Are Atheists “good” people?

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs View Post
When we learn the consequences of sin, which is suffering, we learn how to request relief for that suffering.

Life brings us suffering. How we deal with that suffering is what we need to get better at during our life.

Partly agree !!

Life isn’t a suffering , but for some a struggling !!
Suffer the consequences !!
Look , I seize the day , enjoy with pleasure / as it comes ;
I die , ok , over & out !!

To the Catholic, life is a struggle for everyone.

It’s good to seize the day and enjoy it’s pleasures, but why is it good to do the things one does (which is what “carpe diem” actually means), and why are pleasures pleasurable?

How does one come to value one’s actions and pleasures?

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs View Post
You “don’t and won’t” believe in what?

Do you really think that “all mankind” created creation?

In all honestly , what you call supernatural , that’s (the) nonsense !!
Why ?? No proof of existence has ever given !!

What do you think that I call “supernatural”. You tell me what you think I think I mean by that, then I’ll correct your obviously mistaken impression.

I agree on ,
the world was already on before mankind start to exist !!
why did the neanderthalers vanished ??

My opinion is that the neanderthals were just a “race” of persons. They were not non-persons, in the Catholic sense. They were, in other words, descendants of Adam and Eve, just like ourselves.

They died off as a line of persons just like any family seems to die off over time. They were killed off by others, or by the environment, or simply despaired themselves into being not interested in existing as a line any longer. Who knows?

I can’t tell you where (on the timeline) “person-hood” came into the (fallen) world, but the “not-fallen world” pre-existed Adam and Eve,…

…then Adam and Eve “fell” and the not-fallen world went through a “phase change” (a transformation) into the “fallen world” while Adam and Eve (at least) stayed in their “garden” (Eden) for a time being “prepared” to enter the fallen world,…

…then Adam and Eve (at least) entered the fallen world and used what God gave them (during their “preparation”) to deal with this world.

NONE of this contradicts scientific discovery regarding the physical universe as we (partially) know it, and never will contradict science whatsoever.

 

[Jimmy_B]

Atheists can be good people, no doubt about that…Think about it this way, if an atheist who doesnt know anything about religion…

Hello Podo2005,

Thank you for your post.

Do you actually believe that such a person exists in 2008? Do you actually believe that there are Atheists who “don’t know anything about religion”? Who exactly would that person be? All of the Atheists who visit CAF for example, are aware of religion, Christianity and Catholicism…right?

I submit that the actual number of Atheists who aren’t aware of Christianity is very small. Moreover, that people who call themselves “Atheist”, do so because they have made a choice, they chose themselves and their own intellect over God.

Your thoughts?

Peace

 

[Laurent_LUG]

What makes “not cheating and being honest” a good thing?

Interesting question !!
Sometimes telling a “lie” can be good ,
like for a birthday surprise !!

Being honest in a “different” way ,
just a few lines lower , above the green line

Why is being helpful better than not being helpful?

Not always !!

But how do you know that by being persistent in your helping this presently ungrateful person won’t be a really good thing, such as by that person later developing a cure for cancer when they wouldn’t have do so if you hadn’t been persistent?

I see !!
Suppose indeed such person would invent a cure for cancer ,
and I would suffer that specific cancer ,
what would I do ??
It depends on how bad this person was !!
Suppose this persons owns me money ,
well , I still would go for the cure !!
But … if this person would have killed my family ,
or even killed his own family , he may rot in hell ,
I don’t want his invention !!
Well , hitler would be a terrific example !!

Aren’t you being “evil” by not continuing to be “good”?

Are you actually saying that it’s sometimes “good” to be “evil”?

No , but sometimes it’s better to avoid the creep !!
But if this rotten creep is involved in a accident ,
I would help him out of the crash
(only if it is possible) , but that’s it , end of story ,
even that person would rather die than to let me help him !!
Later on , I don’t even need 1 thank you from this person !!
Even much much later on , suppose this person
get involved in another accident , I would help again , but …
on the same level as I did before !!

