The Moral Failings of Christianity - New Testament as a Shield

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

How can you be an athiest and argue about morals? Where do you get the sense that morals can logically exist, and that you of all people are right?

[John Dibble]

How can you be an athiest and argue about morals? Where do you get the sense that morals can logically exist, and that you of all people are right?

It's true that as an atheist I don't subscribe to the view that there's some deity out there that is in one fashion or another dictating what is or is not moral. My basis for morals have to come from elsewhere. Fortunately we humans don't need an outside source - our own nature gives us at least some basis for moral behavior. We evolved to be social animals, and as part of that all but a few have empathy for one another, which allows us to develop compassion. (the exception is sociopaths and psychopaths, who lack empathy)

From there we can build our moral principles on things like the Golden Rule and utilitarianism, using facts and logic to determine what we think is or is not moral. Of course, people have different perspectives and different desired outcomes, so I can't say that my particular morality is right for everyone, nor can I say that I think it's always going to be right for me - since I don't know everything it's likely that I'll receive new information in the future which will require that I change some aspect of my morality. Even if it might not be 100% correct, what I can say about my moral system is that I believe that if people were to adhere to it that it would produce results that are desirable and fair to most individuals, and to a far greater extent than the one advanced in the Bible.

If you are interested in learning a bit more about secular morality and have a free hour and a half I advise watching this lecture. It goes into the subject a bit more.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

How can you be an athiest and argue about morals? Where do you get the sense that morals can logically exist, and that you of all people are right?

It's true that as an atheist I don't subscribe to the view that there's some deity out there that is in one fashion or another dictating what is or is not moral. My basis for morals have to come from elsewhere. Fortunately we humans don't need an outside source - our own nature gives us at least some basis for moral behavior. We evolved to be social animals, and as part of that all but a few have empathy for one another, which allows us to develop compassion. (the exception is sociopaths and psychopaths, who lack empathy)

From there we can build our moral principles on things like the Golden Rule and utilitarianism, using facts and logic to determine what we think is or is not moral. Of course, people have different perspectives and different desired outcomes, so I can't say that my particular morality is right for everyone, nor can I say that I think it's always going to be right for me - since I don't know everything it's likely that I'll receive new information in the future which will require that I change some aspect of my morality. Even if it might not be 100% correct, what I can say about my moral system is that I believe that if people were to adhere to it that it would produce results that are desirable and fair to most individuals, and to a far greater extent than the one advanced in the Bible.

If you are interested in learning a bit more about secular morality and have a free hour and a half I advise watching this lecture. It goes into the subject a bit more.

As a strong believer in the existence of God, I have a few questions, though I have a feeling you don't want this thread converted into an Atheism vs. Religion thread:
1) How was the universe created (if you think you know)? If it was the "Big Bang", then how did it happen?
2) Aren't humans just random assortments of amino acids, if we aren't created with some sort of purpose?
3) If you belive that humans have a desire to do good, where does that come from?
4) Where do rights come from? If they're decided using logic alone, doesn't the logic rely on certain assumptions about humans (that humans are smarter, can use logic, etc.)?
5) Wouldn't a logical athiest come to the conclusion that there are no immortal consequences for his/her actions, and that the smartest thing to do with his/her limited time on the plante is to have a good time?
6) If there is no God, what in the hell are we doing here?

[John Dibble]

As a strong believer in the existence of God, I have a few questions, though I have a feeling you don't want this thread converted into an Atheism vs. Religion thread:

Actually it's not trouble at all - in a way it's on topic, because the entire premise of these thread and the threads that will follow it is based on the perspective of my own secular morality. Also, as long as questions are asked with an honest desire to learn I think they deserve answering.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Big Bang Theory describes the formation of our universe as far back as we can see. We have found that the universe is consistent with the predictions made by the theory thus far, so we have every reason to think it's accurate. The major question at this point is "What caused the Big Bang?" - and I stress the use of the word "what" because if you used "who" you are limiting the possibilities without reason for limiting them.

