An Open Letter to Atheists

[AUL LAD]

You got it wrong on your first two words (so I didn't bother reading the rest)

this post is a tribute to your very quick grasp of things --so quick you don't actually need to read it at all --and if only you grasped that since you did not read it you could therefore have spared us your wisdom by not posting.

 

[Myles O'Reilly]

There was actually a book written by an Australian Jesuit in I think the 1940s where he was writing about "if you accept there is a God then it is the Christian God" because of x, y and z. He started from the premise that you believe in God first and then went through his long arguments after that point, it was pretty complicated and unfortunately I have forgotten most of it!

Thank God for small mercies eh?

 

[AUL LAD]

I suspect the pagan community will grow because it will morph into the Occult world, who are the real power in the land, internationally anyway.

i did the photography for a pagan wedding and learned a great deal and was very impressed with the goodness and respect of the ceremony .
the celebrant was the lovely Dr Eimer Burke of 3 castles castle assisted by her 10 year old daughter and her husband Dr Howard Campbell ( now deceased) who dressed in his Campbell tartan --- turned first to an oak tree and held out his arms and humbly asked the OAK to bless the couple .
( the oak is sacred to pagans and the wedding was conducted in Jenkinstown wood ) and then turned to an ash tree and repeated his request to the tree.
I who thought had met them all was shocked to discover almost half of the sacred circle of 250 people which formed in the wood could sing and chant the pagan hymns which i had never heard of .
the ceremony was the most respectful i have ever attended and Dr Burke is also a priestess of ISIS and a psychiatrist -- her husband was a gp and one of the bravest men i have ever met .
to believe in the nature based very moral pagan religion you shock people who believe only in their selfish consuming of everything they can regardless of the cost to others.
i went away transformed and bitterly regretted not being aware when i was young of such goodness such clarity of thought -such generosity to your fellow man .
i was reared by an Irish society who were very disturbed and extremely violent and did not have a good bone in their bodies .
i was shocked when i reviewed my marriage and the vows we were made take which were not wholesome and i compared it to the vows in the pagan marriage which were very respectful to the couple .
all my life i was told the pagans believe in nothing and they are chanting weirdos in the woods -- you would not seek out the company of a nest of badgers --so Ireland ignored the great heritage of its past and present which had and has vastly more morals and commonsense than the crap we were told to worship.

 

[tldr]

View: https://t.me/EnjoyTheD/11230
​

 

[Tiger]

Atheistic arguments are usually very simple, and devastating, to theists.

For example, does it ever occur to you Christians that you're Christians (and not a different stripe of theist) overwhelmingly because of an accident of birthplace?

Wow. What a ‘devastating’ argument.

 

[scolairebocht]

View: https://youtu.be/TF7LFXm-FrQ

 

[PlunkettsGhost]

View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IKnZw7byEgY

we don't take pedo apologists seriously round here.

 

[Hermit]

Once again, the desperate need of theists for the acceptance of science for the supernatural (by definition unscientific).

I don't get it.. no one's been able to explain it to me, or attempt to..

 

[Fishalt]

A Plea that they approach the question of God’s Existence in a scientific and rational manner.
View attachment 4139

After a friendly discussion with atheists recently it struck me that many people of that opinion pride themselves on their scientific and level headed approach to the question of religion. They stand for logic, and mathematical scientific reasoning, none of the mumbo jumbo associated with religion.

I welcome that wholeheartedly, your brains are God given and I think they should be used a lot in deciding between theism and atheism, very much so, but is that actually what happens? Consider a few things that flow from this level headed approach:

a) Obviously you will have to put aside any question about the (vastly exaggerated, and some completely hoaxed) scandals involving the Catholic Church in Ireland, that can have nothing now to do with your cold hard logic sense of reason here? If 10,000 geography teachers were imprisoned in the morning for whatever, it still does not follow that the Shannon isn’t a river in Ireland or Malawi a country in Africa. You are clearly going to be putting all this hype to one side as you consider the philosophical question of the existence of God, and, in truth, is that what you actually do?

b) You can have no sense of fashion here, or your own presumptions about what is likely to grow or decline in the future. You are not in the market for a handbag at this point, it should have no impact on you any sense in which older people might have been more religious in the past, and that the Churches are now not as full, and you would prefer to be with the younger hipper in-crowd, etc! If you are now this logical sort of fellow all that is not interfering with your decision here, right?

