Atheism more moral?

[Charlemagne_II]

Leela

You don’t get to say that if someone’s ways of being religious are not good that they are not really being religious.

Oh yes, I do get to say it, because Christ said it himself.

"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but underneath are ravenous wolves. By their fruits you will know them…. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a rotten tree bear good fruit…. Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name? Did we not drive out demons in your name? Did we not do mighty deeds in your name?’ Then I will declare to them solemnly, ‘I never knew you. Depart from me, you evildoers.’” Matthew (7:15-23)

"I never knew you" says it all. That person was a Christian by name but an atheist in his heart.

There are many such atheists, even inside the Catholic Church. They are the Devil’s spawn. Judas was their grandfather. Among them are the pedophiles you mentioned above … ravenous wolves who prey upon our children. Liars and murderers all … like the so-called physicians who took an oath to heal but spend their whole lives killing babies.

 

[Leela]

Leela

You don’t get to say that if someone’s ways of being religious are not good that they are not really being religious.

Oh yes, I do get to say it, because Christ said it himself.

"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but underneath are ravenous wolves. By their fruits you will know them…. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a rotten tree bear good fruit…. Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name? Did we not drive out demons in your name? Did we not do mighty deeds in your name?’ Then I will declare to them solemnly, ‘I never knew you. Depart from me, you evildoers.’” Matthew (7:15-23)

I am surprised that you read this passage that way. To me it sounds like Jesus would rather see us do God’s will than proclaim belief in God. Jesus said that the first law is “love God” and the second, “love others,” is the same thing as the first. Jesus didn’t that we must believe in God, but rather than we must love God. Since to love God is to love others (remember also the sheep and the goats), we need not believe in God to follow God’s law.

"I never knew you" says it all. That person was a Christian by name but an atheist in his heart.

You are just using “atheist” to mean evil here. Such people who said “Lord, Lord” and did stuff in Jesus’s name were pretty much by definition religious people. What Jesus is saying is that not all ways of being religious are as good as other ways of being religious. Sheep and goats.

There are many such atheists, even inside the Catholic Church. They are the Devil’s spawn. Judas was their grandfather. Among them are the pedophiles you mentioned above … ravenous wolves who prey upon our children. Liars and murderers all … like the so-called physicians who took an oath to heal but spend their whole lives killing babies.

These are not atheists, you, first stone caster, you. They are religious people who, like all people according to the Catholic Church, are sinners. (By your “No True Catholics fallacy,” there would be no Catholics at all.) You are no different. Aquinas didn’t cease to be a Catholic when he argued for torture of heretics. He was just a misguided Catholic in that regard. Your sin here, in the eyes of Jesus, is thinking you are different. While he was especially tender with those who committed sexual sins, nothing got his goat like self-righteousness.

Best,
Leela

 

[Leela]

There were in fact Catholics who believed that torture and killing were justified because of the danger of heretics to their own souls and the souls of others. Aquinas famously argued for the morality of killing and torturing for this purpose. Not only was Aquinas considered a Christian, he is one of the most important Catholic thinkers in history. He was wrong, of course, in his theological justification for killing and torture, but it was a religious argument. Hence, all ways of being religious are not good.

Surely the motives of Aquinas for inflicting pain are not the same as the motives of the Marquis de Sade, who took pleasure in the pain he inflicted.

We are talking about an error in the way of thinking of Aquinas that is not consistent with what Christ would have taught. People must accept God freely and love him without coercion. But I can hardly put Aquinas in the same pack of wolves as those that run with the infamous Marquis de Sade.

I have no doubt that Aquinas was not motivated by any desire to be cruel. That’s not the point. The point is that being wrong about what God wants does not make someone’s act other than religiously motivated.

And why do you keep bringing up de Sade as if he is the paradigm of atheism?

 

[Leela]

That is right and it fully refutes the idea that “atheism is compatible with every moral system”. Atheism compells immorality and evil since it makes prayer impossible (or requires a logical contradiction to offer prayer).

So, atheism removes moral injunctions and is therefore evil (by Catholic standards) on that account.[/INDENT]

Are you sure you want to throw the word “evil” around for such acts as “not praying.” Presumably you are not praying right now as you read this. Are you then doing evil right now???

