A World without Religion?

[jimmy]

according to science it is alive but I think that’s the closest they get

That is irrelevant. The fact that the baby is alive doesn’t mean anything. Pro-abortion people are willing to accept that it is alive. It still isn’t a person according to them though. Just define away its personhood and you can kill it. You are a religious zealot if you consider it a person.

 

[cena]

I keep repeating the same thing, over and over, but to deaf ears.
But I will try once more.

Just because Hitler or Stalin or whoever didn’t believe a God existed–if indeed, that is the case–it doesn’t mean that is the reason *why *they did horrible things to people!

That would be like saying that the Catholic priests who abused and raped children did so BECAUSE they are Catholic and BECAUSE they are priests–the religion is responsible.

If you are to believe that a lack of religion in an Atheist is what caused these leaders to be sick in the head or hurt people, then you are going to have to also believe that devout religion in a Theist is what caused all those priests to be sick in the head and hurt all those innocent children, too.

So which is it?

.

Earlier you argued that Stalin was raised Orthodox and he was with the people like Hitler was also who apparently believed in God and did horrible things because of it. That’s why we are saying that is wrong. It was you who brought that up.

It is against the Catholic religion to do that while if you kill people and you have no principles other than communism (any means is justified if the end is good) than it doesn’t go against that.

 

[cena]

But we are not talking about Communism;
We are talking about Atheism!

.

I am talking about communism because religion to them is wrong because they think it’s silly, too much free thought, etc.

Even secularism accepts worship or religion in private

So if you can name a system that has only atheism being intolerant of any religion (the idea of this thread)that isn’t communism please name it

 

[jimmy]

Ah.so it’s not atheists, it’s those ill educated minority’s with weak family values. According to statistics already given, a third of those are Catholic. You need to try harder.

And my position? I would be a very happy man if there were no abortions at all.

The values in this country have become progressively more atheistic. No one doubts that Christians sin, or that an atheist might do good. You build a casino and people will go and lose all their money, even if they can’t afford to spend it at the casino. The fact that there are a million and a half abortions a year can be laid squarely at the feet of those who have pushed the country away from the religious values that it once stood for. The fact is that our laws no longer reflect religious values. Not only is abortion not illegal, it is legally enforced by govt regulations that ensure that it is as available as possible. Since the laws have changed, so will behavior.

Principles must be considered before actions. Everyone fails when it comes to their behavior. The question is whether they have ideals and principles which they can form their actions according to. It may be the case that individual atheists have principles, but it can’t be said of atheism in general. Atheism can spawn no set of principles that are common to all.

 

[jimmy]

I don’t know any Atheist–and I know a lot of them–who thinks like this.

.

Like what? Like Peter Sanger? I doubt there are many people who think like him. He is still an influential professor on the board of ethics at the University of Princeton. Still, does it matter what individual atheists think? I only brought up Peter Sanger to point out the logical fallacy that there is a distinction between a baby in the womb and after its born. One atheist can be pro-abortion and another can be anti-abortion and it doesn’t matter. The fact still remains that there are no shared values or principles. One might call it murder and the other calls it a mothers choice.

And even with that atheists will claim a higher potential morality because it doesn’t matter whether there are principles. You could have three million abortions a year, and kill ever baby in the womb and they would still argue that they have a greater potential for a moral society because the bar is lowered. Certain things cease to be questions of morality (like abortion and sexuality) and are now defined as personal decisions or preferences.

 

[jimmy]

I was responding to Brass Ankle’s assertion that:
“The Pope is right, if an atheist has not received the Gospel fully he would not judged by the same measure we would and as such could go to heaven.”

And Cena’s continuation of that, saying:
“We can’t fully determine that only God can, but if someone grew up Catholic and they ended up as an atheist is an example.”

.

I missed that. But I think it is off topic. Whether someone ‘received the gospel fully’ is irrelevant to the discussion. That is for God to judge. That is another world. The question is whether we can have any concept of morality in an atheist society here on earth. The actions of an individual atheist or an individual Christian is irrelevant. The question is whether those actions can be judged as good or evil, and whether we have any enduring principles as a people that are applicable in all situations. Is there any principle that a man should uphold even if it means his death?

 

[jimmy]

How can the values become more “Atheistic” when…there are no specifics or rules or guidelines on what an Atheist believes on these issues?
I know a lot of Atheists who have way better morals, ethics, values, principles than religious people I know.

