Quote:
Originally Posted by zzz
It is true that my religious beliefs are based entirely on faith and it really isn't up for discussion obviously, because this conversation isn't really based on fact for me. I never attacked Atheists/Agnostics, I defended Christianity. All I said was that Christianity can be a very good thing in life and it can change the way you think and act in life, hence why people become born agains.
|
Jesus doesn't like it when you lie. You didn't come in here and defend Christianity and talk about your faith being a personal choice. Read your posts, want me to quote them for you? You sarcastically mocked atheists, demanded they prove something you yourself said was unprovable and then avoided any discussion by citing "faith" as your sole reason for believing. Do not continue this discussion by pretending you were being anything other than arrogant, condescending and self-righteous.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zzz
And I stand behind what I said. That doesn't make Atheists/Agnostics any lesser of people, they just don't have any role model of sorts to base their morals off of. They don't have the motivation to do good that Christians have.
|
Then it's a stupid statement to stand behind. Christians did not invent morality and they have no claim to it - nor do they have claim to many of the great civil rights advancements of recent times. In fact by using faith as your justification you're only condoning the acts of extremists (e.g. 9/11 and suicide bombing.)
There's also another logical fallacy I see in your post. You're essentially saying that the believer has reason to be moral because of his fear of eternal punishment by that logic, the moral nonbeliever (and there is such a thing as a moral nonbeliever) is moral for no reason other than for the sake of being moral. Which do you consider to be the more noble moralist? For me it's the latter.
As far as nonbelievers committing more crimes (aside from you having provide no evidence other than personal experience) I highly doubt they do it because of their critical thinking and skeptical inquiry. Let's take an example near and dear to your heart (as a Catholic) if you see a man molest a child why do you think he did it? Because he was an atheist (or more likely a Priest) or because of lust? There's no logical connection between the former and the act, however there is a logical connection between lust and the act.