Atheism is unnatural

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dan_Defender
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
jan10000 said:
40.png
goout:
objective morality
Click to expand...
I’ve never understood why anyone thinks objective morality exists. Some people here think birth control is OK. Some think it is immoral. Some people here think gay marriage is OK, so do not. Some people here even support abortion rights.

Where is there ANY justification whatsoever for objective morality?

And even if you believe there exists an omnipotent, omniscient source of all morality - He certainly hasn’t communicated it to us. All these discussions that presuppose objective morality all can be refuted in one sentence - objective morality does not exist, and even if it did, we don’t what it is.
Click to expand...
It’s not a very precise term, admittedly.
All these discussions that presuppose objective morality all can be refuted in one sentence - objective morality does not exist,
Click to expand...
Did you really mean to say that?
 
Last edited:
goout said:
In any case, if you believe that human life has intrinsic value, is it worth telling others about? And is it worth fighting for to some degree?
Click to expand...
If it’s self evident and revealed, who needs to be told?
 
goout said:
If you truly believed in subjectivism you have no business telling anyone else what is moral, because they have their own feelings and passions to obey.
Click to expand...
When people express a moral opinion it’s that, a moral opinion. Laws and societal values occur when those moral opinions coalesce on a common idea or principle. Moral gray areas occur where those ideas aren’t as ubiquitous. When it affects only the person involved that’s fine for them to follow their passions, when it affects others, others have a right for their rights and sense of morality to be considered.
 
Last edited:
Dan123 said:
40.png
goout:
In any case, if you believe that human life has intrinsic value, is it worth telling others about? And is it worth fighting for to some degree?
Click to expand...
If it’s self evident and revealed, who needs to be told?
Click to expand...
You are aware that some believe the earth is 6000 years old, right?
And that man never landed on the moon?
And that Obama was born in Iran or something?
right?

You are aware that some don’t consider Muslims, or blacks, or others, actual human beings?
Is their humanity still self evident, or is it not?
 
Last edited:
goout said:
You are aware that some believe the earth is 6000 years old, right?
And that man never landed on the moon?
And that Obama was born in Iran or something?
right?
Click to expand...
Are the age of the Earth, the moon landing, and Obama’s birthplace self-evident and revealed?
goout said:
You are aware that some don’t consider Muslims, or blacks, or others, actual human beings?
Is their humanity still self evident, or is it not?
Click to expand...
I am aware, but I didn’t say it was self-evident. I’m just confused by something self-evident and revealed needing to be taught. I’m certainly with you that respecting the value of human life is a value to be spread.
 
Last edited:
goout said:
Oh yea, sure it is. Ha.
Click to expand...
Many people are going to say that burning a person alive at the stake is intrinsically immoral.Is it not against human dignity? To be seen as such a spectacle and it is torture also.
 
goout said:
Depends what you value. I would not say some have more value than others. All are equal in value and dignity. If you value productivity, or intelligence, or mobility, or star power, or physical beauty, then some have more human value than others.
In any case, if you believe that human life has intrinsic value, is it worth telling others about? And is it worth fighting for to some degree? How will you make that case if you allow the value of life to be determined by decisions, whims, opinions, rather than it’s own objective value.
Click to expand...
Again, I find it difficult to disagree if the question is: Does all human life have equal value? You feel as if you’re on the edge of a very steep and slippery slope if you say it doesn’t. And there are plenty of people who would be quite eager to throw any number of examples of genocides in your general direction if you even equivocate about the answer. But if you ask a specific question about specific people then the answer changes. And quite often the answer will be qualified with something along the lines of ‘well, obviously…’.

So if it’s patently obvious when asked in specific terms then why the reticence in admitting the same when couched in general terms?

Do you know that charities will often use pictures of a specific person when asking you for money to help people in need? They don’t ask you to fork out a few bucks to help thousands of people because it’s difficult to emotionally relate to thousands. The thought process runs: Whatever I do, I can’t make any difference. So they put a young girl on the poster and ask: ‘How much can you give to save Natalie’s life?’ When it becomes personal, the donations take off. As they say - one life is a tragedy, a million is a statistic.

Here’s a link to a story in the Bombay Times. I just picked it out at random: Deleted.

