Religion Ask a Christian - Continued in Part 2

[Chief]

Continued in Part Two:

https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/ask-a-christian-part-2.1295001/unread

 

[Boston tiger]

Another nonsensical post.

Do you have anything of value to contribute?

Hey first you wanted to know how to know God but then changed your mind . Then you wanted evidence of God.
Sounds like you just want to sprout on about Jesus .. which seems to be another concept that is beyond you by the way you are comparing Jesus and John Smith.

Humans are theists because of our higher functioning brains .

I find that atheists like to take the scientific high ground because they are comfortable going back to an earlier life form .
Theists are comfortable to go back to the first cause .

As you said you are a primate with opposable thumbs. That is all you know.

 

[Boston tiger]

I - and others - have talked about the Old Testament plenty of times. Do a search.

What would you like to know?

It’s the atheists safety zone that’s all. When we move the discussion away from the tooth fairies atheists get a little spooked. That’s all.
Atheists understand the Old Testament.. it’s their friend .. it validates their position of meaningless because the world wasn’t made in 7 days.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

You want to talk about the Old Testament ?

No, why?

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Another nonsensical post.

Do you have anything of value to contribute?

I suspect he means lemmings LOL!

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Humans are theists because of our higher functioning brains .

Partly right. We are everything that we are, including analytical thinkers, abstract thinkers, sceptics and atheists, because of our higher-functioning brains. Suggesting that theism alone exists as some sort of proof of our mental superiority is disingenuous.

I find that atheists like to take the scientific high ground because they are comfortable going back to an earlier life form .
Theists are comfortable to go back to the first cause .

Nah, just wrong mate.

As you said you are a primate with opposable thumbs. That is all you know.

Roylion has clearly demonstrated he knows a lot more than that.

And my hunch, going on the evidence we see on this thread, is that he knows a lot more than you.

 

[Roylion]

Hey first you wanted to know how to know God but then changed your mind .

All I got was "just ask him". "Him"? How do you know this? Does God have a penis?

Then you wanted evidence of God.

All I got "think of something that has infinite power and love “

Then I asked....

"Is there evidence for the existence of "something that is infinite power and love"? Could you present it here as proof of "how" you know there is."

All I got “ Go and look in the mirror - there you will find evidence of existence of an Devine entity that is infinite in power and love “

They're nothing answers.

Sounds like you just want to sprout on about Jesus .. which seems to be another concept that is beyond you by the way you are comparing Jesus and John Smith.

John Smith? Who?

Humans are theists because of our higher functioning brains .

Certainly religion may fill the human need for finding meaning. Nuerologists are finding that religion may, in fact, be a byproduct of the way our brains work, growing from cognitive tendencies to seek order from chaos, to anthropomorphize our environment (an innate tendency of human psychology - Yahweh, who you worship, was originally a storm-god) and to believe the world around us was created for our use. It's certainly more comforting.

Religion helped us form increasingly larger social groups, held together by common beliefs. Most researchers don’t believe that the cognitive tendencies that help us form religious beliefs evolved specifically for thinking about religion. Rather, they likely served other adaptive purposes. For example, because people are quick to believe that someone or something is behind even the most benign experiences, they may perceive the sound of the wind rustling leaves as a potential predator. In evolutionary terms it was probably better for us to mistakenly assume that the wind was a lion than to ignore the rustling and risk death. However this tendency also set us up to believe in an omnipresent God-like concept.

Taken together, it’s quite easy to see how these cognitive tendencies could allow our minds to create religions built on the idea of supernatural beings that watch over our lives. None of this is of course any reason to suppose that "God" or 'gods" actually exist and rule / watch over our lives.

Theists are comfortable to go back to the first cause .

Theists invent the so called "first cause". They in truth have no idea what this so called "first cause" is. Neuroscience research supports the idea that the brain is primed to believe in something....even that which is invented.

Jordan Grafman, PhD, director of the cognitive neuroscience section at the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke says this tendency is spread throughout the brain, and probably arose from neural circuits developed for other uses.

