₦airaland Forum

jayriginal: The key thing is belief. Its either you do or you dont.

I get your point, and I quite agree with you to some extent on this. However, I think you may be committing the false dilemma fallacy here. What if "god" is meaningless to me? What if I have no idea what "god" even truly means? I may have heard various versions and vague concepts, and may be at a loss as to what you're actually inquiring when you ask, " Do you believe in God?" What if I'm ignostic (which is a type of agnosticism^[1], and which I am sometimes)?

Surely, you cannot limit me to just those two options. Saying 'I don't know' or 'I'm not sure' would be a perfectly reasonable and honest response. Belief demands that I fully grasp what you're on about first, before I can respond with either a Yes or a No. In other words, with belief, it's either you do, you don't, or you're not sure whether you do or you don't.

------
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism#Types_of_agnosticism

Uyi Iredia: To cut the long story short: You are an atheist.

I bet the Holy Spirit revealed that to you.

"In the broadest sense of the word - non-belief in deities - I would say, yes, I am."

In any case, I don't do labels.

Uyi Iredia: Some honest atheists also argue against evolution. Richard Sternberg is one.

Red herring alert. So atheists that argue for evolution are dishonest?

Uyi Iredia: Keep in mind didn't say all, I said many.

Are you denying now? You said many AND any. What does that mean?

Uyi Iredia: I perfectly understand that there are a variety of atheists. I'm focusing on their commonalities. Atheism is not the only thing atheists have in common. The growth of atheists organisations should put paid to that notion.

You're focusing on their commonalities? And in your infinite wisdom, such commonalities include evolution?

"Atheism is not the only thing atheists have in common"? Am I the only one that thinks this statement does not make any sense at all?

I doubt that you "perfectly understand that there are a variety of atheists", otherwise, you wouldn't make such ignorant claims as "evolution is central to atheism".

Uyi Iredia: You are looking at the inhumane treatments I'm considering the economics. Simple. Modern-day capitalism also has its inhumane aspect too.

What "economics"? You deviate yet again, this time with your "modern-day capitalism" quibble. Kindly explain HOW any of those things you mentioned make slavery was a NECESSARY PROCESS.

Uyi Iredia: But I clearly pointed out how atheists are pushing for their own kind of burials, marriages etc. That should also put at ease any opposing point - which you're yet to proffer.

You pointed out how some atheists are pushing for their burials, etc. It still does not validate your false point that atheism has its rituals and rites, thus making it a religion. Atheism is just a position. That some atheists choose to adopt certain practices does not suddenly transform that position into a religion.

Uyi Iredia: Thanks for drumming that into the Purist's head.

If I were you, I'd be more worried about which appropriate label should be "drummed" into my head. I hope you do realize that you are not considered a proper Christian by many in the Christendom. You don't believe hell fire exists, do you?

"No man ever believes that the Bible means what it says: He is always convinced that it says what he means."

- George Bernard Shaw

mecussey: To my humble pastors, i just want to be educated. I will like to know how God could make costly mistakes? I believe in him by faith, which he said its the only way we can see him. I am only asking this question from human point of view, why did he regret creating us? Why did he regret distroying the world with water after all? Why did he make satan the most powerful angel unknowingly? For christ sake, why all these mistakes? May he forgive me if i have just sinned, i so much believe in him and trust in him. Who could find justification for these questions, or was it just his initial plans? I know his ways are not our ways, may his name still be praised.

Indeed, you have asked pertinent questions and you need feel no guilt about that. These were among the numerous questions I first asked myself before eventually stepping out of religion altogether.

Have you ever considered that you have always had the wrong idea about God all the while? I must first of all commend the fact that you have managed to put on your thinking cap and recognize the discrepancies in your perceived nature of God. This is often a very difficult thing to do. Here and now, you are confronted with the reality that the God you have always served is not who you had been told he is, even though you desperately do not wish this to be so. You will most likely now try to rationalize it and assume that such matters are beyond your understanding. You will then finally lay the matter to rest with the false assumption that "his ways are not our ways". But, I implore you not to stop there.

