Quote:
Originally Posted by sleepy jack
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.
|
And here you are mocking me and my religious beliefs because I "lied" supposedly. Your jab at Jesus is just as arrogant as anything I've said in this thread. For the hundredth (and last) time, I asked for facts from Atheists/Agnostics that god doesn't exist because that is there reasoning behind God not existing. If they have proof God doesn't exist, I want to here it. I have no proof other than my faith. I've made it quite clear that the only reason I've asked for proof is because that is what Atheists/Agnostics use to justify their non-belief.
And for the love of God (love, not hate), stop telling me I'm arrogant. I get it that you think that of me, it's been said and made very redundant and isn't constructive in the slightest. The comment I felt sorry about posting after I posted is arrogant, yes. I took the initiative and apologized to you and offered to remove it. You declined. Cut down on the abuse, honestly.
Quote:
|
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.)
|
Yeah, I'm also condoning the kind religious people who do good every day but you don't hear about it because of the way our media is.
Quote:
|
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.
|
That's not logical fallacy, it's your opinion. And it's also not true, just because they hold to their morals for religious beliefs doesn't mean they don't do good for the sake of doing good. It's not one or the other, you can have both.
Quote:
|
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.
|
Most people (in my experience) find Christianity because they are looking for a movement that preaches respecting each other and following the word of God by being a model citizen. Other than that and the benefits you reap in the afterlife (where you'd have to be good in life anyways), there's no motivation for being a Christian. You don't get paid to be one. So people who aren't the kind of people who would do the right thing in a scenario that would benefit them more to do the wrong thing aren't likely to be Christians.