What's new
By:
Filters
Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Studies Conclude: Atheism = Peace, Religion = Confliction

i never said that. but you made the claim that they are better then the countries that claim that have"religion"

i merely said the the idea of helping the poor is predomintatly a christian one.

christians started these organiztions and movements
feminism
the red cross
the salvation army
and the idea of the law of war came from clara barton who also started the red cross.
which lead to the hague conventions after wwI
and the current geneva connvetions added to that idea after ww2 and since each war since
to name a few.

so unless athiesm was around before this, and is totally and has uninfluenced by theses things drew has a point.


yes i do know of some athiests(groups) that have made a difference. but to make a claim that they are better all by thier lonesome isnt quite the truth in those countries.
 
jasoncran said:
i merely said the the idea of helping the poor is predomintatly a christian one.
Click to expand...
Have you seen him who belies the rewards and punishments of the Hereafter? He it is who drives away the orphan and does not urge giving away the food of the poor. (107:1 - 3)

Give to the near of kin his due, and also to the needy and the wayfarers. Do not squander your wealth wastefully; for those who squander wastefully are Satan's brothers, and Satan is ever ungrateful to his Lord. (17:26 - 27)

Two quotes from the Qu'ran that suggest otherwise.
 
jasoncran said:
i never said that. but you made the claim that they are better then the countries that claim that have"religion"

i merely said the the idea of helping the poor is predomintatly a christian one.
so unless athiesm was around before this, and is totally and has uninfluenced by theses things drew has a point.


yes i do know of some athiests(groups) that have made a difference. but to make a claim that they are better all by thier lonesome isnt quite the truth in those countries.
Click to expand...

Then I apologize, But you've misunderstood me as well. I've never stated that all countries with a predominant population of atheists are better than religious ones. In fact, I've stated numerous times that i agree that there are both atheist and religious countries a like that are both good and bad. This topic however is about the statistics behind the majority of these countries.
 
logical bob said:
jasoncran said:
i merely said the the idea of helping the poor is predomintatly a christian one.
Click to expand...
Have you seen him who belies the rewards and punishments of the Hereafter? He it is who drives away the orphan and does not urge giving away the food of the poor. (107:1 - 3)

Give to the near of kin his due, and also to the needy and the wayfarers. Do not squander your wealth wastefully; for those who squander wastefully are Satan's brothers, and Satan is ever ungrateful to his Lord. (17:26 - 27)

Two quotes from the Qu'ran that suggest otherwise.
Click to expand...
the verses on that are in the bible PREDATE that one, by a oh a few hundred yrs, and since you mentioned that most muslim countries dont do that all but rather ignore the poor.

or the orphan , i have seen this in aghanistan, alot, though some did help but most are too poor to help.

i can only speak about afghanistan, but girls are often ignored in the orphanage, less human to the muslim in those islamic countries.
 
I don't doubt it. Bad stuff happens in Christian countries too.

We could trade examples of good and bad Christians, good and bad Muslims and good and bad atheists all day. All it shows is that it isn't Christians, Muslims or atheists who help the poor or harm them, it's people. No faith or philosophy has a monopoly on right or wrong.
 
logical bob said:
I have a theory that the connection works the other way round. I think you'll find more atheists in peaceful societies. That's because stable societies are likely to be more prosporous and have better education and more public engagement in culture. It's certainly the case that more educated people are more likely to be atheists and less likely to hold fundamentalist beliefs.

Meanwhile, people with difficult lives in difficult places are more likely to seek the comfort and consolation of religion.

Just a thought. I'm obviously not saying this holds for all individuals. The USA might also be something of an exception, though I know plenty of American atheists.
Click to expand...
I think that one needs to remember that not all "religious" people are fundamentalists. I am certainly not a "fundamentalist" but believe that I am deeply committed to a Christian faith that is grounded in the Scriptures.

I think one also needs to remember that "better education" arguably cashes out to "more exposure to a worldview grounded in the outworkings of the enlightenment". And the problem with worldviews is that they are almost never questioned. And I suspect that many "educated" westerners have not really challenged some of the fundamental assumptions in which they ground many of their beliefs.
 
logical bob said:
But Western culture was also strongly shaped by the Ancient Greeks and nobody believes in Zeus.
Click to expand...
I agree that western culture was shaped by Greek thinking. And, as an aside, some of that Greek influenced has caused many (most?) western Christians to read their Bibles with "Platonic spectacles", thereby radically misunderstanding the intent of the original authors whose "Hebrew" worldview was somewhat different from the Greek one.
 
