interesting extract on christianity

Post Reply New Topic

"While political party affiliation in the United States is not a perfect indicator of religiosity, it is no secret that the 'red (republican) states' are primarily red due to overwhelming political influence of conservative Christians. If there were a strong correlation between Christian conservatism and societal health, we might expect to see some sign of it in red-state America. We don't. Of the twenty-five cites with the lowest rates of violent crime, 62 percent are 'blue' (democrat) states, and 38 percent are in 'red' (Republican) states. Of the twenty-five most dangerous cities, 76% are in red states, and 24% are in blue states. In fact, 3 of the 5 most dangerous cities in the U.S. are in the pious state of Texas. The twelve states with the highest rates of burglary are red. Twenty-four of the twenty-nine states with the highest rates of theft are red. Of the twenty-two states with highest rates of murder, seventeen are red"

I found this very interesting, concerning those who say you need 'God' to be good person.

A well-known argument/fact. The counterargument is usually "these people need God, see".

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9izVu_TtAE[/youtube]

I disgree with those who say god is needed to be a good person.


Think of it this way, if a christain says you need god to behave ask this: so if god did not exist you would loot, kill and rape. if say yes well... if they say no, then it shows you do not need go to be a good person as you are good without god.

Second, aren't the truly good moral people the ones that are good no matter what.
Christains are just saying 'better be good, he is watching you know'
Were as a true moral person is good regardless of who is watching.

There are plenty of secular people who are well-mannered, polite, benevolent, caring etc. I don't think any rational Christians (or other religious people) would argue with that.

How would religious people change if they didn't believe in God? That's a good question. Since some do find meaning and aim in God, when that is lost the weight of each individual action becomes less important.

I don't necessarily agree with a legal understanding of Christianity that dominates in the West, but I'll adapt it for the sake of this discussion. The Christian belief system also includes the devil, the adversary in court, one who happens to care particularly about believers because he wants them eternally damned and deprived of afterlife benefits that God had in store for them. It's said to be one of the external wills affecting people (contrary to benevolent ones) and one that would lead them to all sort of sinful behaviour and misfortune resulting from it. This is why you might hear some criminal try to justify himself, 'the devil made me do it!' You might shrug it off because who's ever seen the devil anywhere really? But it becomes impossible to argue on what influence exactly the devil projects if one person does not acknowledge his existence at all, similarly to how we wouldn't come to any conclusion on the HIV problem in Africa if one of us were to deny the existence of the entire continent.

As for whether doing good things with God is more or less moral than doing them without God. Plenty of atheists will say that their deeds have more value as they're done selflessly, without any expectation of getting anything back in this life or another, which certainly leaves the other party deprived of their claims to a moral victory since they happen to want rewards for their deeds (some do anyway). It's all good on paper, but people like to deceive themselves and see their motivation as more respectable (though sometimes far worse) than it might be in reality. With God taken out of the picture, you may do all sorts of useful things for others because you like entertaining the idea that you're a good person, you appreciate attention and compliments, and for all kinds of reason that can hardly be called 'selfless' if we really dwell on it. I guess one point we'll probably agree on is that a good deed done in anonymity and without anyone watching (right, God is watching for some religious people) is more moral than one with observers involved.

Who says there aren't real Christians in blue states? Oh, yeah, red state conservatives.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Locke was wrong.

_________________
Lastly, those are not at all to be tolerated who deny the being of a God. Promises, covenants, and oaths, which are the bonds of human society, can have no hold upon an atheist. - John Locke

I'd have to see the full study to believe that or not. I'd find it hard to believe there're 3 cities in Texas more dangerous than Chicago, Detroit, or Washington DC.

Go find out what this means: "correlation does not imply causation". Once you understand that, you'll see why this is much less persuasive than you give it credit for. Also, I would not accept without evidence the assertion that "'red (republican) states' are primarily red due to overwhelming political influence of conservative Christians".


I think you're misunderstanding what Christians mean when they say that (although you might well still disagree after finding out).

In the Christian view, God is the source of all good. So, for a Christian, a good atheist would be deriving that good from God, albeit indirectly and without knowing it.


That isn't what Christians say, though. C. S. Lewis (a famous and respected Christian author) called the attitude you're describing "Devil worship".

I laughed at that. The bible, old and new testments describe a genocidal, homophobic, sexist, racist, jealous, temperamental with attention problems.

A case against racism can be made for the NT. And genocide in the NT?

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

The tale of the Good Samaritan is borderline racist. Today's equivalent would be "I got mugged and you won't believe it, but a black guy stopped to help me!"

And it isn't genocide, but Herod's orders to kill all the children is a little bit extreme. Though admittedly that isn't God's doing (for a change).

Actually, the good Samaritan story can be seen as an argument against racism. It has to be remembered how the Judeans viewed the Samaritans as ethnic and cultural half breeds, and thus not worthy to associate with. In the parable, it's the Samaritan who's the only decent person.
And as you yourself had admitted, Herod's slaughter of children was hardly committed by God.
But back to the racism issue - - I like how Paul had told his followers that they were no longer Jews or Gentiles, Greeks or Barbarians, Romans or Savages, slave or free, man or woman, but rather were all one in Christ. That alone is a powerful statement against racism, class prejudice, or sexism. Unfortunately, Christians have a long history of ignoring Paul's sage words.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Sure enough, life isn't politically correct either.

The story of the golden calf?

I think it's funny when people use religion (or a lack thereof) as a reason for people's wrong doings.
Religion doesn't determine who is good or bad, or what crime is committed where. If people are idiotic and psychotic enough to break the law and act like idiots and psychos, they're going to do it regardless of whether or not they call themselves Christian.
Truly good people, do truly good things, whereas bad people, do bad things. Now, of course that doesn't mean people can't change for the better or worse, but you get the idea (I hope).