In 2009, Grafman published an fMRI study showing that religious thoughts activate the area of the brain involved in deciphering other people’s emotions and intentions — the ability known as theory of mind. In the study of 40 people, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (Vol. 106, No. 12), Grafman and his colleagues found that when they heard phrases such as “God’s will guides my acts” and “God protects one’s life,” areas of the brain involved in theory of mind lit up. In a study published in 2009 in Social Cognitive Affective Neuroscience (Vol. 4, No. 2), a Danish team saw the same brain areas activate when religious participants prayed.

Grafman formed the view that these results suggest that when people think about God, it’s similar to thinking about any special authority figure, such as one’s mother or father. In general the brain uses the same circuits to think about and experience religion as it does to think about and handle any other thoughts or beliefs.

As you said you are a primate with opposable thumbs.

I am. So are you.

You worship Yahweh. I do not.

 

[Evolved1]

Very thought-provoking article here by Tim Costello.

What do the Christians on here think of his point? Are too many people's Christianity more defined by their political allegiance than by their Christian beliefs?

If Scott Morrison acted on his strong Christian faith, he would phase out coal | Tim Costello

The Bible is not a policy document, but its vision of all flourishing, including creation, is unequivocally clear

www.theguardian.com

It's an interesting discussion point. I'm of the view that religious beliefs are an extension of the self so they can't be easily separated from ones political views. The bible can be interpreted in such a way to make it say almost anything.

Is it god's will that we look after this planet, or does it not matter since Jesus will be coming back soon?
Does god want a theocracy on Earth or does he value free will?

You can make arguments for pro-choice and pro-life from the bible.

The claim that only good and virtuous people are Christlike is nonsensical to me. Remember that Jesus claimed he was put on Earth not for peace, but to bring a sword. In the book of Revelations we learn that his clothes are dripping in blood and he has a sword coming out of his mouth. You could make the argument that a Dexter-like serial killer is more Christlike than someone volunteering at a soup kitchen.

 

[Evolved1]

That atheists think like lemurs?

Careful thought and wonder are typically the domain of atheists and scientists rather than theists who get their answers from a 2000 year old book.

Take your post about us being 14 billion years old for example. The typical low functioning theist sees big numbers and concludes goddidit because they lack the intellectual capacity and fortitude to think beyond "big number/big universe/complex biochemistry = god," while the atheist or scientist examines the evidence and looks for the how and why.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

It's an interesting discussion point. I'm of the view that religious beliefs are an extension of the self so they can't be easily separated from ones political views. The bible can be interpreted in such a way to make it say almost anything.

Is it god's will that we look after this planet, or does it not matter since Jesus will be coming back soon?
Does god want a theocracy on Earth or does he value free will?

You can make arguments for pro-choice and pro-life from the bible.

The claim that only good and virtuous people are Christlike is nonsensical to me. Remember that Jesus claimed he was put on Earth not for peace, but to bring a sword. In the book of Revelations we learn that his clothes are dripping in blood and he has a sword coming out of his mouth. You could make the argument that a Dexter-like serial killer is more Christlike than someone volunteering at a soup kitchen.

A while back I started a thread on Christianity and homosexuality, asking Christians to explain to a non-Christian why this particular Old Testament prohibition continued, while so many other prohibitions (like eating shellfish) had been quietly retired. It seemed striking to me that so many Christians were so vehemently opposed to homosexuality, out of all proportion to the weight it is actually given in the bible.

Bottom line, it took about 8 pages of discussion for some of them to say that the Biblical prohibition against homosexuality WAS different. But this difference was only discernible through the application of the most ridiculously arcane logic; something I’m sure was well above the intellectual capacity of your typical gay-hating redneck.

Basically, though the prohibition on homosexuality can be biblically justified, for many Christians it’s just good old fashioned bigotry.

 

[Total Power]

You want to talk about Jesus now?

I want to talk about the empty tomb and your link on Jesus Seminar, but you won't talk any more on that.What are the reasons?