Even if I grant that praying is good and that atheists never pray, it doesn’t follow that atheism is evil. This would just be one sort of good that atheists are incapable of doing. Since there is no limit to how many good things there are out there for us to do, it is no problem for the goodness of an atheist to not pray since there is so much other good she can do instead.

Best,
Leela

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Leela

*And why do you keep bringing up de Sade as if he is the paradigm of atheism? *

He is only one paradigm of evil. But he was not alone in prescribing atheism as a pathway to evil. Dostoevsky also warned that if there is no God, everything is permitted. In the twentieth century alone we saw many world leaders who were atheists choosing the widest pathways possible to achieve their evil ends.

Why is this notion so difficult to grasp?

I’ve never said that all atheists choose extraordinary pathways to evil of the type chosen by Hitler, Stalin, and Mao. But they still choose the ultimate pathway to evil for themselves. By choosing to reject God, they reject their own salvation.

There is nothing more evil than that. It is beyond suicide of the body. It is suicide of the soul.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Leela

Your sin here, in the eyes of Jesus, is thinking you are different. While he was especially tender with those who committed sexual sins, nothing got his goat like self-righteousness.

I am not different. I too have sinned, and sinned greatly. But not as a wolf among the sheep. And do I detect a little self-righteousness in your remarks?

Jesus didn’t that we must believe in God, but rather than we must love God.

Leela, get a grip on your tongue. You have to believe in God before you can love Him!

Since to love God is to love others (remember also the sheep and the goats), we need not believe in God to follow God’s law.

“Everyone who acknowledges me before others I will acknowledge before my heavenly Father. But whoever denies me before others, I will deny before my heavenly Father.” Matthew 10:32-33

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

Leela, you seem to have some knowledge of Scripture, but aren’t you very selective in your use of it?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

In post # 226 you made the following remark.

*In fact, if you really believe that all atheists are bad, then it is better that you are upfront about your belief. *

This is not fair. I never said that all atheists are bad in the sense that all atheists are like the Marquis de Sade or Hitler. Many atheists are restrained from bad behavior by the fact that they own a residue of their Christian upbringing, or they are surrounded by very positive and good people who encourage them to be positive and good in their relations with others.

But in the absolute sense of bad, it’s true, every atheist is bad if he rejects God. He commits suicide against his own soul. That can’t be good.

For atheists there is no free pass to heaven, as the scripture quotes cited above clearly indicate. That isn’t me being self-righteous. That is me quoting my own Lord and hoping His mercy will cover all my sins.

 

[Heliotropium]

Atheist would deny God and thus deny the spiritual nature we are all born with. If we deny our spiritual nature then we are just left with an animal one. Now can any of you call an animal evil? Can you look at a tiger and say that tigers morals are wrong? If not then we could not do the same to another human if we take away the existence of our spiritual nature. Morality and Atheism are opposed to each other. Best attempt atheist can make for a moral society is one of communism and look how well that has turned out for humanity

 

[AntiTheist]

Morality and Atheism are opposed to each other.

You, like other posters here, are confusing two issues: one is belief in gods; the other is belief in morality.

They’re not the same, though they can be connected: for example, someone who believes in the Catholic god might decide to follow the Catholic moral system.

But this doesn’t have to be the case. Someone could believe that the Catholic god exists, but decide that he doesn’t care for the Catholic moral system, or at least certain parts of it (rules against contraception are an obvious example).

Further, I know that there are Christians who consider themselves followers of the Kantian moral system or the utilitarian system or any other kinds of moral systems.

So one’s belief in a god is not necessarily linked to moral opinions in all cases.

Atheism is utterly unconnected to moral systems. One who doesn’t believe in gods is still free to adopt any number of moral systems, with the exception of moral systems that define morality as the adherence to belief in gods – but since the topic under discussion is actions, such as historical atrocities, this is an irreleant point.

Now I happen to be a moral nihilist – I don’t think that morality has any objective existence except in our heads as a construct of human thought and society. I know other atheists who are moral realists, who are Kantians, who are utilitarians, who are error theorists, who have all kinds of positions on moral questions.

The kind of thinking going on in this thread is incredibly sloppy and is, I think, indicative of the kinds of thinking that lead people to conclude that an invisible magic man is in charge of everything.

 

[reggieM]

Are you sure you want to throw the word “evil” around for such acts as “not praying.” Presumably you are not praying right now as you read this. Are you then doing evil right now???

