subject: Faith And Conscience [print this page] Consistently, when you get into any type of a discussion message board which includes even the slightest link to anything religion oriented, you get a influx of willful people on both ends of the debate. One side is sure they believe in God, and the other absolutely claims there is no proof, and persist to spell out the countless crimes that religious folk have committed over the centuries as affirmation that it is a corrupt doctrine of values.
Christians generally attack back with the Stalin and Hitler controversy, both dubious atheists that did not adopt or have faith in any one god (however Hitler has ties to the occult and certainly did believe in destiny, together with other puritanical ideas which are generally based in some religion or another). Of course the Hitler/Stalin debates are somewhat moot, as is to some degree the Christian crimes arguement. The arguments grow to be solid when one can not only track down the correlation (which is implied by members of those communities carrying out those inhumanities) but also the causation. Causation then gives some weight to either argument, for then Christianity, or a shortage thereof, resulted in the reasons that inhumanity was inflicted.
With regards to the question of Christianity, while it is visibly causal in the literal sense (pagans were slain as a consequence of faith based dissimilarities, whilst atheists rarely ever slaughtered the religious on account of being religious) it is still open to discussion. This is because very often individuals want to attack a distinct group of individuals, and will consider almost any justification they are able to do so. In such cases, Christianity may be the perpetrator meaning that it can easily be employed to facilitate such desires, but nevertheless may not be the cause.
The primary critiques of Christianity arise from the dilemma of God - it is asserted by atheists that by Christians perceiving themselves to be conducting God's bidding, they can certainly prevent their own conscientious urges to virtually any activity that should otherwise be significantly more daunting. By intergrating divinity to an immoral act, it is said, normal people tend to do extremely abnormal things, and this aberration from 'healthy' practices can be parallel to a variety of insanity.
Is this to presume that all Religious believers are mad? Appropriately, the query then asserts, just what is a Christian? Does each and every Christian unquestionably believe in anything and everything inside the Christian bible? In fact, do they absolutely believe that the bible is the word of God, or Jesus for that matter? A serious majority of Christians and religious individuals of all faiths are inclined to adopt specific aspects of their selected religion and dismiss or refuse others. To provide an example, to be a Christian, an individual has to not like homosexuals. Yet how is it plausible then that TV programs with prominent homosexual personalities flourish in America, which is mainly Christian?
It is because though atheists are probably committed to the concepts of atheism (or agnosticism, a branch of atheism), a small number of religious women and men are as fortified in the doctrines of their given religion. The vast majority of these religious systems were prepared when research and proficiency was limited, and as a result, their explicit guidelines are equally as archaic as their negative viewpoints are.