Actually I won’t link to it. I can’t post details of someone’s personal misfortune to make a point. But having read the story and seen a picture of the kid I am now torn about what to do. There are a million children in India that could use my help. Do I help this one because his picture is now effectively the one on the poster?

My indecision is causing me some guilt. But it does bring home to me my indifference to the suffering of those I know nothing about. And that’s the correct way to describe it as well. Indifference. I am indifferent to the fate of almost everyone on the planet except those close to me. And I know that everyone else is pretty much the same. I know that we have evolved in a particular way so that we need to care more about those close to us so that’s my get-out-of-jail card.

Are all lives of equal value? I think it depends on how you ask the question.
 
I always find it funny how so many people - even militant atheists - go on and on about how ‘stupid’ the idea of God is. Then, when they are asked by the media - they say that there is a small chance he does exist - because they can’t know for sure.

I also find it bewildering that atheists - who claim not to believe in God - spend so much of their time talking about him!

Atheism is undoubtedly one of the greatest moral issues of our time.
 
Irrelevant. If the universe had a beginning, then it’s not eternal, and therefore has a cause.
 
I respectfully disagree. Atheists and agnostics do not acknowledge that one must live up to a certain high moral code - most of them believe in a moral code - just not one that sets the bar very high.

Atheists are much more likely to support abortion, contraception and other evils than Christians are.
 
catholic03 said:
I respectfully disagree. Atheists and agnostics do not acknowledge that one must live up to a certain high moral code - most of them believe in a moral code - just not one that sets the bar very high.

Atheists are much more likely to support abortion, contraception and other evils than Christians are.
Click to expand...
It seems that the definition of a high moral code is simply ‘the one which I follow’. Which does appear to be a little self serving.
 
goout said:
I think Christians debating with atheists are foolish, as they are usually trying to debate past incorrect assumptions and preconceived notions.
Click to expand...
I can see where you’re coming from but I still maintain atheism is unnatural. Take the case of Russia. For 70 years atheism was imposed on the people, that is long enough to make it normal or natural in that society. Yet when communism fell and freedom came back, most people chose religion. They are now as religious as they were before the communist regime.
 
jan10000 said:
I was raised a Catholic, but I am going to continually challenge and oppose those doctrines and aspects I think are false.
Click to expand...
That is fair enough. And I am going to continually defend the faith when I deem it appropriate. As long as we are respectful and know where each stands, all is well.
 
catholic03 said:
Atheists are much more likely to support abortion, contraception and other evils than Christians are.
Click to expand...
I would agree that a greater proportion of atheists might support abortion and contraception. But the numbers of Christians who support both far outweigh the number of atheists by a considerable number.
 
@Freddy

I follow the moral code of the Roman Catholic Church: not my own - but that of Christ.

@jan10000

The Salem Witch Trials and Confederate promotion of slavery have nothing to do with the Catholic Church. And you are right: people inside the Church have done wrong - not the Church itself, which is the spotless Bride of Christ. But that was then. Our Church now has the best approach to the scandal and works to prevent cover ups etc.

Apart from the idea that everyone goes to heaven, our moral codes are the same - or at least I agree with everything I quoted from you above. But I hold - differently to you - that the teachings of the Church are true and unchangeable - as reemphasised by our Holy Father.

And I think that you saying that atheists are more moral than Christians is quite disrespectful. I simply meant - in my statement - that practising Catholics support what is moral (e.g. marriage between a man and a women, total abortion ban etc) - when far less atheists do.

I have the greatest respect for you - and I hold no ill will towards you - you are created in the image and likeness of God - so please understand this.
Freddy said:
I would agree that a greater proportion of atheists might support abortion and contraception. But the numbers of Christians who support both far outweigh the number of atheists by a considerable number.
Click to expand...
Catholics who support the Church’s teaching are not in favour of either.

May God bless you both.

I bid you both good day.
 
Last edited:
Dan_Defender said:
I can see where you’re coming from but I still maintain atheism is unnatural. Take the case of Russia. For 70 years atheism was imposed on the people, that is long enough to make it normal or natural in that society. Yet when communism fell and freedom came back, most people chose religion. They are now as religious as they were before the communist regime.
Click to expand...
I agree. One would think that had it been natural - then the communists would have had success in converting everyone - alas, they didn’t.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top