Evointrinsic said:
It doesnt matter what an atheist's view is on religion or if a religion has influenced that individual. all that needs for a person to be an atheist is their idea that there is no god. that is it. there is no such thing as a "Pure" or "impure" atheist by your definition. It does not exist in either manner. You just have to not believe in any deities, that is it...
Click to expand...
But that was not what I was talking about. My basic point was this: In a country with a strong religious tradition, it is impossible to say that the otherwise "positive" behaviour of atheists has not been informed by "religious" values.

This may have had nothing to do with your detailed arguments - I was responding to the implication of thread title, namely that atheism is a "better" value system.
 
Drew said:
I think that one needs to remember that not all "religious" people are fundamentalists. I am certainly not a "fundamentalist" but believe that I am deeply committed to a Christian faith that is grounded in the Scriptures.
Click to expand...
You're certainly no fundamentalist Drew. :)

I think one also needs to remember that "better education" arguably cashes out to "more exposure to a worldview grounded in the outworkings of the enlightenment". And the problem with worldviews is that they are almost never questioned. And I suspect that many "educated" westerners have not really challenged some of the fundamental assumptions in which they ground many of their beliefs.
Click to expand...
Fair comment.

I agree that western culture was shaped by Greek thinking. And, as an aside, some of that Greek influenced has caused many (most?) western Christians to read their Bibles with "Platonic spectacles", thereby radically misunderstanding the intent of the original authors whose "Hebrew" worldview was somewhat different from the Greek one.
Click to expand...
True, although the NT is a very Greek.Its authors read the LXX not the Tanakh. Luke/Acts shows clear signs of an education in classical rhetoric and quotes Euripides in a couple of places. Paul especially is steeped in Platonism (the phrase about seeing through a glass darkly is lifted straight from the Phaedro), following on from Philo of Alexandria and his Hellenising of Judaism. In some places, especially concerning the resurrection of the dead, you can see Paul struggling with the tension between the spirituality of Plato and the physicality of the OT.
 
logical bob said:
True, although the NT is a very Greek.Its authors read the LXX not the Tanakh. Luke/Acts shows clear signs of an education in classical rhetoric and quotes Euripides in a couple of places. Paul especially is steeped in Platonism (the phrase about seeing through a glass darkly is lifted straight from the Phaedro), following on from Philo of Alexandria and his Hellenising of Judaism. In some places, especially concerning the resurrection of the dead, you can see Paul struggling with the tension between the spirituality of Plato and the physicality of the OT.
Click to expand...
I agree that there is a lot of Greek influence in the NT. I perhaps should have made my point more carefully. While Paul, for example, was indeed steeped in Hellenism, the corpus of his work "points back" to a distinctly Hebrew tradition - he is telling a fundamentally "Jewish" story, even if he uses Hellenistic forms.
 
Drew said:
But that was not what I was talking about. My basic point was this: In a country with a strong religious tradition, it is impossible to say that the otherwise "positive" behaviour of atheists has not been informed by "religious" values.
Click to expand...
um no... you dont need a religion to tell you how to act. people do that naturally. If there is a bad person within any religion, then your logic is already flawed. A strong religious based country may have effect on the conditions people live in, but it is ultimately the person who makes up their own mind on how to act, regardless if you are religious or not. It's just like laws. Laws within a country can alter how the citizens live, but they are still able to abide or break those laws at will. For example, if you werent religious, and there were no laws, would you rape and murder people? I doubt it.

As for atheists having better values, I'm not saying that or implying that at all. We just have one less thing to fight about.
 
if that is the logical conclusion, then why haven't you proposed a ban on religions,opps that might include beleif systems that dont fall into the category of religion.

wouldnt that make the world better? no arguing.
 
jasoncran said:
if that is the logical conclusion, then why haven't you proposed a ban on religions,opps that might include beleif systems that dont fall into the category of religion.

wouldnt that make the world better? no arguing.
Click to expand...

Actually i'm not too sure that would be necessary. There is a rapid growth in atheist/non-religious population globally. That and Religions have a tendency of withering out over time. no offense or anything.
 
replaced by the new religion , enviromentalism.
and humanism.

in brittian there was ruling that ruled that enviromentalism is a religion.
 
jasoncran said:
replaced by the new religion , enviromentalism.
and humanism.

in brittian there was ruling that ruled that enviromentalism is a religion.
Click to expand...

HAHAHAHA that's great. And what exactly would be the sacred texts and/or higher beings or things to worship in either of those? If those are religions i'll join!
 
Evointrinsic said:
jasoncran said:
replaced by the new religion , enviromentalism.
and humanism.

in brittian there was ruling that ruled that enviromentalism is a religion.
Click to expand...

HAHAHAHA that's great. And what exactly would be the sacred texts and/or higher beings or things to worship in either of those? If those are religions i'll join!
Click to expand...
give me a few and i will post the link with the story on how enviromentalism is considered a relgion in brittian, unless you think the judges were wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top