"Christians think that the universe as it is is perfect, because it was created by God"

Oops.  Nope.

Christians think that the universe AS IT WAS CREATED was 'perfect.'   They DO NOT THINK it is STILL perfect.




(Linguistically speaking, the word we render 'perfect' from the Greek, is actually 'teleios', or 'complete.'  So, keep that in mind, too.)

"Christians think that the universe as it is is perfect, because it was created by God"

Oops.  Nope.

Christians think that the universe AS IT WAS CREATED was 'perfect.'   They DO NOT THINK it is STILL perfect.




(Linguistically speaking, the word we render 'perfect' from the Greek, is actually 'teleios', or 'complete.'  So, keep that in mind, too.)

Are you saying the universe was complete but humans came along and made it incomplete? Does that even make sense? And why would God let one part of his creation undo another part of his creation, unless he wanted it that way? In which case it really wouldn't be undone, would it?

Now who is more moral? If I had a choice I would definitely prefer that my doctor was an atheist. If I had a serious medical problem I wouldn't want my doctor saying something like "It's in the hands of God now." I would want them to try anything to keep me alive.

Absolutely.

If I were a child, I'd hope my parents were atheist, too. It must suck being raised by people who put your interests behind those of another, especially when that "other" is invisible.

Humanists place humans at the top of their "most valuable" list. For Christians, humans are only number two, at best.

I've been thinking about this the past few days. Christians think that the universe as it is is perfect, because it was created by God. Atheists, on the other hand, think that the universe is just one big cosmic accident. Therefore, there is always room for improving things. The atheist knows the universe is not perfect, and wants to do all they can to improve themselves and their environment. Doesn't it seem like if one thinks the universe is perfect that they would be more complacent about things that are obviously wrong, since it's all part of a perfect plan anyway?

From what I've read, this actually comes close to the beliefs of Mother Theresa. She didn't actually help sick people so much, she just gave them a comfortable place to rest while they were waiting to die and go meet God.

As a corollary, the atheist would do all they can to stave off death, while the Christian is more accepting of death because they believe there is an afterlife. Now who is more moral? If I had a choice I would definitely prefer that my doctor was an atheist. If I had a serious medical problem I wouldn't want my doctor saying something like "It's in the hands of God now." I would want them to try anything to keep me alive.

Which is more moral? I think the question you really want to ask is, "Which is more effectively moral?" Which is to say, "Which of these two opposing mindsets has done, does, and will do more for the human race?" (As opposed to "Which of these two mindsets wants to do more?") In that case, what the two sides think of the nature of the world and universe is rather a moot point. It's what they get up and do with that mindset that really matters, and that's the really tricky part--some Christians are very go-to human-helpers, others are more passive, and others might just sit back and leave it all to their unseen God. Atheists are just as varied, though the latter of them don't leave it to an unseen God... they just kind of leave it, period, which I'd take to be less internally moral (but that, as I said, doesn't seem to be the thing you were really driving at).

Now, oftentimes it seems to me that Christians are generally more motivated than atheists to get up and do something, probably because their beliefs are so firmly rooted in the concept of love (love for your friend, love for your enemy, love for your neighbor... Good Samaritans all around). And I admit that I've never encounted a charity organization that was atheist at heart. But there are a number of factors to consider--for one, maybe the Christians and other religious folk simply outnumber the atheists, so it looks like the religious folk are doing more on an individual basis when it's just that atheists haven't had the chance to really show their moral metal; also remember that a charity begun by an atheist might not want to parade the fact that it's founded on atheistic morals, either because it thinks that might repel potential members or because it simply sees no need to parade the fact that it's atheist--in which case an initially atheist charity may over time come to include many members of varying religious beliefs, all of whom participate for their own different motivations to be charitable.

Beyond all of that, I feel my present informational status is insufficient to confidently add anything to this discussion, so I'll end this here with the simple statement that I highly doubt, at this point, that either of the two mindsets described by Ragnar is more or less moral than the other.

Which is more moral? I think the question you really want to ask is, "Which is more effectively moral?" Which is to say, "Which of these two opposing mindsets has done, does, and will do more for the human race?" (As opposed to "Which of these two mindsets wants to do more?")

Quick side question: are you basing "morality" on the idea of what benefits more people?

I just want to be clear about my positon.  I'm not saying atheists are immoral.  I'm only saying that its a little off the wall to reason that Christians ought not care about other people when the record is distinctly clear that they do care about other people.  So, either Christians are acting inconsistently with their worldview, or Ragnar and folks don't understand the Christian worldview.

Couple of points. I didn't mean to draw a historical comparison, because obviously there are a lot more Christians than there are atheists. Also, people haven't really been allowed to be openly atheist until fairly recently, due in part to persecution by Christians     So I don't think it's practical to look at the historical record.