I’ll just restate the points that were raised previously:

1. ‘compatible with every moral system’ – that has been refuted
2. ‘does not remove any moral norms’ – refuted as well

Now you’re wondering about the nature of moral acts and the responsibility that flows from the Catholic moral system. It’s good that you’re asking about these things, and it’s a very good idea for anyone who is arguing against Catholicism, on a Catholic forum, to know about Catholic morality; what it means, what its requirements are, where it comes from, what the consequences are and even what the meaning of the terms it uses are.

Even if I grant that praying is good and that atheists never pray, it doesn’t follow that atheism is evil. This would just be one sort of good that atheists are incapable of doing.

We have the moral requirement, for example, to provide care and support for our children. That is a good action. Now, there are some people who do not choose to do this good action. But they do other good things, so would make neglect of their children to be not an evil thing?

Atheism as a concept, positively teaches the evil concept that one should not pray to God (or that worship has no value or meaning). It teaches that we cannot thank God for His kindness and gifts to us, etc.

This is the evil that has occurred on a very wide scale in atheistic regimes where believers have been killed for attempting to worship God.

But even where atheism is not imposed by force, atheistic teaching argues against the serious moral requirement for us to honor, worship and pray to God, for ourselves and for others who are in need.

So again, from the Catholic perspective this is evil. Atheism is a concept that destroys the possibility of prayer to God. So it’s not just a matter of having atheists who don’t pray, but its that this moral requirement is eliminated.

The point here is not whether you agree with Catholic moral norms or not, but that atheism destroys the Catholic system of morality. Atheism is not a neutral value (from our perspective) but has many evil consequences.

(I am not saying that atheists deliberately intend to do evil either – I’m talking about atheism as a concept, not individual atheists).

 

[AntiTheist]

I’ll just restate the points that were raised previously:

1. ‘compatible with every moral system’ – that has been refuted
2. ‘does not remove any moral norms’ – refuted as well

It’s also been established that when I said “moral system” I was talking about moral beliefs about actions, not beliefs or prayers.

Atheism as a concept, positively teaches the evil concept that one should not pray to God (or that worship has no value or meaning).

No it doesn’t. Where are you getting this from? In the first place, atheism doesn’t teach anything, least of all what people should or should not do, which includes praying.

As an atheist, I’m fine with people being allowed to pray – I think it’s a right that they should have. Further, I do think that worship has value and meaning to the people who engage in worship. I just don’t think that those people are correct about their beliefs.

See, here’s the problem. You’re confused as to what atheism actually is. You seem to think it’s some kind of belief or philosophical school with “teachings.” It’s not. It’s a word we use to label people who don’t have a belief in gods – they can have all kinds of other beliefs, including the belief that other people should have the right to believe whatever they like.

atheism destroys the Catholic system of morality.

It doesn’t. It doesn’t “destroy” any moral system or have anything to say about morality, unless your idea of morality is entirely bound up in what you believe instead of what you do.

Atheism is not a neutral value (from our perspective) but has many evil consequences.

Ok. I’ll grant that if you think not believing in gods is evil, then the position of not believing in gods (which is what atheism is) is tautologically “evil.”

But for those people with realistic definitions of “evil” that pertain to action, you’re talking a whole lot of nonsense here.

What a shameful thread this has turned into.

 

[Heliotropium]

You, like other posters here, are confusing two issues: one is belief in gods; the other is belief in morality.

They’re not the same, though they can be connected: for example, someone who believes in the Catholic god might decide to follow the Catholic moral system.

But this doesn’t have to be the case. Someone could believe that the Catholic god exists, but decide that he doesn’t care for the Catholic moral system, or at least certain parts of it (rules against contraception are an obvious example).

Further, I know that there are Christians who consider themselves followers of the Kantian moral system or the utilitarian system or any other kinds of moral systems.

So one’s belief in a god is not necessarily linked to moral opinions in all cases.

Atheism is utterly unconnected to moral systems. One who doesn’t believe in gods is still free to adopt any number of moral systems, with the exception of moral systems that define morality as the adherence to belief in gods – but since the topic under discussion is actions, such as historical atrocities, this is an irreleant point.

Now I happen to be a moral nihilist – I don’t think that morality has any objective existence except in our heads as a construct of human thought and society. I know other atheists who are moral realists, who are Kantians, who are utilitarians, who are error theorists, who have all kinds of positions on moral questions.