My answer to the question is pretty much "I don't know", which is the only honest answer I can give since the scope of my knowledge is limited. I can tell you a few things though. The first is that asking what happened "before" the Big Bang may be a poorly asked question, since time as we know it may not have existed at that point. Time is interwoven with space, and before the Big Bang there was possibly no "space" as we know it. We literally have to start thinking outside the box, the box being our universe. The second is that there have been advances in the field of quantum mechanics that may be helping us answer these questions. I don't actually understand quantum mechanics that well, but a few prominent physicists have made the claim that the laws of quantum mechanics make a creator God redundant* in the birth of our universe. IIRC Stephen Hawking made this claim in his latest book, The Grand Design. (I haven't read it, though I've heard good things)

*Note - Redundant does not mean that one couldn't have been involved, it just means that it wouldn't be a necessary component.

I hate to point you at another hour long lecture, but I'm going to. A Universe From Nothing is one of my favorite lectures (I've actually watched it multiple times) so if you have time to watch it I highly recommend it as it gives a pretty good crash course in this subject matter.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

First off, we're not entirely random. Evolution works primarily on two processes - mutation and natural selection. Mutation occurs at a predictable rate, but where it occurs in an organism's genome is random. Natural selection is non-random - it always favors traits that enable organisms to better survive and reproduce.

Now, as to purpose, it's a matter of fact that we kind of big bags of amino acids, proteins, and chemical reactions. That said, we're still conscious. We still have desires, thoughts, emotions, etc. Even if there isn't some creator deity out there that wants us to fulfill some purpose, our own nature enables us to make a purpose for ourselves. Even without believing in a god, I still want to live, enjoy my life, help others, learn, have family and friends, etc. Living our lives wholeheartedly for the sake of ourselves and our fellow human beings, to me at least, is purpose enough.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As I stated earlier, we have the emotion of empathy. If you or I see an innocent person suffering, empathy makes us feel their pain and will often give rise a desire to help them. Because of this we also consider not to do bad to people, because causing pain to others makes us feel bad - empathy serves us as a conscience. Of course we do have other emotions which lead to us doing bad things to other people, but civilization couldn't possibly work if those factors had a greater influence than empathy.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Once again, it comes down to empathy. Most of us don't want others to suffer for no reason. I don't want to be killed, so I don't go around killing others because I believe they also don't want to be killed, so essentially I recognize the right of others to live. Other rights can be arrived at by similar thinking. Some of them we have to think harder about, and require the use of greater logic, but empathy is still at the core of it. You'll note that the most tyrannical societies in history and even still today that do not recognize basic human rights tend to be lead by psychopaths and sociopaths, who lack empathy.

In regards to logic, logic holds true regardless of whether or not humans can conceive of them. We humans are simply able to use logic because we've evolved the intelligence to do so - our intelligence allows us to go beyond what our base instincts tell us to do.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, because a logical person recognizes that there are consequences in this world. I certainly want to have a good time, but if I do so at the expense of others there are problems. The first one is that since I have empathy I'll feel bad because I'm doing harm to others, and the second one is that if I do harm to others they'll be more inclined to do harm to me, both of which would not be compatible with enjoying life. Also, as mentioned if I see another human being in pain my empathy will prompt me to help them to some degree or another, which would get in the way of a purely hedonistic lifestyle as I'd have to spend time and resources to do so. Also, if I have people I care about deeply, such a children, I'm going to want them to enjoy their lives as well so I'd be inclined to make some sacrifices to ensure they'll be able to even after I'm gone.

When it comes down to it hedonism is fine every once in a while, but I don't think most human beings would find such a life fulfilling.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't know. If there is a god, what the hell is it doing here?

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

By immortal conequences I mean a Heaven/Hell scenario.

You make an intelligent argument, I'll give you that, but it seems like your entire argument about human rights is based on the existence of the emotion empathy, which, according to science, is just a certain chemical reaction in the brain, isn't it?

As for what the hell God is doing here, well, I don't know, but from what I've heard, within the last 2050 years, He's sent down His son, a third of the Holy Trinity to die for our sins. (you're probably going to say something about this)

As for an afterlife, doesn't that mean, according to your stated beliefs, that once a person dies, that person is gone forever, and once his/her name is forgotten, isn't it like he/whe never existed? That seems like a both pointless and sad existence, going through life, and then being nothing.

[John Dibble]

By immortal conequences I mean a Heaven/Hell scenario.