c) No sense of pride or a feeling that religion is a kill joy is impacting your new logical scientific self, is it? None of us like to be told what to do, and for example if one borrows a huge sum of money for a great new car, we don’t like people reminding us that we have to pay all that money back? Its a kill joy sure, but its also saying the hard truth, and thats what religion sometimes has to do, but of course you aren’t thinking of anything like that when deciding if God exists or not? There is no sense in which you would like to continue your lifestyle free of ‘judgementalism’ coming into your logic here is there, because obviously that would be very far from a logical and scientific approach to this question wouldn’t it?

d) Do you have the level of knowledge to decide this question? Obviously if I was to decide if I believe a physicist when he says they can explode a giant bomb by crushing two tiny atoms together, I need some knowledge of physics to know if he is lying or not. Logically, its not just about your own intelligence, clearly its that added to education in the subject which will give you, hopefully, the right answer.

But what is your level of knowledge of theology, or even of specifically the philosophical Proofs of God’s Existence as outlined by Aquinas say? I hear so many atheists proudly saying that at the age of 7 they knew it was all bunkum etc etc, imagine if you said that to the physicist in that question above? At the age of 7 how much knowledge could you reasonably have of theology or its related disciplines of logic and philosophy? Have you studied it all properly as an adult, reading a few selective quotes by people like Dawkins does not make you a theology expert, or give you anything like enough education here to be able to decide this question. Anyway if you like you can read something like this text which might help you at least to know the main theist arguments: http://www.orwellianireland.com/proofs.pdf .

In any case just a few thoughts on the subject...

There's a lot of problems here. The major one is that you're conflating the existence of a prime mover, or creator, with the doctrine of Christianity. This is something Christians are notorious for doing and it's a basic logical fallacy.

The proposition, or belief that God exists, and created the universe, is one position entirely separate from claiming to know what proposed God wants you to wear, eat, think, and how to behave. To move from one position to another is an enormous leap.

The reason you believe that Jesus Christ is lord and saviour is, as I have pointed out numerous times, simply a product of the life, culture and time you were born into. There are approx. 4000 cultures currently in existence, and all of them have cosmologies and belief systems and religious doctrines, rituals and practices. Yours is no more or less valid than any of the others. You are in fact an Atheist 3,999 times out of 4000 because you don't subscribe to any religion other than yours. You are very nearly as much of an Atheist as James is. Literally one point separates you.

Your second problem is argumentem ab auctoritate; That is, the logical fallacy of appeal to Authority. Theology is not a serious line of intellectual inquiry, and any level of degree attained in it is both practically and essentially useless. And even if this were not true, it would have no meaning. It is absurd to compare it to something like physics, which is demonstrable. In fact, I'll go one better because you obviously don't understand what science is, how it works, and how it is different from theology:

Science is a method of examination that proposes models to explain natural and material processes that are observable and measurable. What we decide is true or not, scientifically, is based on which models have the most explanatory and predictive power. A model must be repeatable, and falsifiable. Religion is neither. Christianity has explanatory, but absolutely no predictive power at all. For example, quasars were first predicted based on a model before we had the technology to actually observe them. Religion has no material instrumentality. You cannot use it to create microwave ovens and FMRI machines and vaccines, and if I were to cut off my arm right now with a bow saw, no amount of praying to the heavenly father would make it grow back.

 

[Myles O'Reilly]

Hermit regarding your picture. Couldn't it also be a stairs down to a firey pit versus the black nothingness?

 

[Professor]

Religion has no material instrumentality. You cannot use it to create microwave ovens and FMRI machines and vaccines, and if I were to cut off my arm right now with a bow saw, no amount of praying to the heavenly father would make it grow back.

But, religion will save you from cutting your arm off with a bow saw in the first place, and if you were to lose an arm then by praying to the heavenly father for a solution - God may provide one, within the parish . . .

 

[scolairebocht]

Fishalt
So I am trying to speak to and persuade atheists, and hopefully show them that God exists. Sure there is a whole other conversation to say that Christianity is the true religion etc, but at least we can get to stage 1 here? Does that mean you are now a theist can I ask?

The fact that there are other options and theories does not mean that there is no true 'theory', so the fact that there are other religions doesn't invalidate anything as far as I can see.

Yes science is different to theology, but nonetheless it also has some similarities. I think if you study Natural Theology you can see that.

 

[Fishalt]

Fishalt
So I am trying to speak to and persuade atheists, and hopefully show them that God exists. Sure there is a whole other conversation to say that Christianity is the true religion etc, but at least we can get to stage 1 here? Does that mean you are now a theist can I ask?