The kind of thinking going on in this thread is incredibly sloppy and is, I think, indicative of the kinds of thinking that lead people to conclude that an invisible magic man is in charge of everything.

No my friend you misunderstand me. If you do not believe in a God then there is no need for morality. In fact if you look for a moral code and you are an atheist then you are a walking contradiction since good and evil would not exist if God does not exist. Once again by being an atheist you deny God and therefore the existence of a spiritual nature therefore the only laws you are bound by are the natural laws Last time I checked natural laws do not involve morality. I lion that eats its young is not an evil lion get it? Humans with out God if they were to do anything could not be said to do anything good or evil…wrong or right. As the lion is just being a lion so a human would just be being a human.

 

[Leela]

Leela, get a grip on your tongue. You have to believe in God before you can love Him!

I think this is a poor interpretation of the gospels.

The parable of the sheep and the goats directly contradicts your claim:

'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? etc, etc. To which it seems entirely reasonble to add, “How could I have done these things for you when, in fact, I was pretty doubtful that you even existed?”
The King answerd, “I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.”

One does not need to believe in God to love God when Jesus teaches that to love others is what it means to love God.

Since to love God is to love others (remember also the sheep and the goats), we need not believe in God to follow God’s law.

“Everyone who acknowledges me before others I will acknowledge before my heavenly Father. But whoever denies me before others, I will deny before my heavenly Father.” Matthew 10:32-33

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

These verses directly contradict your previous reference: “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven.” Apparently not everyone who acknowledges him before others, believes, and is baptized will be saved.

The gospel writers were clearly of two minds about the requirements for salvation.

Leela, you seem to have some knowledge of Scripture, but aren’t you very selective in your use of it?

One has to be. The Bible isn’t going to interpret itself you know.

“Both read the Bible day and night, but thou read black where I read white.”
William Blake

 

[UnworthyApostle]

Hmm. don’t use the b-word. It is a bad word.

John 3:18
He that believeth in him is not judged. But he that doth not believe, is already judged: because he believeth not in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

John 6:29
Jesus answered, and said to them: This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he hath sent.

John 12:44
But Jesus cried, and said: He that believeth in me, doth not believe in me, but in him that sent me.

I can multiply the examples from the bible. Belief and faith are needed to know God.

Now, as to the question of morality.
I will let Professor Alan Bloom ‘The Closing of the American Mind’ speak:

"It is the rarest of occurrences to find a youngster who has been infused by this [liberal arts] education with a longing to know all about China or the Romans or the Jews.

All to the contrary. There is an indifference to such things, for relativism has extinguished the real motive of education, the search for the good life…

…out there in the rest of the world is a drab diversity that teaches only that values are relative, whereas here we can create all the life-styles we want. Our openness means we do not need others. Thus what is advertised as a great opening is a great closing. No longer is there a hope that there are great wise men in other places and times who can reveal the truth about life…"

“History and the study of cultures do not teach or prove that values or cultures are relative … the fact that there have been different opinions about good and bad in different times and places in no way proves that none is true or superior to others. To say that it does so prove is as absurd as to say that the diversity of points of view expressed in a college bull session proves there is no truth … the natural reaction is to try to resolve the difference, to examine the claims and reasons for each opinion.”

It just falls upon the postmodern mindset of the worship of the indicidual. It is all about me,me,me to the person with a typical postmodern mindset. Nietchze said that the individual was the epitome of existence. It is the worship of self that has created the atmosphere we live in. We outdo the ancient pagans in the number of idols. Instead of woshiping an idol of silver and gold, people now worship idols of flesh and blood, their intellecst. Consequently, there are millions upon millions of idols being setup when one comes to worship themselves. Thus, those who are told to put hope in something bigger than themselves, they get extremely uncomfortable,due to having faith only within their ‘self’

An finally, as Dostoyevsky so famously put it, “Without God, everything is permitted.”

aish.com/sp/ph/48959701.html

 

[Leela]

Atheist would deny God and thus deny the spiritual nature we are all born with. If we deny our spiritual nature then we are just left with an animal one. Now can any of you call an animal evil? Can you look at a tiger and say that tigers morals are wrong? If not then we could not do the same to another human if we take away the existence of our spiritual nature. Morality and Atheism are opposed to each other. Best attempt atheist can make for a moral society is one of communism and look how well that has turned out for humanity

I don’t know where you get off saying such things. Atheists are not mere animals. Your view is not the Catholic view.