Why was God making mistakes, you ask? Surely, there is no doubt that he made mistakes. Otherwise, why would he regret creating humans, and then proceed to annihilate them, and then regret his actions, and then promise to never do so again? After all, we are made to believe that he is omnipotent and that he embodies perfection. How then can a perfect, omnipotent deity make mistakes? Perhaps, because he is neither perfect nor omnipotent? (You are either perfect and you make no mistakes, or you make mistakes and you're not perfect. You can't have it both ways.) Or perhaps, he just does not exist? The second possibility is one that I am aware is extremely difficult to entertain. But think of it this way, in the words of George Smith, "Just as we are entitled to say that a "square-circle" does not and cannot possibly exist, so we are entitled to say that the concept of god, if it entails a contradiction, does not and cannot possibly exist."

jayriginal: Very well written. We are alike in many respects. I have coloured the similarities.

As to the possibility of a god somewhere, I allow the possibility since I do not possess the knowledge to say otherwise. However, all the cases being made for such a god eg first cause et al, necessarily fail as they are based on gaps in our knowledge. A god/gods may exist (or have existed) and we may never discover this fact. Until we know for certain, I will allow the possibility of a deity/deities no matter how remote I consider that possibility to be. I however do not "believe".

One more thing Purist, you are an atheist as long as you do not believe. It wouldnt matter if you called yourself an agnostic. Its just a fancy term for someone who has not realized he/she is an atheist.

@the coloured part: Funny how you pretty much summed up my entire view point in just one sentence. Exactly my sentiments.

Dang! Did I just type all that?! ^^^

Deep Sight: Are you an atheist, Purist?

To be honest, I have no real answer to this question. Considering the fact that words are being constantly defined and redefined nowadays, it is really difficult to apply any theological/philosophical labels to myself (I consider such labels to be highly unnecessary actually, especially as identifying with a particular label would make people have stereotypical views of you).

My answer to that question would depend on what you mean by "atheist". In the broadest sense of the word - non-belief in deities - I would say, yes, I am. But do I think that there could possibly be a god somewhere? I do entertain that thought from time to time and have never for once ruled it out, even though as I am constantly gaining more knowledge, I am beginning to think that it is highly unlikely. Based on this, I mostly consider myself to be agnostic -- an agnostic with largely atheistic tendencies, you know, like an Agnostic Atheist of some sort (although I still think that label does not paint a true picture of my actual position). However, I find myself expressing Ignostic views more often than not. More appropriately though, I think the generic word "Skeptic", suits me better.

But even if somehow, it can be proven that there is a god or gods, do I think it is the Christian/Muslim/AnyOtherReligion God? Certainly NOT! For that, I am fairly certain. The Deist God then? Perhaps. But even then, a belief or disbelief in it would change nothing. It would make no difference, as there are no consequences or rewards for believing or disbelieving in it. See, my position is not a stagnant one; it's not definitive. I am constantly adjusting my views as I gain new insights and new knowledge and as I deem fit. Who knows, I may eventually become a full-fledged atheist some day, or an "evangelical" deist like yourself, but I very much doubt that I will ever be a theist again. Nigeria would probably transform into Utopia first before that would ever happen.

To be honest, I could really care less about whether there is a deity or not, and would barely attempt to even convince anyone about its non-existence [EDIT: Apathetic Agnosticism]. I guess that would make me an implicit atheist then or simply a non-theist, which I feel is the most appropriate (you see, there are many labels that could be applied to me, depending on how you see me). I have so many people around me - including friends - that have not the slightest clue that I am irreligious, and that's because I barely talk about my stance in real life. As a matter of fact, people always instinctively assume that I am a Christian for reasons best known to them, even though they are fully aware that I don't go to church. (Many do in fact often tell of how they find my knowledge of the bible so impressive for a non-church goer.)

Now, when people begin to act based on what they think their God wants, and such actions affect me in some way, then it begins to appear like I actually care about the existence of this deity. When governments begin to make laws that border on theocracy, or people begin to form opinions and make decisions that affect me directly or indirectly, based on their religious convictions (which they always do) - and which I must mention, are NEVER objective - then I begin to take serious offense in these things. Just yesterday, I read that a Jehovah's Witnesses couple were forced by a court in the US to allow their almost-dying daughter have a blood transfusion in order to save her life. These parents genuinely believe that their God would be so pissed should they allow the transfusion. This is just one of countless sick stories you hear and read about on a daily basis.

