm of mathematics and physics.

If that was true he wouldn't also have created multiple sclerosis.

Parochial Americans have no idea what mainstream is. You think it's what you've been taught but Christianity was European for most of its existence, then exported to the Americas.

quote:

---

And it makes sense to me.

---

Of course it does. And that's all that matters isn't it?