Are Atheists “good” people?

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
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​

I’d still like you to “Show me a ‘moral or ethic’ that is ‘atheistic’ which isn’t moral or ethical to the Catholic”.

The reason that the Church contains all true morals is that if a moral IS good then it is from God, and if it is from God then it is in the Church.

Your utter lack of “ground”, of axiomatic dogma on which to base your ethics, means that all of them are relative, and ultimately self-serving.

So, show me one of those “atheistic morals/ethics” which aren’t congruent with Catholic morals/ethics!?

Thanks in advance.

 

[Laurent_LUG]

I voted no…

atheists don’t love the LORD…

What makes you better than atheists ??

Psal 14:1 “The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God”

Why a fool ??
Prove us all it exists !!

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

 

[rbarcia]

What makes you better than atheists ??

I don’t believe I am better than you. We are all evil and not good. I am just better off, because after I die, I will be with Christ. I will pray for you, as I have sympathy for you.

Why a fool ??
Prove us all it exists !!

How do you know just by looking at a painting that there is a painter?

How do you know by looking at a builder, that there is a builder?

Do you have to find the painter or the builder to prove it, or can you say with confidence that there was a painter or builder(s) by looking at the painting or the building.

That is called a scientific axiom, a self-evident truth that needs no proof.

Creation proves a Creator. You could not get a painting by accident. What makes one thing that complex genetic code far more complex than a painting happened by accident.

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

Revelation 21:8
But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur.

but

John 3:16

16For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Repent from your sin from friend and put your trust and life in Jesus

 

[Laurent_LUG]

I don’t believe I am better than you.

That’s the same as I think about me & everyone else

We are all evil and not good.

Why being so negative ??

I am just better off,

Why you are contradicting yourself ??

because after I die, I will be with Christ. I will pray for you, as I have sympathy for you.

What if you’re wrong ??

How do you know just by looking at a painting that there is a painter?

How do you know by looking at a builder, that there is a builder?

Why is water wet ??

Do you have to find the painter or the builder to prove it, or can you say with confidence that there was a painter or builder(s) by looking at the painting or the building.

That is called a scientific axiom, a self-evident truth that needs no proof.

I agree that we both don’t have the answer how EVERyTHING started , and I mean EVERYTHING !!

Creation proves a Creator. You could not get a painting by accident. What makes one thing that complex genetic code far more complex than a painting happened by accident.

How is this creator created ??

Revelation 21:8
But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur.

but

John 3:16

16For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

I think you know my answer to this quoted part !!

Repent from your sin from friend and put your trust and life in Jesus

What is my sin or crime ??

Salute & Cheers from a NON BELIEVER:
– Laurent LUG (.@…), october 10, 2008

 

[rbarcia]

That’s the same as I think about me & everyone else

Why being so negative ??

I am not negative

Why you are contradicting yourself ??

Better off is not the same as better.

What if you’re wrong ??

If there is no God, and we both die and just become dust, I have lost nothing. You won’t even be able to say I told you so

Why is water wet ??

Because it is between the temperature of freezing and gas

I agree that we both don’t have the answer how EVERyTHING started , and I mean EVERYTHING !!

I don’t agree, I know, it is written in Genesis 1.

How is this creator created ??

He is eternal, the Alpha and the Omega. I develop Software for IBM for a living, and my program has no idea how I coded it.

The painting does not ask the painting how did I get painted.

I think you know my answer to this quoted part !!

What is my sin or crime ??

God’s law is the 10 commandments.

Have you ever lied?
Stolen?
Committed adultery (or looked with lust) ?
Have you ever used God’s name in vain?
Have you ever desired something that belonged to a friend?
Have you ever hated someone (which is murder in the heart)?

If the answer no to all of these i know, then you are claiming to be perfect. But I doubt that, you are a law (God’s law) breaker like me.

If you do not live by these laws, you still will be judged by them.

My fine has been paid on the cross when Jesus offered His blood as an offering. And offers salvation as a free gift for those who repent from their sin, and put their trust in the Lord Jesus.