I do think that it is possible for there to be a god. But I do not think that such a god would be so concerned to bother itself about what we eat, drink or wear, whether we talk to him constantly, thank/praise him for everything, who we choose to marry, who we choose to have s[i]e[/i]x with - including when and how we do it, how we address him, etc. In short, the only type of god I believe there could possibly be would be an impersonal God, which even barely makes sense to me. The gods of the monotheistic religions are so ridiculous that the existence of any one of them is highly improbable. The Christian/Muslim/etc God who has a reputation for being so whimsical and totalitarian could very well decide to change his mind at the last minute and allow only atheists into heaven, and would do so with impunity. After all, "his ways are not our ways."

Uyi Iredia: He was smart. He knew loose sexual appetites as seen in adultery, fornication and homosexuality will result in diseases such as AIDS, syphillis, gonorrhea etc.

lol. This very much reminds me of my old theistic self. I would give what I felt were perfectly reasonable explanations in order to "bail" God out in such situations as this. I vividly remember presenting similar arguments here on Nairaland a few years back while debating those "ignorant", "arrogant" and "godless" fellas called "atheists". Oh, how things change.

Uyi Iredia: BTW AIDS came through a homosexual community in the US. The virus is found in apes. I therefore suppose one of the homos messed round with a monkey and got more than what he bargained for . . . and opened Pandora's box.

Without even going into why the omnipotent and omnibenevolent God never bothered to prevent the occurrence of those diseases in the first place (having supposedly created a perfect world), so you mean to tell us that those "laws at a given time" are no longer applicable in the modern world, even though they were originally given by an omniscient, never-changing God?

And might I remind you that the above short history (you seem to love telling stories, however irrelevant) has absolutely nothing to do with the "fact" that the bible God supposedly once gave homophobic laws that included killing gay people. I'll repeat logicboy's succinct question which you skillfully dodged earlier: What changed his mind?

Uyi Iredia: Many & any atheist club/activity make a study of evolution their watchword. To say that evolution isn't central to atheism is to be a most uninformed atheist.

"Atheist clubs" do emphasize a lot of things. Evolution might just happen to be one of them, and I wouldn't fault them at all. After all, it is the theists who constantly make attempts to show how evolution is "false", as it does not seem to agree with the creation story of the bible. Even at that, I disagree that they make the study of evolution their watchword. Do you know what a watchword is? If anything at all, their watchword would usually center on the use of reason and logic, first and foremost.

Again, evolution is NOT central to atheism. When will you folks learn to understand that there are NUMEROUS atheists that do not even subscribe to the theory of evolution in the first place? This is the kind of problem you will normally face when you try to lump all atheists into one dubious belief system. You easily forget that the ONLY thing that atheists have in common UNIVERSALLY is their non-belief in deities, and nothing else. There are atheists who probably have no idea who Darwin is, or what evolution is even about.

Uyi Iredia: When I say it was a necessary process I mean that it was the only possible path to take given the times. Are you forgetting it is fellow Africans who sold their brothers to get the white men's goods ? Are you also forgetting this coincided with the Industrial Age and the increased demand for agricultural produce for newly-birthed factories ? Are you also forgetting that many of the comforts & laws you now enjoy was from the available leisure time which allowed people to apply their brains to witty inventions ?

And HOW ON EARTH did all these things you mentioned make slavery a necessary process? Africans selling their brothers, Industrial age, etc. I know a bit of history myself, so thanks for the short lesson. But you still failed to point out HOW any of these things suggested that slavery was the "only possible path to take given the times". You mean to say that none of these things would have been possible without slavery? That there would have been no increased demand for agricultural produce if some people had not decided to dish out inhumane treatments to certain other people that they considered subhuman? That there would have been no witty inventions if an entire race had not been constantly subjected to immense physical and mental toture? Is that your point? I sincerely hope not.

Uyi Iredia: Your comment here has little or nothing to do with my statement.

Oh yes, it does. Your comment was a response to logicboy's statement where he said "Atheism has no rituals or rites or set of moral conducts which many religions have". Employing the opinion or suggestions of a single, albeit popular atheist to suggest the contrary is not only shallow, but intellectually dishonest. Going by your logic, I could as well point out the opinions and acts of Christian leaders and argue that since some Christians are "willing to implement" them, that makes it a "Christian thing". Surely, even you must cringe at the folly of this reasoning.

Image123: I'm also troubleshooting in a sense. how many years ago since you last experienced sleep paralysis?

Okay, this is becoming pointless. You desperately want to fit in "spirituality" in order to validate your bias. The sooner you accept that sleep paralysis is perfectly natural and has nothing to do with spirits or demons, the better for you.