The fact that there are other options and theories does not mean that there is no true 'theory', so the fact that there are other religions doesn't invalidate anything as far as I can see.

Yes science is different to theology, but nonetheless it also has some similarities. I think if you study Natural Theology you can see that.

There is no more probability that you will dissuade an atheist from atheism than there is that an atheist will dissuade you from Christianity. It is an exercise in futility that will only lead to conflict and enmity.

I am not religious. The closest I come to that is accepting the Buddhist concept of samsara.

 

[Kangal]

Like other Catholics I've encountered online, @scolairebocht is under the illusion that his God has been proved.

If we are to accept that state of (his) mind, it's understandable that he would be a proselytiser. And I would say if there's one universal thing that you could say about atheists, it's their dislike of proselytising.

I don't believe I've ever seen any "proof" for a god that doesn't come across as contrived or designed to get the answer it wants. And ideas like "first mover" for example, could easily be described as some natural entity, conditions or force(s) that have yet to be conclusively confirmed (though there are a great many ideas on this topic).

Certainly there's no objective evidence for a god....ultimately you end up being told to accept certain things as a "mystery", or just to have faith.

 

[tldr]

There's a lot of problems here. The major one is that you're conflating the existence of a prime mover, or creator, with the doctrine of Christianity. This is something Christians are notorious for doing and it's a basic logical fallacy.

The proposition, or belief that God exists, and created the universe, is one position entirely separate from claiming to know what proposed God wants you to wear, eat, think, and how to behave. To move from one position to another is an enormous leap.

The reason you believe that Jesus Christ is lord and saviour is, as I have pointed out numerous times, simply a product of the life, culture and time you were born into. There are approx. 4000 cultures currently in existence, and all of them have cosmologies and belief systems and religious doctrines, rituals and practices. Yours is no more or less valid than any of the others. You are in fact an Atheist 3,999 times out of 4000 because you don't subscribe to any religion other than yours. You are very nearly as much of an Atheist as James is. Literally one point separates you.

Your second problem is argumentem ab auctoritate; That is, the logical fallacy of appeal to Authority. Theology is not a serious line of intellectual inquiry, and any level of degree attained in it is both practically and essentially useless. And even if this were not true, it would have no meaning. It is absurd to compare it to something like physics, which is demonstrable. In fact, I'll go one better because you obviously don't understand what science is, how it works, and how it is different from theology:

Science is a method of examination that proposes models to explain natural and material processes that are observable and measurable. What we decide is true or not, scientifically, is based on which models have the most explanatory and predictive power. A model must be repeatable, and falsifiable. Religion is neither. Christianity has explanatory, but absolutely no predictive power at all. For example, quasars were first predicted based on a model before we had the technology to actually observe them. Religion has no material instrumentality. You cannot use it to create microwave ovens and FMRI machines and vaccines, and if I were to cut off my arm right now with a bow saw, no amount of praying to the heavenly father would make it grow back.

'The term deism refers not to a specific religion but rather to a particular perspective on the nature of God. Deists believe that a single creator god does exist, but they take their evidence from reason and logic, not the revelatory acts and miracles that form the basis of faith in many organized religions. Deists hold that after the motions of the universe were set in place, God retreated and had no further interaction with the created universe or the beings within it. Deism is sometimes considered to be a reaction against theism in its various forms—the belief in a God that does intervene in the lives of humans and with whom you can have a personal relationship.'

https://www.learnreligions.com/deism-95703


It's associated with free masonry and the enlightenment.

Perhaps you could consider this as a reason why God would be interested and personally involved in human life?

Say that the material realm was created to nurture souls in the same way as a school is created to nurture scholars. You may pass the studies and the exam or you may fail. The teacher does not want you to fail the exam, and will provide all due guidance to you during instruction, however the success of your passage fundamentally depends on you.

The story of Heaven does not tell us of the content of it therein - more that we can know may be going on. Think of this life as a preparation for it, a prelude to it. Potential is not product. Our task is to fulfill our potential and the routines to do this are provided to us through religion. In the same way as there are pitfalls in school, there are pitfalls in life to us being the sort of people who are fit to ascend.

And this is an explanation of why God is a personal one. He is interested in our success but respects our freedom. This freedom - in the sense of individual integrity - is an essential part of our raison d'etre. While not the only part, It is fundamental to it.