---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----

But what you call your “faith in yourself” IS your religion.

Your actions are based on your faith in yourself, as you think that what you believe is a good basis on which to decide how to act.

Is that correct?

I have absolutely faith in myself ,
but that is not (a) religion !!

No. It is “a truthful life”.

One can have “peace” by feeding good people to evil people. That is one “path” to a so-called “peaceful life”.

If one bases their actions on what will gain them the most “peace” (meaning “least conflict”), then one’s actions will increase evil in so much as one avoids conflict from evil people.

mmmm , Hitler had also a thruthful life ,
luckily for us , it will never happen that way !!!

But you DON’T agree with me, because you disregard ALL religions qualification’s and choose your “utterly personal” religion as “the best one for you”, instead of the best one suited for all humankind.

If you really believed that your religion was “best suited for all mankind” you’d try to spread it as the solution to the “proliferation of badly qualified religions” problem.

I am I , I am not you , you are not me
I am on my own , I don’t idolize historical figures ,
which had maybe influence on my life !!
My solution: Don’t follow me !! If you do , so be it !!
As long we’re not talking about stalking ,
okay , fine by me !!

My question was whether you think that these “fairy tales” are useful, or whether they CAN’T be useful simply because they are “fairy tales”?

From your answer, I’d say that you don’t think that ANY so-called “fairy tale” is in any way useful.

I have a hard time believing that.

Some are ok , as long they are not bible/biblistic stories !!

To the Catholic, life is a struggle for everyone.

But I’m not catholic !!

It’s good to seize the day and enjoy it’s pleasures, but why is it good to do the things one does (which is what “carpe diem” actually means), and why are pleasures pleasurable?

How does one come to value one’s actions and pleasures?

mmmm , everyone has another vision/meaning on life !!

[Going “weird” ]
If I tell you , I would have sex with my girlfriend ,
but we’re using a condom , some will tell me I commit a sin ,
while others will tell me , it is good you use a condom !!

It happens you can friends which are enemies
with some of your friends , how to fix this ??

What do you think that I call “supernatural”. You tell me what you think I think I mean by that, then I’ll correct your obviously mistaken impression.

A three letter word which I refuse to write or to say !!

My opinion is that the neanderthals were just a “race” of persons. They were not non-persons, in the Catholic sense. They were, in other words, descendants of Adam and Eve, just like ourselves.

They died off as a line of persons just like any family seems to die off over time. They were killed off by others, or by the environment, or simply despaired themselves into being not interested in existing as a line any longer. Who knows?

Agree !!

I can’t tell you where (on the timeline) “person-hood” came into the (fallen) world, but the “not-fallen world” pre-existed Adam and Eve,…

…then Adam and Eve “fell” and the not-fallen world went through a “phase change” (a transformation) into the “fallen world” while Adam and Eve (at least) stayed in their “garden” (Eden) for a time being “prepared” to enter the fallen world,…

…then Adam and Eve (at least) entered the fallen world and used what God gave them (during their “preparation”) to deal with this world.

NONE of this contradicts scientific discovery regarding the physical universe as we (partially) know it, and never will contradict science whatsoever.

Adam & Eve and their kids ,
if they were the first human beings , well ,
their kids they “married” who ??

Salute & Cheers from a NON BELIEVER:
– Laurent LUG (.@…), october 17, 2008

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

That’s kind of like asking “are Germans (or any other large indeterminate group of individuals) good people.” The answer is yes, and no.

I’ve know some “secular humanists” who deny the existence of God, but live highly exemplary lives and are walking examples of what Christ taught vis-a-vis deportment and loving one’s neighbor. These people should fall into the category of “implicit Christians” and be ok. Even common sense tells you that much.

I’ve also known a couple of atheists who, in my opinion, are truly bad people; like the worst people I’ve ever known. I obviously don’t know what’ll happen to them, but they’re certainly not implicit Christians.