Another thing is I suppose I should explain what I meant by "moral," which I purposely put in quotes because I don't really like the word, but I thought it came nearest to what I wanted to convey, although I recognize different people are going to have different ideas of what moral is. To begin with, I never equated charity with morality. I think charity is actually immoral, because I think it is immoral to let someone else support you without earning it. It leads to unproductful societies and welfare states.

I was really thinking of the issue on an individual basis, and perhaps also thinking of how one behaves in extreme circumstances. I think the most "moral" framework an individual could have for living their life is an objective atheistic one. I wasn't meaning to imply that Christians can't be moral or good on a day-to-day basis. But when it comes to life or death, if you truly believe in an afterlife, it just logically follows that you shouldn't be as concerned with dying as an atheist would be. I am saying I think it is more moral to want to thwart death whenever you can, rather than accept it because you think there is an afterlife.

Another thing is I suppose I should explain what I meant by "moral," which I purposely put in quotes because I don't really like the word, but I thought it came nearest to what I wanted to convey, although I recognize different people are going to have different ideas of what moral is. To begin with, I never equated charity with morality. I think charity is actually immoral, because I think it is immoral to let someone else support you without earning it. It leads to unproductful societies and welfare states.

What if it's impossible to earn it? Just give up and die, then?

As for me, I see charity as a double-edged sword. It can go to good, and it can go to bad. Hand money to a random bum on the street, for example, and he might buy food--or he might buy beer, who knows? Give only if you know where it's gonna go--that's my thought on it.

I was really thinking of the issue on an individual basis, and perhaps also thinking of how one behaves in extreme circumstances. I think the most "moral" framework an individual could have for living their life is an objective atheistic one. I wasn't meaning to imply that Christians can't be moral or good on a day-to-day basis. But when it comes to life or death, if you truly believe in an afterlife, it just logically follows that you shouldn't be as concerned with dying as an atheist would be. I am saying I think it is more moral to want to thwart death whenever you can, rather than accept it because you think there is an afterlife.

Y'know, I didn't really ever think of that as a question of morality, and I still can't. And even if it is such, it's only one aspect of morality--if Christians generally fall short on one aspect, they most likely make up for it in areas where atheists tend to fall short.

I was really thinking of the issue on an individual basis, and perhaps also thinking of how one behaves in extreme circumstances. I think the most "moral" framework an individual could have for living their life is an objective atheistic one. I wasn't meaning to imply that Christians can't be moral or good on a day-to-day basis. But when it comes to life or death, if you truly believe in an afterlife, it just logically follows that you shouldn't be as concerned with dying as an atheist would be. I am saying I think it is more moral to want to thwart death whenever you can, rather than accept it because you think there is an afterlife.

From this quote, it appears that you your intial thoughts in starting this thread revolved specifically around different beliefs between Christians and atheists about death.  Is this correct?  If this is the case, is it fair to rephrase your initial question in this way?

Which belief is a more solid foundation for the pursuit of quality and longevity of human life on earth: the belief in death as the end of life, or the belief that there is life after death?

Or perhaps...

Which belief best supports and promotes the pursuit of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness: the belief in death as the end of life, or the belief that there is life after death?

Bdean, I believe that you've captured the difference very well.  The overwhelming majority of atheists believe that the life we live is the only one that we'll ever have.  Death is the end of life.  Therefore, morality cannot be based on the concept of reward in the afterlife.  I don't understand why any Christian who truly believes in the religion would give a second thought to the quality and longevity of human life on earth.  What is that compared to an eternity in the afterlife?  It is just a tiny, fleeting moment. It should come as no surprise that some Christians actually yearn for an end to life on earth--when Jesus will return and everyone will get their just desserts for the way they conducted their temporary life on earth.  If God values life, then Christians must also.  If God doesn't think it's that important, then neither should Christians.

Actually, most Christians I know are not looking for their just desserts when this life ends.  

We know that we have failed to live up to the perfect standards of God's holiness and according to justice deserve nothing less than being completely cut off from His presence (whether you call it Hell, or the Lake of fire, or total annihilation, or what have you).  That is where the Messiah, Jesus, comes in.  We are imputed with His righteousness; we do not stand before God on the basis or our own acts.  This is very freeing.  I do not need to worry about each step I take as though it may send me out of His presence.  I don't operate out of fear of His displeasure.  I am free instead to pursue serving Him - for no better reason than that I love Him and am deeply moved by His mercy and want to spread the healing balm of His mercy around.  I am not required to seek His will to be saved; however, salvation is such that any true believer will seek it.  And I am free to have peace, joy, and fullfillment as I move about in this life; I am free to enjoy all the glimmers in this world that hint at the sheer delight and utter beauty that the world was meant to be.

That said, yes, I do look forward to the day I die.  It will be the beginning of the best and longest part of my life.  No, I'm not very enthusiastic about the actual dying part.  No, I don't put myself into situations to hasten death.  Yes, I pass up on things that could enhance my standard of living so that I have the time to devote to helping others.