Yes, I realized that. As I said, even without that there are consequences in this world.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I supposed when it boils down to it, yes. But if you think about it that's pretty amazing - that mere chemicals could produce emotion, art, literature, science, and all of the other things that humanity has done.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I've heard that too. I've also heard the Jesus was just a prophet but not the son of God. I've also heard that he was just an ordinary Jewish man, and not divine in any way. I've heard that he "hates fags", and that he doesn't. I've heard many things in regards to religious claims, many contradictory and incompatible with one another, even within the same religion. There are various religions in the world, and all of them claim to be true, but all of them can't be true because they make contradictory claims. The one thing that I find in common with all of them though is that they lack evidence for their claims, hence why I don't believe any of them.

I have an idea of what you believe, though I can't be exactly sure of the particulars since there are so many variations of Christianity. I can be sure that you believe a few central tenets though. So my question to you is why do you believe it? I also ask that you take some time to think on it before answering.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I can't say for certain whether or not there's an afterlife, but I can say that this life inevitably comes to an end. An afterlife promises an infinitely long life, but in a way that makes each particular moment infinitely less valuable. If on the other hand life is truly finite, then that makes each moment infinitely more valuable. In the here and now, my existence is not pointless to me because I value it, and that's good enough as far as I'm concerned. And after that? After I'm dead? The best thing I've ever heard on that is credited to Mark Twain:

"I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it."

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

As for my specific denomination, take the first four letters in my username, and add an "olic" to it, and you've got it.

As for why I believe what I believe, I actually asked myself that around Easter time earlier this year. I was going through my head my specific beliefs, and I started wondering if I was Jewish, when I realized that I believe in an after-life, and that Christianity is the fullfillment of the Jewish faith. However, as for what I've been arguing with you about for the last page or two isn't about a specific faith, but more about the belief in God, which I consider important to society and to humanity.

[afleitch]

However, as for what I've been arguing with you about for the last page or two isn't about a specific faith, but more about the belief in God, which I consider important to society and to humanity.

Even if we take that as a starting point it leads to the question 'which god?' and 'which revelation?' if the faith itself isn't so specific for you. Remember the faith and associated acts of worship stem from the belief and unfortunately for those who support the idea of a god there are dozens if not hundreds of religions that stem from the belief each claiming to exclusively know the mind of god.

The idea of a god or something so extraordinary that we have no other word for it but god exists. But it is a huge leap to believe that if there is it has the slightest interest in us. It's an even larger leap to suggest that not only does it have an interest but I can tell you how it thinks through the Torah, Bible, Koran etc. And of course if all the above is true....who is correct? Who is correct amongst the multitude of sects within each world faith. Who is correct amongst the millions if not billions of 'personal gods'; the beliefs that individuals hold about their deity.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

The subject is the use of the New Testament as a shield of sorts. What are they shielding against? The immoralities of the Old Testament….
Whether or not there's an actual change in context [between the OT and NT] isn't relevant - the fact is I've seen people making these arguments. IIRC I've seen you make something like them too. (I'll look up the examples later if you like, I've got to get to work soon so I don't have time to do it now. If I can't find them I'll retract the statement.)

It’s very relevant, because if the NT doesn’t shy away from the events of the Old Testament, then people are not using the New Testament as a shield against the reality of those events, rather they are MIS-using it as a shield.  In that case, you’re singing my song, for many of my threads attempt to bring the scripture out from under the veil of political correctness.

Which is fine - either way it's a point I wanted to make, and I don't consider it relevant because my objections to the arguments don't have to do with whether the argument is actually valid in that sense. If it isn't then it just renders the argument even more invalid.


Also, as to the examples from before I can't find them - it appears there's been a purge of some of the older threads that were very long. (if you look back more than two pages on this board you'll not find any threat longer than six pages, and I think we both know we've had longer discussions than that) Since I can't find them, I won't hold you to them. If you're interested and think you can find them, the two discussions I had in mind had to do with slavery in the Bible (may have been an off-topic discussion) and the slaughter of the Midianites in Numbers 31. (I would think "Midianites" would turn up the discussion in the search function, but it doesn't, further leading me to believe it was purged)

Dibble, your argument is civil, but is summed up in the following:  you have a problem with God’s judgment, for all those acts you find horrendous as explicitly stated as God’s judgment. 