Atheists are far better than Christians - they don’t need a bribe to behave decently. If people behave decently only because they hope for a reward hereafter, they are not people I want to have anything to do with. We should good because it is good - **not **for low & selfish motives. If a Christian is restrained from picking my pocket only by the fear of punishment, he is a thief at heart, & not someone to have any dealings with. Christians should be ashamed of themselves for being so immoral & lacking in moral character that they won’t do good for its own sake, but only for a reward. ​

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
I can’t tell you where (on the timeline) “person-hood” came into the (fallen) world, but the “not-fallen world” pre-existed Adam and Eve,…

…then Adam and Eve “fell” and the not-fallen world went through a “phase change” (a transformation) into the “fallen world” while Adam and Eve (at least) stayed in their “garden” (Eden) for a time being “prepared” to enter the fallen world,…

…then Adam and Eve (at least) entered the fallen world and used what God gave them (during their “preparation”) to deal with this world.

NONE of this contradicts scientific discovery regarding the physical universe as we (partially) know it, and never will contradict science whatsoever.

Adam & Eve and their kids ,
if they were the first human beings , well ,
their kids they “married” who ??

They most likely mated, after the fall, with others of their PHYSICAL kind who were not of their SOULFUL kind, as well as some errant (sinful) incestuous mating.

There is nothing prohibiting there having been “men” humans and “animal” humans capable of interbreeding. True (“men”) humans, those with a soul, were descendant from Adam and Eve, and eventually the animal humans were out bred and displaced (killed off one way or another) such that they simply went extinct.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Atheists are far better than Christians - they don’t need a bribe to behave decently. If people behave decently only because they hope for a reward hereafter, they are not people I want to have anything to do with. We should good because it is good - **not **for low & selfish motives. If a Christian is restrained from picking my pocket only by the fear of punishment, he is a thief at heart, & not someone to have any dealings with. Christians should be ashamed of themselves for being so immoral & lacking in moral character that they won’t do good for its own sake, but only for a reward. ​

Atheists are far more likely to buckle to save their earthly lives, and fail to do what is right, but simply do what is expedient.

The reason they abhor “rules and regulations” regarding morals or ethics is because they NEED to keep their options open so that they don’t appear to be hypocrites when they inevitably DO buckle under pressure.

I do heartily agree, though, that doing good works simply out of servile fear of punishment is wrong, and ultimately sinful, because it displays an extreme misunderstanding of who God is, what His “meaning is”, and that we are not to stop our development toward being “Godly adults” in the “juvenile servility” stage.

Those who actually DO think that Christians are simply servile 'fraidy-cats are most likely stuck, themselves, in the “juvenile servility” stage of spiritual development, and relieve the pressure that causes in their psyche by being rebellious of ANY authority not themselves.

If the so-called atheist actually looks at their own ethics and morals they’ll discover that it comes from God’s people in one way or another, and where it doesn’t it is because that particular item is a “want” that is unGodly but highly pleasurable and extremely addictive.

Show me a “moral or ethic” that is “atheistic” which isn’t moral or ethical to the Catholic, and I’ll explain why it’s a “want”, why it’s unGodly (meaning damaging to society and the individual), why it’s highly pleasurable and why it’s highly addictive (which is usually rather obvious ).

 

[M249]

most atheists are geeks and hypocrites and thus don’t have very evil behaviors. when I was an Atheist, let me tell you, CARPE DIEM.

atheists need to be put in mental institutes.

 

[Whdevo]

Are Atheists “good” people?

Is possible to be an Atheist, reject God and be a “good” person?

In other words, can one who reject’s God, truly be “nice” or be a “good” person”?

Do people who reject God go to Heaven?

Atheists do not believe in Heaven…do they?

“Good” people go to heaven…. right?

Do Atheist go to Heaven?

Your thoughts?

Hi,

I have taken it to be that, by “atheist” you mean"someone who does not believe that there is God", and. as to atheists going to Heaven, I think an answer is contained below also …

I include a few Bible quotations which might interest you.

You might find that they seem to say that, without faith in Jesus Christ as the only begotten Son of God, who was born of a virgin, was crucified, suffered death, and was buried, that, on the Third Day, He rose again, and that He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and His kingdom will have no end, no man can go to heaven.

