You have skipped around the central point, which is that that you describe certain things as good without any explanation as to why they are good.
They come from my receptors and brain structure: ergo if you have a defective brain or trained receptors that have been programmed from my environment I was raised in that are poor you are likely to asssoxiate good feelings with poor acts.
Becoming a good person is just a result of that though, not the goal itself. That's likely why a lot of atheists, myself in the past included, don't really get what's truly going on, because they all boil it down to a question whether being religious is about being a good person or not, often times in earthly terms, which sometimes leads to bigger messes. (Like the whole abortion debate, lobotomy, communism, and lots of other ways humans try to say "I know better".) While being good plays a huge role in the faith, it's not what it is ultimately about.
This too seems to be a common topic that is often misunderstood, which I still don't know to properly approach, but Christians don't disagree with that. The idea is that God has put certain inclinations into all of his human creation regardless of whether or not they know of him. "The environment or the brain" is included in God's work. The matter is part of the creation. You didn't mention (nor seem to imply that?), but I just recalled that there's a common misconception that physical world is somehow detached from faith. It's a Gnostic, assorted pagan/traditional religion, occult, and so on view on the world, but definitely not a Christian one.
Not sure why, but David Wood comes to my mind, he's a Christian apologetic who's also a clinical sociopath.
Yes and no. Ultimately it's going to be yet another attempt at learning how God's creation operates, or, if you're uncomfortable with this wording, how the world operates (on itself learning about it is good) which has a great chance of leading to a brief moment of false enlightenment, followed by drawing wrong conclusions and in next decades to be discarded as garbage data and everyone who was harmed along the way to be forgotten. Science on itself is a never ending process with a lot of things changing overtime, and social and psychological studies are arguably one of the most polluted fields with false findings, botched methods, and sometimes horrific outcomes. Like the "chemical imbalance" myth that is so prevalent nowadays, despite it being debunked decades ago, but that doesn't stop doctors from prescribing drugs to everyone and their mom the moment they get "unreasonably" sad. Or troon science. Or recent suspicion that two decades of research on Alzheimer's disease (which isn't even a nebulous psychological condition, but an actual physical, tangible disorder) were fabricated.
You weren't raised in a sterile, white cube. The culture that surrounds you, including your sense of right and wrong, is steeped in milennia of Christian morality. That had and still has an effect on you, whether you acknowledge it or not. Crediting just your brain for your sense of morality is......stupid.
Not really. The idea man is naturally immoral upon birth is equally as absurd. Morality comes about through interactions with people, but there is also an innate sense of it - the idea a person born just naturally wants to beat everyone to death is ridiculous - they know it is wrong and the idea until they are told it is wrong they will all do it, is absurd. it would be like saying prior to Jesus there was no morality on Earth, and yet civilizations going back ages prior to Jesus debated and wrote on the subject with some of the greatest insight still quoted to this day.
Im not denying that discussions relating to morality existed before Jesus was born, im saying that Christian society standardized it across the West and paved the way for just about everything related to ethical ideals today, and we would be in an objectively worse spot than if we didnt have them. Please note I said ideals, as with all things, ideals vs how theyre actually practiced are often not at all the same.
Look, I am not looking to fight you on anything but your last paragraph came across as thought you are unfamiliar with the history of the church. The Church has started many wars, invented horrific forms of torture - the Inquisition is a famous one (and it is a god-awful list of techniques), and this is not the only example of Christian ideology that turns to violence. Christians have used violence to accomplish their means. Philosophers and scientists have been punished by the Church for what are now accepted facts known throughout the world.
Quote:
As for this
Depends on what you mean by church, this is the problem with atheists coming into christian theology, they treat christianity as a single object, when among the billions of believers, there exists a massive variety of viewpoints, that are all extremely different, save for adherence to the Nicene creed, and even then people debate about that. You cant push the sins of the Baptist onto the Catholic, nor can you push the sins of the Catholic onto the Orthodox, etc. Its proof that the humans that run a church can be corrupted and praise money and power over God. Which is nothing new and why many Christians prize a personal relationship with God.
I also, say it the difference between Judgment and Condemnation. An example is Charlie Kirk judged the left, but the left condemned Charlie Kirk.
That's not even a Christian concept. God's law is written on hearts of every human being by nature. That's why people all over the globe often times lean into overall similar views, with their cultures occasionally "hijacking" these inclinations and going some messed up way like with aforementioned FGM. In some way, modern secular world is a good example of that, deep down a lot of people know what's actually right, despite dissociating hard from their bodies and minds thanks to temptations, sin, and new cultural shifts. Although, again, the West has Christian morality baked into it, so maybe the example isn't really that good.
Corrupting good things into bad things are literal theological foundation. That's what sin is, that's how Satan operates too (evil isn't a standalone thing; it's corruption of good, thus many horrific things will to be passed onto people, especially spiritually dead, as "good", and this will happen in broader scales)
It does. Because again, the point isn't ultimately about becoming a good person in this life, it's a byproduct. Why are you trying to take separate elements apart, tear them out of the context and then make a point about completely detached elements that mean nothing without the context?
I'm an ex-atheist lmao everything you say right now is something I would have said 10-15 years ago. Arrogance included.
It's really telling that you called me "young" while failing to grasp the 6+ aged concept of "metaphor". Admitting that you're deliberately making this nitpick just further highlights what kind of person you are. Something that, again, the Bible talks about.
I don't know what kind of religion you have been practicing, but there's no euphoria in knowing how truly horrible the world is and seeing your friends reaping consequences of their sins in this life already, heading to something even worse. Nor there was any euphoria in realizing how deeply secular world failed me with its attempts to reinvent things that were just a fraction of what's in God's word that also ultimately were missing the substance. I'm here because of secular experience and secular knowledge that finally came together, not in some dissociative euphoric trance under ayahuasca or something.
That is a very bold claim. Care too actually back it up?
I hope you’re joking. If you don’t know what was acceptable 1000 years ago versus 500,200 and the modern day then I doubt you could teally constructively Comment on this. I find it odd that I’d be familiar with the drastic changes in what has been permitted and you would not. If you are of the belief the church has always followed the Bible’s teaching strictly without interpretation to suit different times then you are mistaken.
You said the "Church" has changed fundamental moral doctrines over the years. I don't believe you. I am not arguing about changes in what is considered acceptable fashion, or whether the earth is or is not the center of the universe mind you. What doctrinal changes has the church made on its moral principles? To make it easy for you, you can cite to the Ecumenical Counsels in the past and then show how a more modern council said the previous one erred.
Late and gay (as they say), but structured prayer does help you start to open up to God. It can feel weird (one guy during a catechism class likened praying the structured prayers in front of icons "to a book report" which it can feel at times).