[afleitch]

Dibble, your argument is civil, but is summed up in the following:  you have a problem with God’s judgment, for all those acts you find horrendous as explicitly stated as God’s judgment. 

How can he have a problem with gods judgment if he does not accept that the god exists? He has raised issues with that gods actions as outlined in the NT, but as he does not believe it exists it excerts no level of authority that would qualify it as a judgment.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Dibble, your argument is civil, but is summed up in the following:  you have a problem with God’s judgment, for all those acts you find horrendous as explicitly stated as God’s judgment. 

How can he have a problem with gods judgment if he does not accept that the god exists? He has raised issues with that gods actions as outlined in the NT, but as he does not believe it exists it excerts no level of authority that would qualify it as a judgment.

[trap sprung]...well, if Dibble ignores the context in that it was God's judgment, then Dibble is the one CHANGING THE CONTEXT and "COVERING UP" and "SHIELDING" what the bible actually says.

[John Dibble]

Dibble, your argument is civil, but is summed up in the following:  you have a problem with God’s judgment, for all those acts you find horrendous as explicitly stated as God’s judgment. 

How can he have a problem with gods judgment if he does not accept that the god exists? He has raised issues with that gods actions as outlined in the NT, but as he does not believe it exists it excerts no level of authority that would qualify it as a judgment.

[trap sprung]...well, if Dibble ignores the context in that it was God's judgment, then Dibble is the one CHANGING THE CONTEXT and "COVERING UP" and "SHIELDING" what the bible actually says.

Bzzzt. Wrong. Even if I accepted that he did exist my problem with "his judgment" would still exist. I don't think just because a being is really powerful it excuses rather obvious failings, especially moral ones. That is only made more inexcusable if the being is extremely knowledgeable, something which is almost universally attributed to the Christian god. But really it comes down to this:

Just because you think that your deity is perfect does not mean I am required to think the same way.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Dibble, your argument is civil, but is summed up in the following:  you have a problem with God’s judgment, for all those acts you find horrendous as explicitly stated as God’s judgment. 

How can he have a problem with gods judgment if he does not accept that the god exists? He has raised issues with that gods actions as outlined in the NT, but as he does not believe it exists it excerts no level of authority that would qualify it as a judgment.

[trap sprung]...well, if Dibble ignores the context in that it was God's judgment, then Dibble is the one CHANGING THE CONTEXT and "COVERING UP" and "SHIELDING" what the bible actually says.

Bzzzt. Wrong. Even if I accepted that he did exist my problem with "his judgment" would still exist. I don't think just because a being is really powerful it excuses rather obvious failings, especially moral ones. That is only made more inexcusable if the being is extremely knowledgeable, something which is almost universally attributed to the Christian god. But really it comes down to this:

Just because you think that your deity is perfect does not mean I am required to think the same way.

we're saying the same thing - you have to keep it in context in order to judge it.  so, if you keep it in the context of a judgment of God, then what you are saying is that you have a problem with God's judgment.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

agreed?

[John Dibble]

we're saying the same thing - you have to keep it in context in order to judge it.  so, if you keep it in the context of a judgment of God, then what you are saying is that you have a problem with God's judgment.

Okay... so what? Do you have a point that actually refutes any of my arguments? It's either the word of God and I'm judging it or it's the word of man and I'm judging it. Either way I'm still judging it for it's rather apparent moral failures.

agreed?

WTF? I don't respond within less than ten minutes and you feel that you need to post a second post to prompt a response?

[afleitch]

Jmfcst, he has stated while you may consider it judgement, he does not believe in the god therefore the god's actions/proclamations have no basis on which to be called 'judgements.'

The are merely actions (ignoring is to whether the 'actor' is the god or the followers who attribute such things to him) and reprehensable ones at that.

If were were talking about the Koran, do you consider the actions of Allah to be 'judgements' and Allah to be a 'judge' given that you have reason to believe that the faith is unfounded?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

we're saying the same thing - you have to keep it in context in order to judge it.  so, if you keep it in the context of a judgment of God, then what you are saying is that you have a problem with God's judgment.

Okay... so what? Do you have a point that actually refutes any of my arguments? It's either the word of God and I'm judging it or it's the word of man and I'm judging it. Either way I'm still judging it for it's rather apparent moral failures.

agreed?