LOL!

 

[Frank Bunn]

A while back I started a thread on Christianity and homosexuality, asking Christians to explain to a non-Christian why this particular Old Testament prohibition continued, while so many other prohibitions (like eating shellfish) had been quietly retired. It seemed striking to me that so many Christians were so vehemently opposed to homosexuality, out of all proportion to the weight it is actually given in the bible.

Bottom line, it took about 8 pages of discussion for some of them to say that the Biblical prohibition against homosexuality WAS different. But this difference was only discernible through the application of the most ridiculously arcane logic; something I’m sure was well above the intellectual capacity of your typical gay-hating redneck.

Basically, though the prohibition on homosexuality can be biblically justified, for many Christians it’s just good old fashioned bigotry.

Have you got a link to this thread?

 

[Roylion]

Have you got a link to this thread?

Here

 

[Chief]

Are too many people's Christianity more defined by their political allegiance than by their Christian beliefs?

From a non-Christian, I think people have political views, they have needs and wants, they have fears and anxieties, all of those things. Then their religion is thrown over them, and takes the rough shape of the existing characteristics.

Throw a sheet over a chair and it is still recognisable as a chair.

 

[Number37]

From a non-Christian, I think people have political views, they have needs and wants, they have fears and anxieties, all of those things. Then their religion is thrown over them, and takes the rough shape of the existing characteristics.

Throw a sheet over a chair and it is still recognisable as a chair.

Based on the majority saying they religion.....If what you say is true then there is no way that we have a secular society. What we have is a religious society with a secular sheet thrown over it.

 

[Aristotle Pickett]

Why do many christians ignore prominent christians like Tim Costello yet barrack and agree with the pentacostal politicians, especially on the moral obligation of climate change?

If Scott Morrison acted on his strong Christian faith, he would phase out coal | Tim Costello

The Bible is not a policy document, but its vision of all flourishing, including creation, is unequivocally clear

www.theguardian.com

 

[freo99]

It's an interesting discussion point. I'm of the view that religious beliefs are an extension of the self so they can't be easily separated from ones political views. The bible can be interpreted in such a way to make it say almost anything.

Is it god's will that we look after this planet, or does it not matter since Jesus will be coming back soon?
Does god want a theocracy on Earth or does he value free will?

You can make arguments for pro-choice and pro-life from the bible.

The claim that only good and virtuous people are Christlike is nonsensical to me. Remember that Jesus claimed he was put on Earth not for peace, but to bring a sword. In the book of Revelations we learn that his clothes are dripping in blood and he has a sword coming out of his mouth. You could make the argument that a Dexter-like serial killer is more Christlike than someone volunteering at a soup kitchen.

Hi Evolved a Lot of what I say may sound like splitting hairs but I have put a lot of thought into most
of what I believe.

1st religious beliefs being an extension of the self, maybe for some but as I understand scripture mans
nature from Gods perspective is innately evil. While we can do good things our nature is such we are inevitably
and consistently drawn to our more base way of living.
eg suppose that our existence is down to there being a God. A quick read anywhere including this forum + that
article would show people criticising God because He doesn’t measure up.

I would also make a point as I see it there are 2 MAIN types of people who see themselves as Christians.
One is the cultural Christian, quite often but not always they have been raised in the church and with
every fibre of their being see themselves as Christians. Then there are those who are born again or have a
spiritual rebirth, as per John 3, if scripture is right these are the only people that really are Christians.

Yes you are right we are supposed to look after the planet, as well as each other and have failed badly
at this. (But not in a socialist government welfare sense)

Jesus will have a real Theocracy here on Earth but only after He returns. Yes we will still have free will,
but everything will be different, there will be no more sin or sin nature.

Making the Bible say what you want is not just restricted to abortion just about everyone seems
to do this at some level, whether consciously or not.
Anyone who can make an argument that He doesn’t care whether we kill babies or not has not
one iota of understanding who He is.

The only good + virtuous people being Christ like, you are right on the money here. We can never be
good enough that’s half of the gospel message.