Salute & Cheers from a NON BELIEVER:
– Laurent LUG (.@…), october 10, 2008

Unbelief is a sin, violates the 1st command. You shall worship the Lord your God and Him only.

 

[Henning]

Why a fool ??
Prove us all it exists !!

1 Cor 2:14
“Now the natural (psychikos) man
receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God
for they are foolishness unto him
and he cannot know them
because they are spiritually discerned”

 

[goofyjim]

Without reading this whole thread there can be good atheists as well as bad Christians.

 

[Laurent_LUG]

I am not negative

You degrade everyone by what you are saying !!

Better off is not the same as better.

I disagree !!
I would be better off to respect eachother !!
I agree on this meaning of: better off !!

But being better off because of …
well , I call that rubbish first class !!

If there is no God, and we both die and just become dust, I have lost nothing. You won’t even be able to say I told you so

Until now , nobody has returned from the death !!

Because it is between the temperature of freezing and gas

That’s what they told me too , but is it so ??

I don’t agree, I know, it is written in Genesis 1.

A book , who has written it ??

He is eternal, the Alpha and the Omega.

Any proof for that ??

I develop Software for IBM for a living, and my program has no idea how I coded it.

Mankind put his ideas in it !!
So mankind is to blame if goes wrong , otherwise ,
who else would to be blame for when it goes wrong ??.

The painting does not ask the painting how did I get painted.

Ok , I think true !!

God’s law is the 10 commandments.

Especially the first one is not acceptable !!

Have you ever lied?

I lie if I told you I wouldn’t lie
But … have you ever told the thruth ??

Stolen?

Clean record !!

Committed adultery

No !!

(or looked with lust)

You mean staring at someone’s body dancing ,
or walking on the street ??
If they are close enough , I can see them !!

Have you ever used God’s name in vain?

If it doesn’t exist , how … ??

Have you ever desired something that belonged to a friend?

In such case , if I have the money ,
I go to the shop and I’ll buy it !!

Have you ever hated someone (which is murder in the heart)?

As in a death wish , no !!
And if I hate someone , I ignore them !!

If the answer no to all of these i know, then you are claiming to be perfect. But I doubt that, you are a law breaker like me.

I am nobody , and nobody is me

Without reading this whole thread there can be good atheists as well as bad Christians.

I agree

Salute & Cheers from a NON BELIEVER:
– Laurent LUG (.@…), october 10, 2008

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

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.

The Soviets thought exactly that - the only difference being the choice of person detained. ​

If that’s a Christian approach, it merely helps to show that Christianity is just another anti-human, bloody-handed & bloody-minded ideology which can not be too quickly abandoned for the good of us all.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

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

It isn’t enough for Catholics to tell atheists what atheists believe, apparently; they must also presume to define atheism in a way which cannot possibly allow for the conclusion that atheists can live moral lives without being theists. This is typical Catholic arrogance - if other Christians try the same trick on Catholics, the complaining goes on & on. They can dish it out to others, but can they take it ? Absolutely not. Whether it suits the Catholic world-view or not, there are atheists who are far more moral than any theist, & no trickery in re-defining words for the greater glory of Catholicism will alter this.​

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.

These undiscoverable atheists seem to be plentiful enough, to judge from the lamentations of clergy & the efforts of apologists - but then nothing exists, if one does not want to see it.​

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.

If in doubt, insult the opposition - a typical RC trick. And another logical blunder - but if no-one can spot it, why not use it ? So much for honesty & integrity in debate: RCism can’t debate - it’s only comfortable when it’s in a position to kick others around. ​

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.

The only claims to moral superiority made hereabouts are made by Christians - no matter what the label, they are as bad as each other. As for masochism - it was RCism that made a fetish of self-flogging as a way of gaining merit; if that’s not sick & twisted, what is ?​

By RC standards your argument is self-contradictory - if faith is a gift, then atheists cannot be expected to take advantage of the benefits of a gift they do not have. By RC standards, your argument is as anti-supernatural as anything said by an atheist - how can someone use what is ex hypothesi not available to him ? If that is your argument, you’re defending your POV with arguments that contradict your POV. A case built up like that will implode under the stress of its inner contradictions.