In fact, as I understand it, not only must as person have the faith outlined above, but that person must confess that faith to all others, to the praise and glory of God …

At the Council of Florence, Pope Eugene IV said:-
“No-one … even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”

Pope Gregory XVI sasid, in 1832:-

"They should consider the testimony of Christ Himself that: those who are not with Christ are against Him, and that they all disperse unhappily who do not gather with Him. Therefore, without a doubt they will perish forever, unless they hold the Catholic Faith whole and inviolate.

John 6:53 So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you;
John 6:54 he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.

John 15:5 I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in me, and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing.
John 15:6 If a man does not abide in me, he is cast forth as a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire and burned.

Mark 16:16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.

Mark 16:16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.

John I 5:12 He who has the Son has life; he who has not the Son of God has not life.

Matthew 10:32 So every one who acknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven;
Matthew 10:33 but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven

Mark 3:29 but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin" –

Luke 12:9 but he who denies me before men will be denied before the angels of God.
Luke 12:10 And every one who speaks a word against the Son of man will be forgiven; but he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven.

Matthew 10:32 So every one who acknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven;
Matthew 10:33 but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven.
Acts 16:30 and brought them out and said, “Men, what must I do to be saved?”
Acts 16:31 And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.”

I hope that, even if they have not answered your question, my words have at least served to give you some “food for thought”.

Best Wishes

and

God Bless

William

 

[Laurent_LUG]

They most likely mated, after the fall, with others of their PHYSICAL kind who were not of their SOULFUL kind, as well as some errant (sinful) incestuous mating.

I thought eve was created out of Adams Rib ,
that’s what they have told me at school !!

There is nothing prohibiting there having been “men” humans and “animal” humans capable of interbreeding.

I knew it , I’m a mix of flying monkeypigs
(Bad-mouth joking of course )

True (“men”) humans, those with a soul, were descendant from Adam and Eve, and eventually the animal humans were out bred and displaced (killed off one way or another) such that they simply went extinct.

How those true humans started to exist ??

most atheists are geeks and hypocrites and thus don’t have very evil behaviors. when I was an Atheist, let me tell you, CARPE DIEM.

atheists need to be put in mental institutes.

What do you have against atheism ??
What makes you better than them ??
Falsely accusing atheists is a heavy felony !!
Just as you do exist , also other people
do have the right to exist , or not ??

Salute & Cheers from a NON BELIEVER:
– Laurent LUG (.@…), october 8, 2008

 

[jpasta]

…

atheists need to be put in mental institutes.

A very Catholic thing to say.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs View Post
They most likely mated, after the fall, with others of their PHYSICAL kind who were not of their SOULFUL kind, as well as some errant (sinful) incestuous mating.

I thought eve was created out of Adams Rib ,
that’s what they have told me at school !!

Well, Eve (the female) was created from the pre-male/female being called Adam (who was rather like an incarnate angel) by “differentiating and distributing a few functions” between the two of them, and Adam was made “male” by that “differentiation and redistribution”.

But you have to remember, Adam and Eve weren’t dropped into the post-fall altered creation (the non-Garden-'o-Eden) until AFTER they “asked” God to teach them about the consequences of sin by that forbidden-fruit incident.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
There is nothing prohibiting there having been “men” humans and “animal” humans capable of interbreeding.

I knew it , I’m a mix of flying monkeypigs
(Bad-mouth joking of course )

You can FLY!? Cooooooool…

Quote:
True (“men”) humans, those with a soul, were descendant from Adam and Eve, and eventually the animal humans were out bred and displaced (killed off one way or another) such that they simply went extinct.

How those true humans started to exist ??

They started to exist by being created by God as true unfallen humans (persons) in the Garden of Eden.

The animal humans, of which there were most likely many different species, were created by God as animals (machines) wherever it was that the animals were during the time when A&E were in the Garden.