WTF? I don't respond within less than ten minutes and you feel that you need to post a second post to prompt a response?

(relax, I just didn't want to edit a post that had been up there for more than a couple of minutes for fear you already read it and would miss the edit, so I created a second post.)

so, now that we've boiled it down to you having a problem with God's judgments...

(the New Testament can't be used as a shield because it does not water down the OT judgment, rather it magnifies them infinitely - eternal condemnation. So, why are you focused on God ending earthly life while ignoring eternal punishment?  Wouldn’t God’s eternal judgment be a better target of your disapproval?)

...but, back to the point:  what aspect, exactly, of God’s judgment do you find “immoral”?  (I can’t offer a refutation without knowing what exactly I am refuting)

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Jmfcst, he has stated while you may consider it judgement, he does not believe in the god therefore the god's actions/proclamations have no basis on which to be called 'judgements.'

The are merely actions (ignoring is to whether the 'actor' is the god or the followers who attribute such things to him) and reprehensable ones at that.

since Dibble and I seem to be on the same page in terms of context, you should simply allow the discussion to continue

----

If were were talking about the Koran, do you consider the actions of Allah to be 'judgements' and Allah to be a 'judge' given that you have reason to believe that the faith is unfounded?

My rejection of the Koran isn't based on ts contents, rather it is based on the fact it is a testimony of one person claiming there was a worldwide conspiracy to covering up the supposed fact historical persons x,y,z were Muslim when there is no historical record of anyone being Muslim prior to Mohammad.

[John Dibble]

(the New Testament can't be used as a shield because it does not water down the OT judgment, rather it magnifies them infinitely - eternal condemnation. So, why are you focused on God ending earthly life while ignoring eternal punishment?  Wouldn’t God’s eternal judgment be a better target of your disapproval?)

As I stated earlier, whether or not the Christians that are making the argument with the correct Biblical context or not does not change the fact that they are making it. Even if you disagree with this type of argument, they still make it, and I do expect that in future threads on this it will come up so I felt it necessary to address it now rather than multiple times in multiple threads - that way I can just point to this thread.

In regards to eternal punishment, I also have problems with that notion. It will be a subject of one of the later threads in this series.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If that's what you wish me to address I'll be getting into specific subjects in later threads in the series. Subjects will include slavery, mistreatment of women, eternal punishment, certain killing by God and in his name within the Bible, and a few other subjects, not necessarily in that order. Treatment of homosexuals might be included, but seeing as that's been argued to death here in this forum for quite a few years now and it's likely nothing new would be said it'll either come late in the series or be stuffed into another topic if I address it at all.

The next topic will probably be slavery and how it's addressed in the Bible, if you feel the need to brush up on that content. I'll probably start the thread sometime later in the week.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

(the New Testament can't be used as a shield because it does not water down the OT judgment, rather it magnifies them infinitely - eternal condemnation. So, why are you focused on God ending earthly life while ignoring eternal punishment?  Wouldn’t God’s eternal judgment be a better target of your disapproval?)

As I stated earlier, whether or not the Christians that are making the argument with the correct Biblical context or not does not change the fact that they are making it. Even if you disagree with this type of argument, they still make it, and I do expect that in future threads on this it will come up so I felt it necessary to address it now rather than multiple times in multiple threads - that way I can just point to this thread.

In regards to eternal punishment, I also have problems with that notion. It will be a subject of one of the later threads in this series.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If that's what you wish me to address I'll be getting into specific subjects in later threads in the series. Subjects will include slavery, mistreatment of women, eternal punishment, certain killing by God and in his name within the Bible, and a few other subjects, not necessarily in that order. Treatment of homosexuals might be included, but seeing as that's been argued to death here in this forum for quite a few years now and it's likely nothing new would be said it'll either come late in the series or be stuffed into another topic if I address it at all.

The next topic will probably be slavery and how it's addressed in the Bible, if you feel the need to brush up on that content. I'll probably start the thread sometime later in the week.

well, if the only issue of this thread is dufus-Christians misusing the NT to ignore the OT, then it isn't a moral failure of Christianity at all, rather it's an argumentative failure.

as far as slavery goes, I already know the topic trail within the bible and where it is first tied to sin, so I understand perfectly well the meaning and significance of the issue in relation to doctrine.  And that is where my response to your upcoming thread will begin, and i hope you will also preform a trace of slavery within the bible and start at the beginning of that trail in order to keep it in context.