Is my concern for others not moral because I do not believe in God? Is my love for my children and the love that Hindus and Muslims and Pagans and Jews and Buddhists have for their children not the same sort of thing as the love you have for yours? What makes you think you’ve cornered the market on love?

 

[Leela]

Hmm. don’t use the b-word. It is a bad word.

John 3:18
He that believeth in him is not judged. But he that doth not believe, is already judged: because he believeth not in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

The Catholic Church teaches that one who has never heard the name of the only begotten Son may still be saved. So your interpretation here is not correct even by Catholic standards.

John 6:29
Jesus answered, and said to them: This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he hath sent.

That’s it? That’s the whole thing? The work of God is to get us to simply believe that certain facts are true? The universe is just one big multiple choice test to see if we can pick the right religion? I doubt it.

God could get me to believe anything he wanted, couldn’t he? God in his omniscience knows exactly what sort of evidence that would convince me but chooses not to offer it. Let’s assume he has his reasons which are none of your concern and that faith is simply a gift I have not yet received.

John 12:44
But Jesus cried, and said: He that believeth in me, doth not believe in me, but in him that sent me.

I can multiply the examples from the bible. Belief and faith are needed to know God.

Sure, but like this last one that says that anyone who believes in Jesus does not actually believe in Jesus can be taken different ways or be answered by some other example that contradicts the notion that belief rather than love is what it is all about. I’m going to stick with love and let belief take care of itself since I can’t force myself to believe what doesn’t seem true to me.

Now, as to the question of morality.
I will let Professor Alan Bloom ‘The Closing of the American Mind’ speak:

"It is the rarest of occurrences to find a youngster who has been infused by this [liberal arts] education with a longing to know all about China or the Romans or the Jews.

All to the contrary. There is an indifference to such things, for relativism has extinguished the real motive of education, the search for the good life…

…out there in the rest of the world is a drab diversity that teaches only that values are relative, whereas here we can create all the life-styles we want. Our openness means we do not need others. Thus what is advertised as a great opening is a great closing. No longer is there a hope that there are great wise men in other places and times who can reveal the truth about life…"

“History and the study of cultures do not teach or prove that values or cultures are relative … the fact that there have been different opinions about good and bad in different times and places in no way proves that none is true or superior to others. To say that it does so prove is as absurd as to say that the diversity of points of view expressed in a college bull session proves there is no truth … the natural reaction is to try to resolve the difference, to examine the claims and reasons for each opinion.”

It just falls upon the postmodern mindset of the worship of the indicidual. It is all about me,me,me to the person with a typical postmodern mindset. Nietchze said that the individual was the epitome of existence. It is the worship of self that has created the atmosphere we live in. We outdo the ancient pagans in the number of idols. Instead of woshiping an idol of silver and gold, people now worship idols of flesh and blood, their intellecst. Consequently, there are millions upon millions of idols being setup when one comes to worship themselves. Thus, those who are told to put hope in something bigger than themselves, they get extremely uncomfortable,due to having faith only within their ‘self’

An finally, as Dostoyevsky so famously put it, “Without God, everything is permitted.”

aish.com/sp/ph/48959701.html

I don’t know what this stuff has to do with anything. Can you explain?

Best,
Leela

 

[Leela]

We have the moral requirement, for example, to provide care and support for our children. That is a good action. Now, there are some people who do not choose to do this good action. But they do other good things, so would make neglect of their children to be not an evil thing?

Just as it is not immoral to not take care of my children if I have no children, how could it be evil to not pray of I do not believe in God? Is it evil that you are not praying right now? If not, I suppose it is not evil that I am not praying right now.

Atheism as a concept, positively teaches the evil concept that one should not pray to God (or that worship has no value or meaning). It teaches that we cannot thank God for His kindness and gifts to us, etc.

Well I don’t think that. I think prayer can be good for people. Knock yourself out! I never told anyone not to pray. I don;t think that you are going to heal any sick people or heal any amputees by praying, but I think prayer may have other psychological benefits for the one who prays.

This is the evil that has occurred on a very wide scale in atheistic regimes where believers have been killed for attempting to worship God.

Stalin again? What does this have to do with me any more than the Inquisition has to do with you?