Uyi Iredia: An uninformed statement. Many atheist forums & organizations e.g Secular Student Alliance have a set of beliefs & practices e.g studying evolution & celebrating Darwin.

When did studying evolution become central to atheism? Also, Darwin is celebrated in a number of ways that has nothing to with atheism.

Uyi Iredia: You do it out of faith because atheists equally do not know what lies outside of life after death. Slavery was a necessary process in mankind's journey towards technological development. BTW, slavery has only changed form. If you work for someone you are a slave to that person de gustibus

You have no idea what slavery is. Saying that slavery was a necessary process in mankind's journey towards technological development is frankly idiotic, sorry to say. Yes, slavery might have contributed to certain technological developments, no thanks to unfair and forced use of manpower. But to state that it was a necessary process is not only insulting to the memories of the slaves that had to endure terribly long spells of all manner of inhumane treatments, but also insulting to the sensibilities of their offspring and those that fought for slavery to be abolished. Also, I'm sure you don't need me to point out the apparent idiocy in equating employee status with slavery. And including de gustibus at the end of your sentence does not make it any less idiotic.

Uyi Iredia: I doubt this. I think a good surfing of the net will reveal this. An atheist on Richard Dawkins site once suggeested burial rites for atheists which some were willing to implement.

A Christian leader, Reverend King, once used to torture his church members, which some members agreed to and defended vigorously. By your reasoning, torture must be one of the cardinal aspects of Christianity.

coolruler: @OP
Thank you for the thoughtful post. I believe its only human to have doubts from time to time. i do have doubts myself.
For example; Who determined Dec 25 to be the Birthday of Jesus despite all evidence to the contrary? and why would God curse Adam and Eve when he did not create them infallible in the first place?
also, did God ever intend them to know the difference between good and evil?
The only thing Adam ever did wrong was reaching out for knowledge, or experimenting with the forbidden. When did that become such a grievous sin?
So many questions

Indeed these are valid questions. The Garden of Eden particularly marked my first point of exit from religion.

Perhaps, the most baffling aspect of the Eden story is that Eve was punished by an omnibenevolent God for doing wrong, even when she had no idea what "wrong" meant.

Image123: you still live there?

No, I moved only less than 2 years ago. What's your point?

Image123: Did you have to grow up in that same environment you experienced it as a kido?

Yes. Was born, lived and grew up in the very same environment.

Image123: well, you are doing a good job troubleshooting, but i want to assure you that i have gone through the bolded, many times and did not for once have sleep paralysis. Not even by chance or mistake. Try harder, this is jetage?

Maybe you missed the part that said, "Up to as many as four out of every 10 people may have sleep paralysis". Meaning, not everyone experiences it, and for those that do, it does not depend on whether they believe in Jesus or not.

Personally, I experienced it only a few times as a kid and I haven't had it ever since. I never prayed about it, I didn't go to no church, I didn't call on no Jesus. It simply stopped.

To be honest, it was here on Nairaland that I first got to "learn" that sleep paralysis is a "spiritual attack".

Oh, so Deep Sight finally got to vent his ideas on "prayers" here.

I suspected that he was trying to drag me into an argument on the other thread, but armed with the knowledge that his own idea of prayer is different from the rest of the world, which strangely, he stubbornly regards to be THE one true meaning of prayer, I jeje-ly avoided what would have been a total waste of my time.

See ehn, Deep Sight, we know that you have a different perspective on prayers, especially as you define them so poetically with nice and lovely-sounding keywords like "inner spirit", "passionate quest", "soul", etc. BUT, that does not change the FACT that your perception IS the exception and certainly not the norm. And if you so disagree, it would probably do you well to find another name to describe your personal talks with the oneness of infinity, rather than attempt to force your ideas on the rest of us that disregard the whole concept altogether.

^^ Again, that was NOT his point.

^^ That was not his point.

Praying is hilarious.
Surely, [God] knows what you want already?
"I just want to hear you say it! Beg!
That's better. I'll think about it."

- Ricky Gervais

And before anyone begins to attribute any of these to supernatural occurrences of some sort, I will be quick to point out that there are indeed quite a number of animals that are multi-headed. This condition is known as Polycephaly, which is a congenital defect. Polycephalous animals rarely live long.

However, there has been no true documented case of the existence of any animal with more than three heads.