 

[Laurent_LUG]

You can FLY!? Cooooooool…

Absolutely , 25 hours a day , no flying stuff needed !!

Gi’me a airplane or a rocket , and yes , I could fly to :takeoff: :whacky:

Back Serious:

You know the WHOLE COMPLETE Adam & Eve story ,
it doesn’t fit at all !!

 

[rbarcia]

Are Atheists “good” people?

Is possible to be an Atheist, reject God and be a “good” person?

In other words, can one who reject’s God, truly be “nice” or be a “good” person”?

Do people who reject God go to Heaven?

Atheists do not believe in Heaven…do they?

“Good” people go to heaven…. right?

Do Atheist go to Heaven?

Your thoughts?

No, but neither is any human.

Mark 10:18
“Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. "No one is good—except God alone.

Romans 3
10 As it is written:

  “ There is none righteous, no, not one;
   11 There is none who understands;
  There is none who seeks after God.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Atheists are far more likely to buckle to save their earthly lives, and fail to do what is right, but simply do what is expedient.

The reason they abhor “rules and regulations” regarding morals or ethics is because they NEED to keep their options open so that they don’t appear to be hypocrites when they inevitably DO buckle under pressure.

That might have some weight as an objection, if it were the case - which it demonstrably is not - that Catholics (or Christians of any other kind) are any better. The problem is, that atheists behave no worse, & usually a great deal better, than Christians. Every objection to how atheists behave is ten times as deadly against Christians.​

Atheists are morally superior to Christians because they do not have any of the guarantees claimed by Christians: they have fewer sources of inner strength, so it is not surprising that some atheists behave appallingly; what is surprising, & deeply shocking, is that Christians, who make all sorts of claims to moral, spiritual, existential, & other kinds of superiority, are no better than atheists; for they should, if their claims are true, be very much better in every respect. That they are not, is a damning indictment of the claims they make. Prisons are packed with Christians; the history of the last two thousand years is full of the crimes & follies of Christians; when they have had political power, they have used it to kill, murder, destabilise states, make war, enslave, torture, mutilate, imprison, & massacre their fellow-men. By any recognisable moral standard, the influence of Christianity has been appalling (if real); or has escaped being appalling only becauuse Christianity “has not been tried”. So which is it ?

It is a useless evasion (as well as ignorant or dishonest) to plead that the crimes of Christianity have been committed by Christians who were “not real Christians” - for if a burner of his fellows like Pius V was “not a real Christian”, the CC has no business to honour him as a canonised Saint. He was canonised in 1712, so his activities can scarcely have been thought unworthy of a Christian - unless Christian morality is of no importance to Christian holiness; or unless holiness can be moral for one Saint, & free of morals for another. But that would mean that Christianity holiness had no stable content; that it was a word, & not a reality. Many of the crimes of Christians have been encouraged or commanded or praised by those in authority in the Churches; they are as official as could be asked for. So there is no escape there either. Nor can Christians condemn the crimes of the past, for if they do, other Christians will accuse them of moral relativism. The only course is to admit to the crimes of the past, to recognise & deplore & condemn them as wicked acts, & to stop defending, honouring & praising those guilty of them.

Atheism has no Saints - it has no need of them; it’s not a Church or religion. And it has hurt far fewer people. The crimes of atheists are crimes of men incompletely freed from the bad influence of Christianity. As for the crimes of Mao Tse-Tung, he was an egotist to begin with; a man like that would be a criminal if he had the opportunity. Thanks in large part to the Christian politicians of the West, he had unrivalled opportunities to show what kind of man he was. Once again, Christians are complicit in evil. Christianity is fine - as long as it’s not tried. In “the real world”, it doesn’t work.