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!

Ah yes - the “true Christian”. IOW - if Christians show just how utterly repulsively they behave, the way to avoid damage to the ideology is by redefining the adherent of it: so the unattractive adherents are relieved of their identity as Christians, with the result that the only Christians left as Christians are the less repulsive ones. That is deceit, pure & simple - & typical of Fundamentalist thinking.​

If Christianity needs to be defended by the argument that there are not many “true Christians”, what is the point of it in the first place ? It can’t have much to transform lives for the better if it is as weak as is implied. A religion peopled by mediocrities isn’t exactly a convincing advertisement for it. That tells in favour of ethics without God - because despite all the God-talk, those who claim to belong to Him don’t seem to be any better than anyone else; quite often, they are notable only for their crimes.

Nor can it safely be argued that most Christians are atheists, & that their crimes are for that reason chargeable to atheism & not Christianity - for that argument would mean that many people thought to be Christian had to be allocated to atheism; with awkward results, if they were office-holders in the Church on whose identity as Christians the continuity of the Church depended. So if an evil-living bishop is not a Christian, Apostolic Succession & sacramental validity collapse. As does the recognition of ecclesiastical acts by the Church.

Oooooo… so angry.

Who did the actual “burning”?

Beatified & sainted men, among others.​

more…

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

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.

So why does the Church canonise “evil-doers” ? If it does, then canonisation is morally meaningless - Christian holiness does not then have any moral content: & that is a total contradiction of the Church’s claim to be derived from the NT Church. If the teaching of Jesus has no moral content, he is an irrelevance. But that is what an idea of amoral canonisation leads to. It’s a suicidal way to go - it rescues the Church from embarrassment at the price of slitting its throat.​

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

And what is “mercantile spirituality” ? If the Church insists on canonising “evil-doers”, how is that my fault ? If the Church can’t be defended except by confusing good & evil, it is not worth bothering with.​

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.

That’s a laugh ​

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,

A faith that can be upset by mere argument is not faith at all, but opinion.​

which is personally satisfying to you as the evil Christians must be shown as evil.

You know nothing about me. What is there to misunderstand in the wars, persecutions, bloodshed & other evils of which Christianity has been the cause ? St. Paul is the one who says that Christians should expose evil - so your quarrel is with him. If Christians are evil, that is their fault.​

…more

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs View Post

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

It isn’t enough for Catholics to tell atheists what atheists believe, apparently; they must also presume to define atheism in a way which cannot possibly allow for the conclusion that atheists can live moral lives without being theists.​

You’re quite right! Sorry that that’s the way it works, but it’s not my job to make reality fit your rather odd preconceptions.

This is typical Catholic arrogance - if other Christians try the same trick on Catholics, the complaining goes on & on.

Statement of truth is very often mistaken for arrogance.

When a non-Catholic states something that is not the truth as a truth how is it arrogance to tell them that they aren’t speaking the truth?

Angry people LOVE to call speakers of the truth arrogant, so as to supposedly “neutralize” them by shouting them down with their relativistic “everchanging” yardstick of “pseudo-truth”.

They can dish it out to others, but can they take it ? Absolutely not.

We’ve taken untruth being spoken as truth since Adam, dude.

Whether it suits the Catholic world-view or not, there are atheists who are far more moral than any theist, & no trickery in re-defining words for the greater glory of Catholicism will alter this.

Their are many people who don’t REALIZE they aren’t atheists who claim to be atheists who are FAR more moral and ethical than many so-called “theists” (which means in largest extent “Catholics in even distant communion with the Church”), but their are NO true atheists who are in any way moral or ethical because they simply have no moral/ethical standard with which to be so.

Quote:
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.