But even where atheism is not imposed by force, atheistic teaching argues against the serious moral requirement for us to honor, worship and pray to God, for ourselves and for others who are in need.

So again, from the Catholic perspective this is evil. Atheism is a concept that destroys the possibility of prayer to God. So it’s not just a matter of having atheists who don’t pray, but its that this moral requirement is eliminated.

You are personifying atheism as some evil force at work in the universe. can’t we just have a conversation between two human beings? I’m not engaged in any cosmic battle between good and evil, and if I were, I would sign on for the good team.

The point here is not whether you agree with Catholic moral norms or not, but that atheism destroys the Catholic system of morality. Atheism is not a neutral value (from our perspective) but has many evil consequences.

I’m not trying to destroy any system of morality, though I have some suggestions about improvements that ought to made. We’ll disagree of course, but I see no need for either of us to call the other evil. Despite some misguided moral views, I know that like me, you are trying as best you can to understand what is right and to do what is right. No need to demonize.

Best,
Leela

 

[UnworthyApostle]

Well, first off with the bible.

I do concede that the church does teach one can be saved without ever hearing the gospel or about God.

Now, that is true for the MOST extreme cases. If you have never heard of God in today’s world of information at a click, you are either a tribesmen or live in total isloation from the rest of society.

So, I shoud have been clearer that it I meant ‘normal’ circumstances of someone living in an industrialized country.

If the prerequisites are present for the latter mentioned circumstances, a choice of free will is involved in not believing. In the context of the bible verses I provided, Jesus performed miracles in front of crowds . His existence thus was known. The same can be said for industrialized countries, becuase there are churches and beleivers in those countries to provide the testimony of Christ. As it is written:
…and you shall be witnesses unto me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and Samaria, and even to the uttermost part of the earth. Acts 1:8
There are witnesses in plenty in most industrialized countries,
and now for the second part,
I provided that infromation to show that there is an underlying search for the truth within mankind,thus morality included, and to show the undercurrent of the non-believers mindset.
To say, that things differ, does not mean that one of those options is not right. Just as the analogy to the differing viewpoints in the classroom shows.
I say that the non-beliver has fallen into idolatry of the individual intellect.

You show exactly what I am talking about.
“It is all about me,me,me to the person with a typical postmodern mindset. Nietchze said that the individual was the epitome of existence. It is the worship of self that has created the atmosphere we live in.”-Myself
“I can’t force myself to believe what doesn’t seem true to me.”
…blessed are they that have not seen, and have believed.John 20:29
I am just exposing the underbelly of the postmodern-secular worldveiw.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

AntiTheist

One who doesn’t believe in gods is still free to adopt any number of moral systems…

And is also free to adopt no moral system or to adopt a wicked moral system. The Christian has no such freedom. You may think of such atheistic freedom as a virtue, but that just shows how pathetic the notion of freedom has become for atheists.

We who are Christians are slaves to the truth, willingly accept the food God serves us for our nourishment, and will not exchange it for slop served in the atheistic moral or immoral or amoral cafeteria.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Leela

Just as it is not immoral to not take care of my children if I have no children, how could it be evil to not pray of I do not believe in God?

You cannot see the evil because you don’t care about God. But that is your evil choice, to deny God’s existence, and to deny the relationship you must have with Him through prayer. Evil does not concern only our relationship with others, but also our relationship with ourselves and with God. You want to think that it only counts in our relationship with others. That’s an animal morality, a morality that is on a very low level indeed. Even mother bears love their cubs. God holds man to a higher standard.

Again, you seem to be laboring under the impression that you get a free pass for not believing in God. In your own mind you have assured yourself that this is so. But the scriptural warnings are plentiful.

You are personifying atheism as some evil force at work in the universe. can’t we just have a conversation between two human beings? I’m not engaged in any cosmic battle between good and evil, and if I were, I would sign on for the good team.

No. You are at a Catholic website. You don’t get to tell us that we must ignore our belief in the cosmic battle between good and evil so that we can chat idly about atheistic and humanistic (animal) morality.

Stalin again? What does this have to do with me any more than the Inquisition has to do with you?

Because Stalin was an atheist. As I said above, atheism can accompany no morality at all or it can accompany a wicked morality. Christianity cannot accompany either. The Inquisition was not preached by Jesus. If anything, he preached against it. But Stalin certainly preached and practiced his own Inquisition, and millions perished.