It may be Lord of the Flies down here at the moment but that doesn't mean that just order doesn't exist. It just means that we struggle to instantiate it given the phantoms of warring vanity that pervade this murk.

To address the science observation of God. Take a child in the womb. The child has no sensory perception of the outside world although it may hear their mother's voice and dimly perceive light. What scientific experiments could the child conduct to prove that the outside world exists?

The most superficial proof of the existence of God, and the enormity of existence, is the failure of Godlessness. Try Christian Stoicism for a while and see how it works out.

 

[scolairebocht]

Yes fishalt, whatever about being religious or not I was wondering do you believe the existence of God? I just got the impression you were stuck between stages 1 and 2 there, between believing in God but not accepting Christianity as the true Church.

 

[Fishalt]

'The term deism refers not to a specific religion but rather to a particular perspective on the nature of God. Deists believe that a single creator god does exist, but they take their evidence from reason and logic, not the revelatory acts and miracles that form the basis of faith in many organized religions. Deists hold that after the motions of the universe were set in place, God retreated and had no further interaction with the created universe or the beings within it. Deism is sometimes considered to be a reaction against theism in its various forms—the belief in a God that does intervene in the lives of humans and with whom you can have a personal relationship.'

https://www.learnreligions.com/deism-95703


It's associated with free masonry and the enlightenment.

Perhaps you could consider this as a reason why God would be interested and personally involved in human life?

Say that the material realm was created to nurture souls in the same way as a school is created to nurture scholars. You may pass the studies and the exam or you may fail. The teacher does not want you to fail the exam, and will provide all due guidance to you during instruction, however the success of your passage fundamentally depends on you.

The story of Heaven does not tell us of the content of it therein - more that we can know may be going on. Think of this life as a preparation for it, a prelude to it. Potential is not product. Our task is to fulfill our potential and the routines to do this are provided to us through religion. In the same way as there are pitfalls in school, there are pitfalls in life to us being the sort of people who are fit to ascend.

And this is an explanation of why God is a personal one. He is interested in our success but respects our freedom. This freedom - in the sense of individual integrity - is an essential part of our raison d'etre. While not the only part, It is fundamental to it.

It may be Lord of the Flies down here at the moment but that doesn't mean that just order doesn't exist. It just means that we struggle to instantiate it given the phantoms of warring vanity that pervade this murk.

To address the science observation of God. Take a child in the womb. The child has no sensory perception of the outside world although it may hear their mother's voice and dimly perceive light. What scientific experiments could the child conduct to prove that the outside world exists?

The most superficial proof of the existence of God, and the enormity of existence, is the failure of Godlessness. Try Christian Stoicism for a while and see how it works out.

I'm sorry TLDR but this post is scarcely coherent. First, you tell me that deists posit God exists, and they believe this based on evidence and logic. In fact, the preponderance of evidence suggests God does not exist, and it is irrational to believe one does based on all available evidence. Taking your hypothetical construct of existence, for example, what teacher designs a metric to test the worthiness of his pupils that is not universalized, or standardized? The degree of difficulty for say, a child born of a mother afflicted with Zika virus, is indescribably greater than that issued to the son of a Bishop. It is likely the former does not even possess the requisite basic comprehension to even make moral distinctions of any kind at all. What of people born with psychopathy?Free will, and by extension freedom of opportunity and possibility, in the sense that you frame both, does not exist.

Say for example I created a challenge to build a stone hut, replete with a fireplace and furniture. First prize one billion dollars. There are no second or third prizes. Everyone who doesn't pass muster receives far less than nothing, in fact, in the form of exquisite and varied torture for all eternity. Opting out of this arrangement is not optional.

One contestant is a master builder in his early thirties. Another is a wheelchair-bound eight-year-old child with one arm. Another is a non-functioning congenital imbecile. Another is a mason. Another is an 87 YO war veteran with no arms or legs.

Do you see where I'm going with all this?

Have you ever read the Poem Hell is a lonely place by Bukowski?