^^^^ Just so that no one will begin spreading false news based on that, it is important to point out that the picture above is clearly photoshopped. Here is the original photo:

https://www.hoax-slayer.com/images/one-head-cobra-2.jpg

sophy09: ^ How come it does not happen in the afternoon but only at night?

It could happen at any time. As a matter of fact, there are lots of people that have reported experiencing this paralysis while taking an afternoon nap. You experience it only at night probably because that is the only period you get to have some real sleep. As advised earlier, you could do well to adjust your sleeping habits in order to curtail this problem.

P.S. Don't listen to the guy above me. He's a D***Head as his handle aptly suggests.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]According to an atheist, there is no god i.e. I can do whatever I want, no one will punish me or reward me. This is why I say that atheists have no morals.[/quote]Actually, the one who bases his actions on the prospect of incentives (or a lack of) is the one who has no morals. See here: https://www.nairaland.com/941946/video-being-good-without-god#10865577

[quote author=Mr_Anony]I am not saying that all atheists are sociopaths but if there was a sociopath, he would still be justified under atheism because atheism has no moral codes or guidelines.[/quote]Saying atheism has no moral codes makes it sound like atheism is a belief system of some sort. Atheists are just individuals who do not believe in [the existence of] deities. Everyone of these individuals have their own personal moral code that they obey (morals are largely subjective by the way, as they are dependent on different factors. It is not unusual to find two atheists disagree on whether something is right or wrong). There are good atheists and there bad atheists, just the same way as there are good Christians and Muslims as there are bad Christians and Muslims. And there is no single statistic that points to there being more bad atheists than bad theists. On the contrary, practical examples and real statistics abound all over that reveal that overwhelmingly secular and outright irreligious countries (Finland, Denmark, Sweden, etc) are the least corrupt in the world. Whereas, the most religious (Nigeria, Pakistan, Iraq, etc) are among the most corrupt^[1]. This, sir, is no mere coincidence.

And that bit about Hitler being an atheist is inaccurate. He was a Christian; he was Catholic. Although you're right about Stalin being an atheist, his ruthlessness and callousness probably had absolutely nothing to do with his atheism. There are Christian sociopaths in the world today. Shall we then link their sociopathy to their Christianity?

------
^[1] http://www.transparency.org/country

sophy09: Has this incident ever occur to anyone whereby at midnight (mostly around 2,3 or 4) while sleeping you feel something or someone either choking the life out of you or pressing you down. You struggle most times to breathe and when you wake up, you don't see anything/anyone.

What you described is known as Sleep Paralysis. Yes, it happens and is a medical condition which occurs even in perfectly healthy persons and could be triggered by a couple of factors, including sleeping positions and certain adopted habits.

A quick search^[1] revealed that, "you may be able to minimize the [sleep paralysis] episodes by following good sleep hygiene:

* getting enough sleep
* reduce stress
* exercise regularly (but not too close to bedtime)
* keep a regular sleep schedule"

You may want want to request that this thread be filed appropriately under the section to which it truly belongs, namely, the Health section. You will probably get more valuable responses and tips from there.

Cheers!

_{[1] http://www.stanford.edu/~dement/paralysis.html}

Deep Sight: This is because se.xual actions of varied pleasing sorts between a man and a woman is what I see as natural.

Including an[i]a[/i]l sex? Sadomasochism? Defecating while having s[i]e[/i]x? Note that these are all "se.xual actions of varied pleasing sorts between a man and a woman" which you have previously classified as NOT natural on this thread. [Okay, I know you refused to classify an[i]a[/i]l sex. ]

BUT. . . you're not being consistent, Deep Sight.

Deep Sight: I see se.xual actions between a man and a man as unnatural.

More like disgusting, that bold part. And that's understandable. . . only if you'd just admit so. Okay, how about just or[i]a[/i]l sex between a man and a man? Afterall, or[i]a[/i]l sex in itself is natural, innit?

I am actually more concerned about how Deep Sight manages to employ the argument about human anatomy and biological functions to demonstrate what is natural in order to argue against the 'naturalness' of homosexuality, but then goes on to say that he views or[i]a[/i]l sex [Mouth[/b]Action, to be more 'specific' ] as a [b]natural act. Seems to me that we're using definitions selectively here.

@Deep Sight, you raise some pretty good points, although I still think that your views are being forced by certain prejudices you harbour. I'll only address the parts that really caught my attention.