It can’t be said of Atheism in general because…Atheism isn’t an ideology or belief system!
They don’t gather and say, “okay, let’s figure out our doctrine and let’s put out some scripture on what we believe…”

All it is, to repeat myself, is not believing a God exists. Period.

Doesn’t anyone look at dictionaries anymore?

.

They are more atheistic precisely because there are no guidelines on what is right and wrong. They are atheistic because the concept of God and religion has been eliminated from all consideration of laws. That is exactly how atheism is defined; by its lack of belief in God.

 

[Al_Moritz]

They could also die as atheists and go to heaven if they never received the Gospel adequately but followed their conscience, that is what I believe is termed a baptism of desire. That would be difficult in today’s technology age but not so difficult for Chinese or Russians under the old regime.

The question is what it means to receive the Gospel adequately or fully. As Jimmy just said two post above, that is for God to judge. Many believers, and thus also many former believers before they became atheists, think of God as a sort of superman, as the Big Man in the Sky (the folk concept of God). They have no clue about the God of classical theism. Hey, if my religious education had stopped at that, perhaps I’d be an atheist by now as well (actually, that’s rather likely).

Finally, you have state regarding abortion that the issue is gray, which the Catholic Church does not see it that way. In fact no other organization works hardly and more diligently worldwide to remove this scourge from the earth.

Of course, like others you completely misread and distort my position. The Catholic Church’s is anything but gray on this issue, we agree. What I referred to as “gray” on this issue is the actual morality of believers.

Not everything is black-and-white. Not all believers are all good, and not all atheists are all bad. That’s what I meant with “gray” – and by the way, there are enough atheists that I would view as decent people over and above some believers that are evidently a**holes. That atheists can also do good is affirmed by Pope Francis.That affirmation does not extend to their salvation as atheists, but we have covered that already on page 14.

 

[Al_Moritz]

And by the way, Bradski’s above statement:
“And my position? I would be a very happy man if there were no abortions at all”,

morally trumps the position of many believers, does it not?

 

[Zincman]

Fashion fan-boys?
What’s that?

In fact, we might say that *everyone *is born an Atheist.
Little children don’t have a belief in a God until they are told to, taught to, trained to.

And, in fact, we might say that people of religion don’t believe in God, too.
If you are Catholic, you don’t believe in the Gods Zeus, Neptune or Jupiter…or the other hundreds of Gods that have been worshipped and obeyed throughout the centuries.

So in essence, you are almost like an Atheist–you just dis-believe in one less God.

.

It seems atheism nowaydays is a matter of coolness, that I was saying with those “fashion-internet based-fanboys”.

In fact, we might say that *everyone *is born an Atheist.
Little children don’t have a belief in a God until they are told to, taught to, trained to.

Prove it, you can’t. Can you say if animals believe in something superior? Can you say if all so called atheists believe in something or not? You can’t.

Only with mind-reading technology you should prove those things, but I mean real deep to core technology, not only with scratching superficial conciousness. Of course nowadays is impossible.

If you are Catholic, you don’t believe in the Gods Zeus, Neptune or Jupiter…or the other hundreds of Gods that have been worshipped and obeyed throughout the centuries.

You’re mis-reading my statements. Humans are faith creatures, if they do not believe in gods or religion if you like they will believe in other humans constructs, or material statements.

And yes, I kinda believe in other kind of god, not in those soap opera characters. A universal empiric being, maybe but hey I’m not sure, I have my doubts too. Re-reading your sentence I can feel you have a great grudge against believers, those are agitators phrases. Please do not, I’m cathplic but no stupid.

NOTE: English is not my native languaje, I learned English like 10 years ago, so I’m sorry if some sentences do not make any sense (that and autocorrect also).

 

[Bradski]

You may have to excuse me here. I’m going to raise my voice. I don’t do it very often, but now and then the black cloud descends and I find I can’t help myself. Yeah, I know that it shows a lack of personal control and I should really be able to deal with it. I’m a grown man, for heaven’s sake. But then again, sometimes…you know? So here we go…

NOBODY IS IN FAVOUR OF ABORTIONS!

There. All done. And I threw in an exclamation point as well.

Alright, you may know someone who does, or maybe you think that you know someone who does. But you would SERIOUSLY (sorry, shouting again…) have to have something very wrong with you indeed if you thought that it was a good thing in itself.

Everyone who supports abortion rights is not supporting abortion itself. They are supporting the choice of women to make the decision themselves whether or not to have one. Personally, as a side note, I would prefer that no woman was in the position to have to decide. But, here we go, we live in a real world with real problems and there will never, ever (and I mean not EVER) be a time when some woman somewhere will need an abortion.