You’ve done some homework, many people who see themselves as christians don’t see this.
I think the sword is figurative but the blood isn’t.

ps on coal, it is a dirty fuel and the sooner people stop using it the better.

on slavery yes we abolished it, + it even took until the 1960s to pressure Saudi Arabia to outlaw it,
but it is still thriving today in many parts of the world.

 

[Gethelred]

Why do many christians ignore prominent christians like Tim Costello yet barrack and agree with the pentacostal politicians, especially on the moral obligation of climate change?

If Scott Morrison acted on his strong Christian faith, he would phase out coal | Tim Costello

The Bible is not a policy document, but its vision of all flourishing, including creation, is unequivocally clear

www.theguardian.com

One is asking them to improve, the other is asking them to keep doing what they're already doing.

 

[Frank Bunn]

I would also make a point as I see it there are 2 MAIN types of people who see themselves as Christians. One is the cultural Christian, quite often but not always they have been raised in the church and with every fibre of their being see themselves as Christians. Then there are those who are born again or have a
spiritual rebirth, as per John 3, if scripture is right these are the only people that really are Christians.

I think there are more people than in either of those groups you identify - that are culturally Christian but don't believe in the mumbo jumbo.

 

[freo99]

Why don't you aceept it? He had eyewitnesses.



Why is it logically absurd?

Scientific evidence supports common descent very strongly

For example:

• Anatomical homologies - This refers to the parts of different species that look the same, even when the part performs different functions. For instance, when the skeletal composition of multiple mammals is examined, it is clear that each share many common features.
  
  
• DNA and RNA code - All life significantly shares the genetic code based on the molecule DNA and its related molecule RNA.
  
  
• Endogenous retroviral insertions - A retrovirus is a virus in the family Retroviridae. Different families of viruses carry their genetic information differently: DNA, double-stranded RNA, and single-stranded RNA are all possible. Retroviruses contain their information in RNA and use a protein called reverse transcriptase to transcribe their RNA into DNA upon entering the host cell, and then insert the DNA copy into the host genome.
  How this supports the idea of common descent could be best described by this analogy. Take two people and lock each person in a separate room with a dictionary. Give them instructions to randomly pick 100 entries from the dictionary and write them down. When they are done, compare the lists of words. The chances that any of those 100 words will match are obviously pretty low. The same applies to retroviruses when they choose a base in the genome to insert into. Therefore, when you see hundreds of thousands of retroviral insertions that are found at the same place in two different genomes you know that they had to be inherited from a common ancestor because there is no plausible way that many independent retroviral insertions would happen at the same base. Here's an example from our branch of the family tree of common descent. Put simply, each arrow represents a retroviral insertion.

View attachment 1285088

• Pseudogenes - Pseudogenes are genes present in an organism's genome that have lost the ability to code for proteins due to mutation. Specific pseudogenes are often compared across species to elucidate complex evolutionary relationships. All pseudogenes are descended from a parent functioning gene. Once a functioning copy of a gene is detected, its sequence is compared to the pseudogene to trace descent. The more similar the sequence the closer the common ancestor.
  
  
• Embryology - Taxonomically diverse vertebrate embryos all converge to a very similar morphology. Humans, dogs, snakes, fish, monkeys, eels (and many more life forms) are all considered "chordates" because we belong to the phylum Chordata. One of the features of this phylum is that, as embryos (including humans and including you and I when we were embryos), all these life forms have gill slits, tails, and specific anatomical structures involving the spine. For humans (and other non-fish) the gill slits reform into the bones of the ear and jaw at a later stage in development. But, initially, all chordate embryos strongly resemble each other.

In fact, pig embryos are often dissected in biology classes because of how similar they look to human embryos. These common characteristics could only be possible if all members of the phylum Chordata descended from a common ancestor.