He was 65, his wife was 66, had
Alzheimer's disease.

he had cancer of the
mouth.
there were
operations, radiation
treatments
which decayed the bones in his
jaw
which then had to be
wired.

daily he put his wife in
rubber diapers
like a
baby.

unable to drive in his
condition
he had to take a taxi to
the medical
center,
had difficulty speaking,
had to
write the directions
down.

on his last visit
they informed him
there would be another
operation: a bit more
left
cheek and a bit more
tongue.

when he returned
he changed his wife's
diapers
put on the tv
dinners, watched the
evening news
then went to the bedroom, got the
gun, put it to her
temple, fired.

she fell to the
left, he sat upon the
couch
put the gun into his
mouth, pulled the
trigger.

the shots didn't arouse
the neighbors.

later
the burning tv dinners
did.

somebody arrived, pushed
the door open, saw
it.

soon
the police arrived and
went through their
routine, found
some items:

a closed savings
account and
a checkbook with a
balance of
$1.14
suicide, they
deduced.

in three weeks
there were two
new tenants:
a computer engineer
named
Ross
and his wife
Anatana
who studied
ballet.

they looked like another
upwardly mobile
pair.

 

[tldr]

I'm sorry TLDR but this post is scarcely coherent. First, you tell me that deists posit God exists, and they believe this based on evidence and logic. In fact, the preponderance of evidence suggests God does not exist, and it is irrational to believe one does based on all available evidence. Taking your hypothetical construct of existence, for example, what teacher designs a metric to test the worthiness of his pupils that is not universalized, or standardized? The degree of difficulty for say, a child born of a mother afflicted with Zika virus, is indescribably greater than that issued to the son of a Bishop. It is likely the former does not even possess the requisite basic comprehension to even make moral distinctions of any kind at all. What of people born with psychopathy?Free will, and by extension freedom of opportunity and possibility, in the sense that you frame both, does not exist.

Sorry, I must have misinterpreted your previous posts. My impression was that you accepted that a Creator was possible. That's why I posted a definition of Deism - the clockmaker god - from a random internet source.

Given the latest science on the beginning of the universe - recounted in Tiger's thread for example - the current scientific thinking is agnostic at best. Remember there are limits on the bandwidth of science.

I think that the energy that drives atheism isn't a passionate desire to establish the truth but a moral revolt against the restrictions that religious codes of conduct apply. We're beginning to see the unraveling of civilised life as a result of their decay so it's not reasonable to insist that there is nothing to them.

I accept that without a personal revelation that it's difficult to accept a supernatural ingrediant to reality but the teachings that revealed truth profess are vindicated by reason so it's enough to abide by their advice for me. Insult, murder, theft, covetousness and lying are intolerable by any rationale.

Say for example I created a challenge to build a stone hut, replete with a fireplace and furniture. First prize one billion dollars. There are no second or third prizes. Everyone who doesn't pass muster receives far less than nothing, in fact, in the form of exquisite and varied torture for all eternity. Opting out of this arrangement is not optional.

One contestant is a master builder in his early thirties. Another is a wheelchair-bound eight-year-old child with one arm. Another is a non-functioning congenital imbecile. Another is a mason. Another is an 87 YO war veteran with no arms or legs.

Do you see where I'm going with all this?

I think this is catastrophizing. Master builders are older than early thirties (just to point that out), although a trademan should be very able by that age if he's been tutored correctly. If that's a reference to Christ then I don't follow this train of thought.

I think the objection you're making here is the tragedy of the Darwinian world. But that misses the point. Our souls are not judged on "survival of the fittest" metrics. The affairs of the world are a low tier activity that facilitate the purpose of life namely the fulfilment of our created potential.

A paraplegic may be a finer person than someone who rock climbs, they may have a nobler soul by having a greater attunement to the Divine and a finer magnanimity towards their companions along the road of life. Of course, they also could be spoiled and spiteful and the rock climber may be grand sort of a buck altogether.

The greater the burden, the greater the honour - someone in the Paralympics may swim slower than someone in the Olympics but their achievement is just as magnificent.

I've never seen anything that suggested that Heaven has capacity limits - nor is it restricted to high net worth individuals, in fact I think that Jesus makes clear that clinging to physical wealth as a substitute for actual personal value is a hazardous decision.

The Church currently teaches that the absence of God is the fundamental punishment of Hell although, given life experience, I think if a lot of bad sorts of people are locked in together without good people to parasite off that they would make it Hell for each other. Satan is only just another lost soul when it comes down to it. The first sin is to imagine ourselves gods - from this conceit the other vices come.

Have you ever read the Poem Hell is a lonely place by Bukowski?


....

Bukowski was a bad drunk and exactly the sort of guy that would traumatize any children he had responsibility for. His dark poetry was an effort at justifying his behaviour. There has always been, and continues to be, a submerged and vicious seam to human society and Bukowski was part of it.

 

[Myles O'Reilly]

I'm sorry TLDR but this post is scarcely coherent.