[John Dibble]

well, if the only issue of this thread is dufus-Christians misusing the NT to ignore the OT, then it isn't a moral failure of Christianity at all, rather it's an argumentative failure.

If you'll go back and read towards the end of my opening post, you'll see that I addressed this.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

well, if the only issue of this thread is dufus-Christians misusing the NT to ignore the OT, then it isn't a moral failure of Christianity at all, rather it's an argumentative failure.

If you'll go back and read towards the end of my opening post, you'll see that I addressed this.

ok, reread it, sounds like we're on the same page.

but, since this is an argumentative failure, I don't see much purpose to this thread since it basically parrots what I've been saying for 8 years on this forum, so let's move onto more substantive "failings"

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

However, as for what I've been arguing with you about for the last page or two isn't about a specific faith, but more about the belief in God, which I consider important to society and to humanity.

Even if we take that as a starting point it leads to the question 'which god?' and 'which revelation?' if the faith itself isn't so specific for you. Remember the faith and associated acts of worship stem from the belief and unfortunately for those who support the idea of a god there are dozens if not hundreds of religions that stem from the belief each claiming to exclusively know the mind of god.

The idea of a god or something so extraordinary that we have no other word for it but god exists. But it is a huge leap to believe that if there is it has the slightest interest in us. It's an even larger leap to suggest that not only does it have an interest but I can tell you how it thinks through the Torah, Bible, Koran etc. And of course if all the above is true....who is correct? Who is correct amongst the multitude of sects within each world faith. Who is correct amongst the millions if not billions of 'personal gods'; the beliefs that individuals hold about their deity.

I personally have a kind of "wait and see" attitude. At the very least, I hope that I'm right about two things: 1, there is a God, and 2, he is merciful. If both are correct, then I hope that if I am wrong on everything else, that when I die, God would rather enlighten me than cast me into Hell for being wrong. However, if there is no God, then having the right faith isn't important at all, because in the end you're going to die and become nothing; which means that life is more about enjoying it than being right.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

Hey, by the way, are you (Dribble) going to make a thread about exclucivism?

(That's the idea that those who were never exposed to the Bible/Jesus are going to Hell by default)

[afleitch]

However, as for what I've been arguing with you about for the last page or two isn't about a specific faith, but more about the belief in God, which I consider important to society and to humanity.

Even if we take that as a starting point it leads to the question 'which god?' and 'which revelation?' if the faith itself isn't so specific for you. Remember the faith and associated acts of worship stem from the belief and unfortunately for those who support the idea of a god there are dozens if not hundreds of religions that stem from the belief each claiming to exclusively know the mind of god.

The idea of a god or something so extraordinary that we have no other word for it but god exists. But it is a huge leap to believe that if there is it has the slightest interest in us. It's an even larger leap to suggest that not only does it have an interest but I can tell you how it thinks through the Torah, Bible, Koran etc. And of course if all the above is true....who is correct? Who is correct amongst the multitude of sects within each world faith. Who is correct amongst the millions if not billions of 'personal gods'; the beliefs that individuals hold about their deity.

I personally have a kind of "wait and see" attitude. At the very least, I hope that I'm right about two things: 1, there is a God, and 2, he is merciful. If both are correct, then I hope that if I am wrong on everything else, that when I die, God would rather enlighten me than cast me into Hell for being wrong. However, if there is no God, then having the right faith isn't important at all, because in the end you're going to die and become nothing; which means that life is more about enjoying it than being right.

You are aware that if you are wrong (and I for that matter) and that Islam is 'the one' then you go straight to hell? The reason I ask this is that you seem to be expecting something from a god that neither Christianity or Islam for example allow for; mercy for not believeing or holding the wrong belief. Do you believe that you would be held in higher regarding for picking the 'wrong god' than I would be for not believing in any?

You also seem to making the assumption that not having a faith makes one frivolous and vapid. I held a faith until early this year. I now do not; it hasn't changed my morals, how I treat others or my outlook on life in the slightest.