These undiscoverable atheists seem to be plentiful enough, to judge from the lamentations of clergy & the efforts of apologists - but then nothing exists, if one does not want to see it.​

The are very few true atheists, but there are VAST numbers of practical-atheists who are deceived by the evil spewed forth from the mouths of the few true atheists, and the luke-warm “spew” from their practical-atheistic brethren.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
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.

If in doubt, insult the opposition - a typical RC trick. And another logical blunder - but if no-one can spot it, why not use it ? So much for honesty & integrity in debate: RCism can’t debate - it’s only comfortable when it’s in a position to kick others around.​

The atheist sees “insult” everywhere. I wonder why that is?

Who am I “insulting”?

But, you are essentially correct in that Catholics DON’T debate about revealed truth. It’s simply not debatable. You can’t very well debate something that is not debatable.

True (revealed) dogma, the “worst nightmare” of the atheist mind, is only subject to being disclosed and accepted or rejected.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
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.

The only claims to moral superiority made hereabouts are made by Christians - no matter what the label, they are as bad as each other. As for masochism - it was RCism that made a fetish of self-flogging as a way of gaining merit; if that’s not sick & twisted, what is ?​

Didn’t you say this a few posts back? :

Link:
“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.”

Dude! Get your story straight!

By RC standards your argument is self-contradictory - if faith is a gift, then atheists cannot be expected to take advantage of the benefits of a gift they do not have.

But they ARE given the gift. It is the extent to which they fight against accepting that gift that determines their culpability for not taking it.

Just by lingering around in these fori, stubbornly, and actively fighting against learning from those with something to teach you as to why accepting the gifts of God is a good thing for you, you (essentially) damn yourself.

By RC standards, your argument is as anti-supernatural as anything said by an atheist - how can someone use what is ex hypothesi not available to him ?

But it IS available to everyone!

Since acceptance of it (faith) is an act of LOVE, which is what “supernatural” means by the way, it’s not “anti-supernatural” (!? ) to claim that everyone COULD have faith in God while admitting that not everyone WILL (via an ACT of WILL) have that faith.

If that is your argument, you’re defending your POV with arguments that contradict your POV. A case built up like that will implode under the stress of its inner contradictions.

Uh, what?

Your lack of understanding, and materialistic presuppositions, makes you say goofy things like this. If you’re going to discuss matters of faith and morals, you might want to have at least a baseline understanding of what you’re speaking about.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:

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!

Ah yes - the “true Christian”. IOW - if Christians show just how utterly repulsively they behave, the way to avoid damage to the ideology is by redefining the adherent of it: so the unattractive adherents are relieved of their identity as Christians, with the result that the only Christians left as Christians are the less repulsive ones. That is deceit, pure & simple - & typical of Fundamentalist thinking.​

Call it what you like! It’s a simple truth. To actually understand what it is to be a Christian is to be incapable of doing evil, and when one does evil (which we all do [with a couple of historical exceptions]) one becomes “not a Christian”.

Now, this doesn’t preclude becoming a Christian again, of course, which is what that whole “reconciliation” thing is about.

To consider someone “if once not a Christian then never again a Christian” is the sign of a fundamentalist. We are rather fundamentally non-fundamentalist is our flexibility, don’tcha think?

If Christianity needs to be defended by the argument that there are not many “true Christians”, what is the point of it in the first place ?

Unlike atheists, Christians (Catholics) believe that the sin is not the sinner. Being a sinner does not prohibit being forgiven and changed by that forgiveness.

It is a “bad idea” to conflate the sinner with the sin.

It can’t have much to transform lives for the better if it is as weak as is implied. A religion peopled by mediocrities isn’t exactly a convincing advertisement for it. That tells in favour of ethics without God - because despite all the God-talk, those who claim to belong to Him don’t seem to be any better than anyone else; quite often, they are notable only for their crimes.

Since there are very few actual atheists, and ALL of the non-actual-atheists are Catholics (at some distance or other from full communion with the Church), it shouldn’t be particularly surprising that the difference between these barely differentiable populations are rather slight.