Tony is like that I'm afraid. Its been addressed many times but he just can't seem to pull it together.

 

[Fishalt]

Sorry, I must have misinterpreted your previous posts. My impression was that you accepted that a Creator was possible. That's why I posted a definition of Deism - the clockmaker god - from a random internet source.

Given the latest science on the beginning of the universe - recounted in Tiger's thread for example - the current scientific thinking is agnostic at best. Remember there are limits on the bandwidth of science.

I think that the energy that drives atheism isn't a passionate desire to establish the truth but a moral revolt against the restrictions that religious codes of conduct apply. We're beginning to see the unraveling of civilised life as a result of their decay so it's not reasonable to insist that there is nothing to them.

I accept that without a personal revelation that it's difficult to accept a supernatural ingrediant to reality but the teachings that revealed truth profess are vindicated by reason so it's enough to abide by their advice for me. Insult, murder, theft, covetousness and lying are intolerable by any rationale.



I think this is catastrophizing. Master builders are older than early thirties (just to point that out), although a trademan should be very able by that age if he's been tutored correctly. If that's a reference to Christ then I don't follow this train of thought.

I think the objection you're making here is the tragedy of the Darwinian world. But that misses the point. Our souls are not judged on "survival of the fittest" metrics. The affairs of the world are a low tier activity that facilitate the purpose of life namely the fulfilment of our created potential.

A paraplegic may be a finer person than someone who rock climbs, they may have a nobler soul by having a greater attunement to the Divine and a finer magnanimity towards their companions along the road of life. Of course, they also could be spoiled and spiteful and the rock climber may be grand sort of a buck altogether.

The greater the burden, the greater the honour - someone in the Paralympics may swim slower than someone in the Olympics but their achievement is just as magnificent.

I've never seen anything that suggested that Heaven has capacity limits - nor is it restricted to high net worth individuals, in fact I think that Jesus makes clear that clinging to physical wealth as a substitute for actual personal value is a hazardous decision.

The Church currently teaches that the absence of God is the fundamental punishment of Hell although, given life experience, I think if a lot of bad sorts of people are locked in together without good people to parasite off that they would make it Hell for each other. Satan is only just another lost soul when it comes down to it. The first sin is to imagine ourselves gods - from this conceit the other vices come.



Bukowski was a bad drunk and exactly the sort of guy that would traumatize any children he had responsibility for. His dark poetry was an effort at justifying his behaviour. There has always been, and continues to be, a submerged and vicious seam to human society and Bukowski was part of it.

I think theists characterize atheists with precisely the same modality of bad-faith that atheists use to define theists. You have done this, just now. Your argument is more or less that Atheists aren't interested in refuting the existence of God for noble reasons, but rather because they want to erase the existence of God so that they may be held to no moral standard and can revel in degeneracy. This is probably true in some cases, but I submit to you that it is far more difficult to be a moral Atheist than it is to be a moral Christian.

I subscribe to no faith and regularly offer my time, energy and services gratas to people who can't afford it and need help. When I do this, I am not doing so because I am trying to curry favour with the creator of the universe--to earn brownie points so that I might increase my chances of getting into paradise. Nor do I do this out of fear of eternal damnation for otherwise having lived selfishly. I do good for the sake of good--because it is the right thing to do, and because kindness is better than cruelty. I do this without the expectation of reward or punishment for having done so at the end of my life. Furthermore, I do however, largely agree with you; must human beings are not exceptional and are incapable of doing good without carrots and sticks driving them to do said good. The difference between myself and someone like the creator of this thread and Tiger is that what I do takes nobility.

I will concede that I am an exceptional case, an outlier. I have personally never met a Christian I would deem worthy of heaven. What I have met is a lot of people who are blindly trapped in the rinse-cycle of minor wheel samsara. Or perhaps more accurately, Dhukka.

This leads me on to your next point, which is a kind of Nietzschean dilemma that I largely agree with, and is specifically why, unlike James (who is incidentally as prone to the three poisons as anyone I have ever met, but who is improving) I don't go about trying to dissuade people from their faith. I genuinely believe that most people are not capable of being moral and selfless without God. People like myself are, unfortunately, quite rare. It is better that a person believes in nonsense that causes them to act morally than it is for a person to believe in nothing and act with evil.

And finally no, you misunderstand my point. I am not talking about Darwinism. My argument is very simple; no good teacher would apply a test of character and nature that is not universal and standardized. Everybody in the year 11 math test gets given the same paper. Do you follow me now?