Deep Sight: 2. Animals are not homosexual in the proper definition of the word. Let's watch the cases of so-called animal homosexuality. Do such cases have any co-relation with human homosexuality? I contend that they are entirely dissimilar. This is the reason:

Animals do not make a distinction regarding the object of their sexual attention with reference to instinctive physical motions. For example when my dog is on heat, he will attempt to mount anything at all: including humans. He will push himself against a pole, against me, and against other dogs (male or female) in exercising the instinctive sexual motion. He does not see and develop a desire for a fellow male, he only makes instinctive sexual motions directed at anything. This is significantly different from humans who will see and have specific desires for persons of the same sex.

Unless you have comprehensively studied animal sexuality, you cannot simply arrive at this conclusion based on just one example. Dogs have always been known to be exceptionally randy, so the fact that they would jump on anything and everything is of little surprise here.

Deep Sight: No animal will engage in homosexual conduct if there is an available female on hand

Sometime in 2005, four female penguins were flown in to Germany from Sweden in order to "tempt" the endangered gay Humboldt penguins so that they could reproduce. The males scarcely threw the females a single glance, even after a whole month being together. Right there, they had the opportunity to "disengage" from their gay conducts - with available females on hand - but they blatantly refused. The entire exercise eventually proved abortive.

Deep Sight: In addittion to the fact that homosexuality is not the norm in any human society, it could thus be said to be both un-natural and anti-social.

That homosexuality is not the norm in any human society is NOT a fact. Homosexuality is, and was the norm is certain societies in the past. The two-spirit people of Native American tribes readily comes to mind here (this does not mean that they did not have heterosexual relations at all. What it simply means is that homosexuality was equally normal and fully accepted in that society). Thanks to the advent of the Abrahamic religions, these aspect of their traditions were eventually eroded. I argued this point on another thread with Sagamite a while back. You may want to have a look.

Deep Sight, do you always feel compelled to write epistles every time you make a post? Keep it short and simple man. Dang!

Deep Sight: No, i do not regard oral se.x to be wrong, unnatural or immoral. I should warn however that a[i]n[/i]al heterose.xual se.x has quite a few known medical implications, and I do not want to be drawn into qualifying it just right now as it will complicate the discussion. Suffice to say that I will not call it immoral or wrong, though I might say that it is unnatural and may be probematic medically.

Okay, we'll stick with oral s[i]e[/i]x then. I must say that I'm fairly amused - though not surprised - going by your position on this thread, that you see nothing unnatural about oral s[i]e[/i]x. The natural biological functions of that organ [which happens to be the cavity that leads directly to the human GIT] used for oral s[i]e[/i]x, as far as I know, certainly includes neither fellati[i]o[/i] nor c[i]u[/i]nnilingus.

Idehn pretty much summed up my point beautifully when he said, "If you agree that se.x is multipurpose, why can the use of intimate/general organs not also be multipurpose? After all what exactly is wrong with oral se.x?"

Deep Sight: @ Idehn -
What I did say is that the very biological make up of the se.xual organs and the fact that they aid reproduction are a pointer to that which is the biologically natural usage of such. What I mean is that such factors show us the intention of nature - and this clearly leans in the direction of heterose.xuality.

Hi Deep Sight, I didn't read every single post, though I think I read most of the posts here and I quite understand the points different posters have made so far. I'd like to ask you though - I assume no one has asked - do you consider oral s[i]e[/i]x to be wrong/immoral/unnatural? How about an[i]a[/i]l s[i]e[/i]x between heterosexual couples?

jacobscros: God is real

Perhaps, but there is no evidence to support this blanket statement.

jacobscros: and so if u do good all ur life without God, goodluck to you when death comes knocking at the door.

Ah, that all-familiar threat of eternal damnation. The problem is, the concept of hell is totally incompatible with the existence of an omnibenevolent God. One would expect that a sensible deity would reward his creations based on the virtues they lived by, and not by what they believed or failed to believe.

"Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones." - Marcus Aurelius^[1]

jacobscros: Everybody can be good and moral but everybody messes up frequently and it's through believing in God that we are saved.

I find the emboldened quite boggling. One then wonders what Jesus really came to earth to do, if, despite his alleged rescue mission which culminated on the Calvary cross, Christians are still as morally bankrupt as any other, if not more. Only proves one thing, and that is, [religious] belief in God is highly unnecessary nowadays (just like the wisdom teeth).


_{1. There are contentions as to who actually made that quote.}