There are no ethics without God, because there is no actual basis on which to build an “ethic” without the absolute of God.

When someone says they have a “non-God based ethic” (morality) it’s either an arbitrary value-judgement self-serving of that “someone”, or an actual God based ethic which is not attributed to God but to something else.

So if an evil-living bishop is not a Christian, Apostolic Succession & sacramental validity collapse. As does the recognition of ecclesiastical acts by the Church.

Evil living does not break apostolic succession. You DO need to study up on how the holiness of the sacraments do not depend on the holiness of the priest.

I KNOW you’ve been around here for quite some time, and your “denseness” in absorbing the truths of the Church are rather strange, as you don’t SEEM terribly stupid!

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
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.

So why does the Church canonise “evil-doers” ?​

For the same reason that she canonises ANY other sinner!

You might want to check into the canonization process for an explanation of this. I’m not NEARLY well versed in how it works to inform you properly.

If it does, then canonisation is morally meaningless - Christian holiness does not then have any moral content:

Atheists, being essentially “angry-ists”, are incapable of understanding “forgiveness”. That is where your “stumblingblock” is coming from.

& that is a total contradiction of the Church’s claim to be derived from the NT Church. If the teaching of Jesus has no moral content, he is an irrelevance. But that is what an idea of amoral canonisation leads to. It’s a suicidal way to go - it rescues the Church from embarrassment at the price of slitting its throat.

Understandable that you’d think that. That’s precisely why your thinking is “sick” (being “addicted to anger”).

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
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,

A faith that can be upset by mere argument is not faith at all, but opinion.​

You’re the one using the blue-frowny-faces ( )!

I’m not in the least upset. Yet MORE atheist “projection”. Quite expected. <chuckle, chuckle, chuckle>

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
which is personally satisfying to you as the evil Christians must be shown as evil.

You know nothing about me.​

I know what I’ve read. The atheist can always retreat into the shelter of “Don’t put words into my mouth, 'cause you don’t know my shoe-size!”

Too freakin’ funny… <chortle!>

What is there to misunderstand in the wars, persecutions, bloodshed & other evils of which Christianity has been the cause ? St. Paul is the one who says that Christians should expose evil - so your quarrel is with him. If Christians are evil, that is their fault.

Christians are just people, and all people are sinners, and all sinners should be differentiated from their sins, and to label people as evil instead of their sins as evil and prohibit them from expunging themselves of their sins is evil.

Your evil deed of labeling people instead of their sins as evil is easily forgiven, but not if you aren’t contrite.

But then, atheists are never contrite, unless it is self-serving, as there only standard, their only “god”, is themselves, and only if it serves that “god” is contrition an “advantage” (that is what I mean by “mercantile spirituality”)

 

[D_M]

Hi,

I have two short questions for any atheists on this thread willing to answer them, in relation to answering the OP (whether or not we know if you ‘good’ people):

i) Do you believe that people of faith are collectively delusional? insane? lacking rationality? Stupid? Low in intelligence? (or whatever other such term is applicable here which many atheists have used against us in times present and past)

ii) Do you have respect for people of religious faith? Do you like us?

Since morality is universally (both among believers and non-believers) judged by how we treat others, I think the manner that atheists answer these questions about how they treat people of faith may tell us something about their own morality.

God Bless,

 

[Laurent_LUG]

Hi,

i) Do you believe that people of faith are collectively delusional? insane? lacking rationality? Stupid? Low in intelligence?

I just don’t like religion !!
I see it as an invention to mandate people !!
Only extreme weirdo’s are dissolutional ,
lacking , crazy , dangerous , … !!

(Too) High Intelligence can be dangerous
for the cleverone itself !!

ii) Do you have respect for people of religious faith? Do you like us?

I really don’t mind in what you believe !!
Respect eachother !!
If one does not respect the other ,
how you gonna (try to) fix this ??
And what if one of them does not want a solution ??

Salute & Cheers from a NON BELIEVER:
– Laurent LUG (.@…), october 13, 2008