You ought to read William Bradlaugh’s criticisms of Victorian Christianity in the 1880s - he had no difficulty pointing to the difference between the religion of Jesus, & the militarily powerful (& aggressive) Christianity of his own day. This is the man who was twice refused a seat in Parliament because he was an atheist, despite being elected by his constituency. (He was allowed in third time round, after a change in the law.) That is Christianity in action

It is false to say atheists have no moral standards - it is a lie & a slander. It would be nearer the mark to say that Christians have no moral standards: if they do, their behaviour hardly shows it; for they have committed every crime under the sun. It was very foolish of a certain apologist to accuse the CC of criminal behaviour, for his accusation, though fair comment as against the CC, is no more than the truth as applied to all Christianity - including his own. Once again, Christianity is condemned by its own advocates; they really ought to give up accusing their fellow-criminals; but because they are blindly partisan & self-righteous, they never will. Christians are always tearing one another to shreds.

One must distinguish between Christianity, & Christians: most of them are inoffensive enough. The problem is with the world-view they claim to follow; for if the test by fruits is of any value, it can only be judged evil; they are better than their creed.

I do heartily agree, though, that doing good works simply out of servile fear of punishment is wrong, and ultimately sinful, because it displays an extreme misunderstanding of who God is, what His “meaning is”, and that we are not to stop our development toward being “Godly adults” in the “juvenile servility” stage.

That’s a lot of misunderstanding then - & a good reason for atheists to ignore Christian apologetics; for if Christians don’t understand as simple a moral fact as that, why should atheists believe that Christians understand their own religion on any other point ?​

…a bit more…

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

… last bit:

Those who actually DO think that Christians are simply servile 'fraidy-cats are most likely stuck, themselves, in the “juvenile servility” stage of spiritual development, and relieve the pressure that causes in their psyche by being rebellious of ANY authority not themselves.

If the so-called atheist actually looks at their own ethics and morals they’ll discover that it comes from God’s people in one way or another, and where it doesn’t it is because that particular item is a “want” that is unGodly but highly pleasurable and extremely addictive.

Henry Sidgwick was an atheist - & a moral philosopher. He doesn’t fit that description. It is oversimplified, so it can’t explain men like him. Unfortunately, most people are so ignorant (thanks to Christianity) that they will fall for that. It is mere parochialism to imagine that Christianity, with or without Judaism, is alone in having moral content. The failure of Christianity to “look at [its] own ethics” is lamentable - there is no reason, apart from self-love, why it cannot be engaged in that addictive behaviour.​

Show me a “moral or ethic” that is “atheistic” which isn’t moral or ethical to the Catholic, and I’ll explain why it’s a “want”, why it’s unGodly (meaning damaging to society and the individual), why it’s highly pleasurable and why it’s highly addictive (which is usually rather obvious ).

What possible reason is there to imagine that Catholicism contains all good morals ? It’s a non sequitur - & it proves that CCism is addicted to itself. Now that is alarming ​

 

[Henning]

I voted no…

Isaiah 5:20
“Woe unto them that call evil good and good evil
that put darkness for light and light for darkness”

Psalms 145:20
“The LORD preserveth all them that love him
but all the wicked will he destroy”

atheists don’t love the LORD…

2 Cor 6:14 “Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers
for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness?
and what communion hath light with darkness?”

Prov 4:19 “The way of the wicked is as darkness”
Eccl 2:14 “…the fool walketh in darkness”
Psal 14:1 “The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God”

 

[CatsAndDogs]

The problem is, that atheists behave no worse, & usually a great deal better, than Christians. Every objection to how atheists behave is ten times as deadly against Christians.

If one has an moral/ethical code, then one is not an atheist.

There are so few actual atheists, and they are so unbelievably difficult to find, that comparing the behavior of atheists to non-atheists is nearly impossible.

What most so-called “atheists” are are scientistic materialists, which is a religion, and which quite often approaches even Catholicism in it’s (low level - everyday version of) morals and ethics.

Atheists are morally superior to Christians because they do not have any of the guarantees claimed by Christians: they have fewer sources of inner strength, so it is not surprising that some atheists behave appallingly;

Catholics, and other non-atheists, have no guarantees of any sort. If you believe that “once saved always saved” stuff of the various protestant folk, then you’re just as deluded as they are.