• Chromosome fusion This occurs across a wide variety of species in different ways. Fusion of chromosomes decreases the chromosome numbers in a descendant species. (Alternatively, a split in a chromosome increases the chromosome number.) The pattern of these fusion events generates characteristic phylogenetic trees offering proof of common descent. One famous example is a fusion event that indicates the evolution of Homo sapiens from a common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees. While all other great apes have 24 pairs of chromosomes, humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes. Human chromosome 2 looks almost identical to two of the chimpanzee's chromosomes stacked on one on top of the other, indicating chromosome fusion. Chromosomes form light and dark bands on a karyotype that can be compared to see how similar they are. The light and dark banding patterns of the two chimp chromosomes match that of the single human one.
  
  
• Convergence - This is the tree of life, a branching structure showing the theorized relationships between all of life, tracing back to the last universal common ancestor. The relationships of various extant and extinct species can be constructed using any evidence discussed above. After scientists employed genetics in tree construction the tree that was finally constructed from genetic information was astoundingly similar to that constructed from anatomical homologies. Different genetic tools such as DNA structure, chromosome structure, and endogenous retrovirus insertions can all be used independently to construct individual trees. While there may be slight changes or deviations between trees, whatever methods used still converges on strikingly similar relationships. This convergence is powerful evidence for the validity of common descent. Each method uses independent observations to produce results that only common descent predicts.
  
  
• Uniqueness - The complex, predictive patterns of similarities and differences in the world of life have have a unique known explanation — no one has even hypothesized an alternative account for the patterns exhibited — either there is common descent or there is something which is somehow simulating common descent.

And what does this prove exactly?



The Bible has shaped western civilisation. So? I'm not suggesting it didn't.

Well on the scientific evidence, where is it.
I mean actual scientific evidence, everyone has a barrow to push and generally choose
to believe that which suits them.

Today the vast majority (like the rest of society are atheists) of scientists are not immune from this.
see the famous Richard Lewonton quote re keeping the divine foot out of the door.

Im going to assume you understand the Neo-Darwinian model.

If life started out as a simple single sex animal, with all the genetic infrastructure to reproduce itself,
then how did that evolve from that model to one that is interdependent on reproduction.
You need to think about this.
You have a single sex which then somehow goes on to be interdependent for reproduction.
eg pairing the chromosomes.

This is not within the realms of possibility, not only that but it would need everything that goes on with
conception, gestation and birth (birth canal etc.) at the same instant.

If this miraculous creation had both sexes, then they would have to have identical mutations
across all species in perpetuity to perpetuate.

In the entire history of animal husbandry no new creation has ever happened.

 

[western royboy]

Hi Evolved a Lot of what I say may sound like splitting hairs but I have put a lot of thought into most
of what I believe.

1st religious beliefs being an extension of the self, maybe for some but as I understand scripture mans
nature from Gods perspective is innately evil. While we can do good things our nature is such we are inevitably
and consistently drawn to our more base way of living.
eg suppose that our existence is down to there being a God. A quick read anywhere including this forum + that
article would show people criticising God because He doesn’t measure up.

I would also make a point as I see it there are 2 MAIN types of people who see themselves as Christians.
One is the cultural Christian, quite often but not always they have been raised in the church and with
every fibre of their being see themselves as Christians. Then there are those who are born again or have a
spiritual rebirth, as per John 3, if scripture is right these are the only people that really are Christians.

Yes you are right we are supposed to look after the planet, as well as each other and have failed badly
at this. (But not in a socialist government welfare sense)

Jesus will have a real Theocracy here on Earth but only after He returns. Yes we will still have free will,
but everything will be different, there will be no more sin or sin nature.

Making the Bible say what you want is not just restricted to abortion just about everyone seems
to do this at some level, whether consciously or not.
Anyone who can make an argument that He doesn’t care whether we kill babies or not has not
one iota of understanding who He is.

The only good + virtuous people being Christ like, you are right on the money here. We can never be
good enough that’s half of the gospel message.

You’ve done some homework, many people who see themselves as christians don’t see this.
I think the sword is figurative but the blood isn’t.

ps on coal, it is a dirty fuel and the sooner people stop using it the better.

on slavery yes we abolished it, + it even took until the 1960s to pressure Saudi Arabia to outlaw it,
but it is still thriving today in many parts of the world.

