Christianity is based on substitutionary atonement. Is it a moral religion?
- Thread starter Greatest I am
- Start date
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
tyler.durden
Well-Known Member
I'm not sure if Pad believes there is no god. I consider myself an atheist in the sense that I lack belief in any deity that I've been exposed to, but I do not make a positive claim that there is no god. For all I know there could be some sort of deity or controlling force of the universe, I've just never encountered a shred of evidence of it. This is known as an agnostic atheist, one who doesn't possess belief that a deity exists, but believes we cannot know for certain as we cannot look everywhere in existence at once. There are atheists that state that there absolutely is no god, but they are in the minority and that requires a degree of faith...
Last edited:
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
I'm a gnostic atheist, I do believe no gods exist, and as you pointed out, my position involves a degree of faith, as I've never been in every inch of the universe to prove it. I just don't see any reason to believe it, simple as that..
The question still remains valid though for your position, your position doesn't require faith as it's not a positive claim, and I would agree, in logical terms, it is the more rational position to hold considering faith is anything but rational
Greatest I am
Active Member
Well put and it also shows how even atheists can have closed minds which to me makes them no better than theists with their closed minds. Both of these groups I see as idol worshipers of what they believe.
Regards
DL
Doer
Well-Known Member
You are a worshiper of what you believe. You are trying to split the hair. with your "closed mind." vs your "open mind?" Is that it? You have no evidence of anything in this subject.
Doer
Well-Known Member
@Padawanbater2,,,would agree, in logical terms, it is the more rational position to hold considering faith is anything but rational
To putter about and label yourself like this and then think one label is more logical but requires faith and then say faith is not rational, just about sums up your total confusion.
To putter about and label yourself like this and then think one label is more logical but requires faith and then say faith is not rational, just about sums up your total confusion.
Greatest I am
Active Member
Greatest I am
Active Member
Greatest I am
Active Member
??
The O.P. is asking a moral question. It does not offer any meaning to anything.
You might try reading it and then if you choose to opine we can see if we have a point to argue or not.
Regards
DL
Greatest I am
Active Member
Doer
Well-Known Member
Thinking is highly over rated and is so in the way of actual experience, that thinking is the anti-experience. In thinking, we hide from SELF by muttering in endless and vapid, internal dialog.
SELF is experienced on a constant basis, unless and until we think..
Religions, oth, are argued about until there is War,
SELF is experienced on a constant basis, unless and until we think..
Religions, oth, are argued about until there is War,
Greatest I am
Active Member
Most see arguing as fighting.
I see and mean it more as offering arguments for or against a proposition. More lie Socrates would view the word argue.
If the personal can be left out of those arguments, the become the best possible discussions.
Regards
DL
Greatest I am
Active Member
From the time we began to read our religious myths literally, no argument.
Before Christianity forced that upon us with the Dark Ages and Inquisitions, it was not so.
Religion is not the direct problem. Literal reading of myths is the root of religious evil.
Regards
DL