The “inner strength” that non-atheists have access to is entirely dependent on their ability to accept it. The vast majority of non-atheists are woefully inept at being that accepting of what is freely theirs if only they could “get out of their own way”.

That atheists claim to be “morally superior” because they won’t use the tools given to them to be more “efficient” in being strong in the face of “spiritual attack” is an homage to that old saw that “that which does not kill me makes me stronger”, and yet another example of atheistic masochism.

what is surprising, & deeply shocking, is that Christians, who make all sorts of claims to moral, spiritual, existential, & other kinds of superiority, are no better than atheists; for they should, if their claims are true, be very much better in every respect.

Obviously, you have no experience with what being human means.

(( How’s THAT for a vast overreach!? ))

TRUE Christians ARE vastly superior in every way to TRUE atheists, but since there are so few of either group the “leveling” of the general populace into a mediocre morally “so-so” bunch is not really very surprising!

It is a useless evasion (as well as ignorant or dishonest) to plead that the crimes of Christianity have been committed by Christians who were “not real Christians” - for if a burner of his fellows like Pius V was “not a real Christian”, the CC has no business to honour him as a canonised Saint. He was canonised in 1712, so his activities can scarcely have been thought unworthy of a Christian - unless Christian morality is of no importance to Christian holiness; or unless holiness can be moral for one Saint, & free of morals for another. But that would mean that Christianity holiness had no stable content; that it was a word, & not a reality. Many of the crimes of Christians have been encouraged or commanded or praised by those in authority in the Churches; they are as official as could be asked for. So there is no escape there either. Nor can Christians condemn the crimes of the past, for if they do, other Christians will accuse them of moral relativism. The only course is to admit to the crimes of the past, to recognise & deplore & condemn them as wicked acts, & to stop defending, honouring & praising those guilty of them.

Oooooo… so angry.

Who did the actual “burning”? Who commited the actual crimes? Those who did were evil-doers. Even an abject sinner can become a saint if they die in the state of grace.

The fact that you don’t like that idea, as it violates your sense of “mercantile spirituality”, is utterly irrelevant to reality.

I’m very sorry you’ve been hurt by non-atheists, and most likely specifically Christians, in the past, but if you’d do a bit of research into why Christianity is as it is in it’s only REAL form, Catholicism, you’d see your errors.

But then, you’ve no interest in doing that, but only in being violently misunderstanding so as to convince weakly prepared Christians from having faith, which is personally satisfying to you as the evil Christians must be shown as evil.

…more

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Atheism has no Saints - it has no need of them; it’s not a Church or religion.

But it is!

And it does have saints. They are people like yourself. Those “hurt” by that which can’t hurt them, but can easily be seen to have hurt them. How has Christianity qua Christianity (the Church [Catholic]) hurt you?

It is false to say atheists have no moral standards - it is a lie & a slander.

To have ANY (any possible) standard is to have NO standard!

How is that a lie or slander?

Those so-called atheists who DO have moral standards, which are congruent with the Church in the majority (at least), aren’t actually atheists!

One’s religion is one’s aggregate set of beliefs. Regardless of what one CALLS their religion, if it is a moral and ethical one, which MEANS is congruent to major extent with the Church, then one is, to the degree one’s religion IS in congruence, in some manner in communion with the Church.

It would be nearer the mark to say that Christians have no moral standards: if they do, their behaviour hardly shows it; for they have committed every crime under the sun.

We are all at some distance in communion and members of the Church. Since all people are Catholics, in this respect, it’s not surprising that “every crime under the sun” is committed by them, as there is NO ONE ELSE to COMMIT crimes!

The problem is with the world-view they claim to follow; for if the test by fruits is of any value, it can only be judged evil; they are better than their creed.

Once again, I’m so sorry Christianity was so badly presented to you that your “hurt” has driven you to be actively anti-God. You obviously value what God is “supposed to be”, and have been fooled into seeing God as being an impossibility. We’re all praying for you that you might be cured of that misconception.

You might want to check into what the Christian (Catholic) creed is, by the way.