So here’s an idea. How about we ask women why they have them and then try to solve the problem that resulted in them having one. And then put into place solutions. Like, I dunno, better education, better access to contraception, better health care, better religious instruction. Give all those women an opportunity not to have to make these decisions. These choices.

But until then, if a choice needs to be made, guess who is going to make it.

 

[Bradski]

It seems atheism nowaydays is a matter of coolness, that I was saying with those “fashion-internet based-fanboys”.

I learned English like 10 years ago, so I’m sorry if some sentences do not make any sense (that and autocorrect also).

Your English is excellent. It hardly needs any improvement. One could not say the same thing about the points you make.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

…] But, here we go, we live in a real world with real problems and there will never, ever (and I mean not EVER) be a time when some woman somewhere will need an abortion…]

I want to make sure I’m not seeing a typing error.

Did you mean to say that a woman will never need an abortion?

Or did you mean that there will never be a time when abortions are not necessary.

 

[Bradski]

Sorry…typo. The relevant phrase should have read:

There will never be a time when a woman will NOT need an abortion.

Thanks TS.

 

[Hee_Zen]

Personally I never heard of a woman who wanted to become pregnant just to have an abortion (though, who knows, there might be some?). As far as I can judge, abortion is a traumatic experience. So the number one priority for everyone should be to prevent abortions if possible. Since only a handful of people are willing to live a chaste life, the obvious solution is to make birth control as safe and efficient as possible, and also available to everyone who wants it. Of course, if I were God, I would make conception a volitional event, it would only happen if both parties actually wanted it.

 

[Bradski]

Of course, if I were God, I would make conception a volitional event, it would only happen if both parties actually wanted it.

Hey, you won’t believe this, but some people who belong to a particular religious group are only meant to have sex when they want to conceive. In fact, having sex without the possibility of conceiving is not allowed.

But guess what. It doesn’t work. And in fact, one of the largest groups of women who have abortions are members of that religion.

Whoda thunk…

 

[Hee_Zen]

Hey, you won’t believe this, but some people who belong to a particular religious group are only meant to have sex when they want to conceive. In fact, having sex without the possibility of conceiving is not allowed.

I actually met a guy who professed this - it was weird. But again, it was his choice. Just like those people (mostly in the Philippines) who have themselves crucified to emulate of passion of Jesus. And there are the ones who practice self-flagellation, or wear cilice… There is a saying: “huge is the zoo of the Lord” which fits perfectly to these people.

 

[BrassAnkles]

And by the way, Bradski’s above statement:
“And my position? I would be a very happy man if there were no abortions at all”,

morally trumps the position of many believers, does it not?

Says who? Most abortions supporters say this. They say abortion should be used as a last resort and that it save lives. Neither are based in reality. Then again those that promote abortion were never interested int eh truth, just the ability to play God.

 

[BrassAnkles]

?
I’m not sure what you mean by “support abortion”.
Do you mean “pro-choice”?
Because I can understand why many non-theists would support a woman’s right to make her own choice for herself and her body.
Then again, I know many Atheists who are against abortion. There are many groups of them all over the world.
And I know many Theists, including Catholics, who are also pro-choice and believe abortion should be legal and the woman should have the wright to choose.

Do you have statistics on this “majority” of Atheists who “support abortion”?

So you not only support homosexual marriage but abortion as well???

BTW, your comment about knowing “Atheists against abortion” is another example of anecdotal evidence. I am wondering when you will understand that statistically this is insignificant and thus can’t support your argument. This is the same “logic” that if something exists it must have been ordained by God so at least you are consistent, if not erroneous.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Sorry…typo. The relevant phrase should have read:

There will never be a time when a woman will NOT need an abortion.

Thanks TS.

Welcome.

Usually in response to that statement in these forums I will see some one state that an abortion is never medically necessary. Something I could not understand considering ectopic pregnancies. In such cases if the pregnancy isn’t terminated the woman will die and it is not a viable pregnancy. The clinical abortion for such a pregnancy can be performed through an injection. From a Catholic perspective this is seen as a direct attack on the fetus.

As it turns out the Catholic approved medical response to ectopic pregnancies is to have the Fallopian tube that contains the embryo removed. Like in the clinical abortion the pregnancy is ended and the fetus won’t develop further. This is view as not being an abortion and the death of the fetus is considered an unfortunate and unintended consequence (see principle of double effect).

I’ve got some opinions on this that I won’t share for now. I thought this information was relevant in discussion of whether or not abortions are ever needed.