I’m a betting man, I’m happy to give you long odds on the above - nothing wrong with being Christ like, everyone should try but that’s as far as it goes for me. I find the remainder to be unadulterated bs.

 

[bfff]

Well on the scientific evidence, where is it.
I mean actual scientific evidence, everyone has a barrow to push and generally choose
to believe that which suits them.

Today the vast majority (like the rest of society are atheists) of scientists are not immune from this.
see the famous Richard Lewonton quote re keeping the divine foot out of the door.

Im going to assume you understand the Neo-Darwinian model.

If life started out as a simple single sex animal, with all the genetic infrastructure to reproduce itself,
then how did that evolve from that model to one that is interdependent on reproduction.
You need to think about this.
You have a single sex which then somehow goes on to be interdependent for reproduction.
eg pairing the chromosomes.

This is not within the realms of possibility, not only that but it would need everything that goes on with
conception, gestation and birth (birth canal etc.) at the same instant.

If this miraculous creation had both sexes, then they would have to have identical mutations
across all species in perpetuity to perpetuate.

In the entire history of animal husbandry no new creation has ever happened.

It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is a fact, not theory, and that what is at issue within biology are questions of details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution. It is a fact that the earth, with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a fact that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a fact that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a fact that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun. The controversies about evolution lie in the realm of the relative importance of various forces in molding evolution. [My emphasis]
"Evolution/Creation Debate: A Time for Truth", R.C. Lewontin, BioScience volume 31 (1981), p. 559

Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen."
Billions and Billions of Demons" in: The New York Review of Books, 9 January 1997, p. 31

You could have paid the eminent evolutionary biologist, Lewontin, the respect of showing his words in context.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

From a non-Christian, I think people have political views, they have needs and wants, they have fears and anxieties, all of those things. Then their religion is thrown over them, and takes the rough shape of the existing characteristics.

Throw a sheet over a chair and it is still recognisable as a chair.

Excellent simile.

For my part, having been raised in a Christian family but ultimately having to admit to myself that the things about Christianity that didn't make sense to me as a child made even less sense to me as an enquiring adult, I still harboured for a long time a residual belief that, despite not being personally convinced by Christianity, most Christians were better people than non-Christians.

I still do see examples of Christians who are really impressively trying to lead a good and decent life, both in the general community and within my own wider family.

But the revelations about child sexual abuse, culminating with the Royal Commission, and similar revelations coming to light in Canada, Ireland, the US, and so many other countries (and I went to one of the schools named in the RC), has pretty much convinced me that while the decent Christians are still really decent people, some of the others are actually truly evil.

And though evil and good are difficult things to quantify, my feeling is that the unmitigated evil of some of the worst offenders probably, in the end, outweighs the enormous good that many good Christians do.

 

[freo99]

]

You could have paid the eminent evolutionary biologist, Lewontin, the respect of showing his words in context.

I quoted Lewontin because he is in print, even though this indicative of probs most atheistic writers
and commentators.

nb if you are an atheist why mention respect.

 

[Chief]

I still harboured for a long time a residual belief that, despite not being personally convinced by Christianity, most Christians were better people than non-Christians.

There are lots of little Catholic artifcats I have had to dig out over the years. Dust them off, chuck em away or keep em.

 

[madmug]

Excellent simile.

For my part, having been raised in a Christian family but ultimately having to admit to myself that the things about Christianity that didn't make sense to me as a child made even less sense to me as an enquiring adult, I still harboured for a long time a residual belief that, despite not being personally convinced by Christianity, most Christians were better people than non-Christians.



And though evil and good are difficult things to quantify, my feeling is that the unmitigated evil of some of the worst offenders probably, in the end, outweighs the enormous good that many good Christians do.

'Most Christians were better people than non-Christians'.

Maybe you should go out in the world & meet some people who identify as Humanist.

You might learn something.