Atheism more moral?

[Heliotropium]

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

I don’t know where in my responces did I say that athiests are mere animals?

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?

If your an athiest then yes your actions have no moral weight or baring. Your concern for your family or others his neither a good or evil thing. Good and Evil are spiritual things! Morals are not laws enforced on nature and this is evident since we do not apply morals to animals, plants, or the weather! Why are morals then applied to us because we can both agree that they are and that we humans are capable of both doing good and evil things? Well it is because our soul which gives us free willl is why morality applies to us! Free will is the ability to deny ourselves and our natural natures which seperates us from mere animals and our soul is our spiritual nature and it answers to God who is the moral law giver!

 

[Betterave]

My reference to the young women who died horrible early deaths, who were sanctified by the RCC, is a reference to the elevation of cruelty by* that atheist,* the Marquis de Sade (apparently–I’ve never read him and never will) with whom you appear to be obsessed. The RCC appears to be sending a message–“Look at these wonderful lives, you, young ladies, should emulate them!” I have two daughters whom I would never have exposed to the lives of these young women–The Carmelite nuns in particular, seemingly enamored of early deaths–who were martyred to the RCC. That’s what I mean by encouraging cruelty. The horrific revelations of physical and sexual abuse perpetrated by members of the RCC are also exquisite representations of cruelty wielded by abusers protected by a seemingly unassailable* religious institution. * These people. who were both men and women*, weren’t *atheists.

You point to a relationship to Hitler, Stalin, Mao in the 20th century, and imply a relationship between atheism and mass slaughter. These despots would not tolerate to opposition of religion to their domination–if it had been any other type of opposition, they wouldn’t have tolerated that, either.

But religion, when it has been in power, has done its own slaughtering–the RCC in the Middle Ages in Europe, Islam against Buddhist societies AND in the 21st century, where it may end some civilizations, if various Islamic societies get atomic weapons. True, it was harder for the RCC, way back then, murdering Albigensians and burning Jews–so inefficient–but they did it, all the same.

Um… yes; obviously you were a little bit confused about whom you were addressing here so I’ll ignore most of this. Let me just say your comparison of the crusade against the Albigensians, to Hitler, Stalin, Mao is just stupid. You need to actually read up on the relevant histories from some reputable sources. You should also read up on how the Anglo world has been subjected to a systematic polemical distortion of facts by English history writers regarding the Inquisition for hundreds of years. You can be excused for your ignorance, but try reading up on it. What a slap on the face this stupid comparison is to those who suffered under the brutality of 20th century regimes! What a stupid, groundless allegation that the Church simply lacked the efficiency of later regimes!

As for these poor women saints who were martyred to the RCC - what the horseshoe are you talking about mate? Are you at all interested in rational discussion of this, or are you going to insist of repeating the same kind of mindless, groundless invective?

 

[UnworthyApostle]

It is sad that the human mind can only contemplate so much. That is why logic and reason cannot prove one way or another with 100% certainty.Aquinas said that revelation must be added to reason to understand the world. Evidence is arbitrary, as one can see God in science and others see a purely natural reason. It just boils down to one thing, which is how humans have wanted to be God or equal with Him.

And the serpent said unto the woman, `Dying, you will not die,

God knows that in the day of your eating of it – your eyes will have been opened, and you have been as God, knowing good and evil.’

And the woman sees that the tree [is] good for food, and that it [is] pleasant to the eyes, and the tree is desirable to make [one] wise, and she takes of it’s fruit and eats… Genesis 3:2-3

That is, the human has always wanted to MAKE THEMSELVES GOD. If one does not put faith in God, bible, and church, then one puts faith in oneself, or in scientists, universities,and textbooks.
Either way is a matter of faith and a system of belief. I chose to believe in God instead of men.

 

[Leela]

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.

If it is evil to not pray, then you are doing evil right now, aren’t you? (Presumably, you can’t read messages from an atheist and pray at the same time, but I could be wrong.)

Evil does not concern only our relationship with others, but also our relationship with ourselves and with God.

Yeah, but t does concern our relationship with others, right? On that much we can agree?

Can we also agree that Jesus taught that to love others is to love God? That’s pretty basic Christian doctrine right there that you should have picked up on somewhere along the line.

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.

If there is a God, I am sure she recognizes that I am doing the best I can and is totally cool with me.

Also, I think you overestimate the capacity of bears for moral behavior.

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.

Even if I believed the threats, I could do nothing about my lack of belief. I simply don’t have the ability to force myself to believe things that I don’t already believe. If you think that you have this ability, go ahead and try making yourself believe that there are an even number of cells in your body right now. You have a head start on me since there is already a 50/50 chance that it is actually true, yet I still bet you can’t make it to 100% certainty as an act of will. Believing just doesn’t work that way.

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.

First of all, I wasn’t talking to you. And secondly, good luck with your cosmic battle. I wish you well.

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.

Yeah, yeah, Stalin was an atheist who happened to also be a horrible human being. But really, what does Stalin have to do with me and our conversation? If he believed that 2+2 = 4, would that make it false?

Best,
Leela

 

[Betterave]

If there is a God, I am sure she recognizes that I am doing the best I can and is totally cool with me.

Also, I think you overestimate the capacity of bears for moral behavior.

On your second point, I agree. On your first point, I’m curious: how is this possible? What are the grounds for your certainty? (Or was this purely a flippant remark?)

 

[StrawberryJam]

Doing the best we can, is all we can do. It’s what most of us do, or strive to.

We are all able to do the worst we can do. We choose not to most often than not.

In light of the arguments presented by believers for any harm they continue to perpetrate against humanity,

I ask that all believers get off their high horse, and get down on your knees. For if you really believe he is coming, then you better be ready yourselves.

I’m ready for judgment. If God decides I failed the ultimate test, I know and God knows why.

I hope believers take as much time to evaluate their lives and examine them as closely as those who live each day as it is a gift with no promise of anything more.

A partial God, one prone to have favorites-

Is left for you theists.

Not for me.

 

[gmcbroom]

It all boils down to one word. Faith. It was faith that healed the dying slave a centurian loved. It was faith that healed the hemorraging woman that none would go near. To those that believe in God no proof is necessary, and to those that don’t, no proof is possible. You either have faith or you don’t. If you’ve got it… great. If you don’t, you can get it if you want it. In short, while you live, it’s never too late. But once you die, all bets are off.

 

[gmcbroom]

Uh almost forgot… I didn’t answer the question. Atheism is more moral; if you were to simply use the Old Testament. If however, you go by the New Testament the NT is better. If you use both OT and NT, they’d break even. The NT is about sacrifice or to be more precise, its about the perfect sacrifice for us. Jesus Christ. There’s my answer.

 

[Leela]

Hi Dave,

Does this mean you’ve been following this discussion all along. If so, why are you leaving it to me to explain Catholic theology to Charlemagne II and others here? They don’t want to hear it from me.

Heliotropium thinks that atheists have no more capacity for moral behavior than bears. Reggie thinks that not praying is not simply the lack of doing some particular good thing but actually evil in itself (like mistreating your children). UnworthyApostle thinks I am bound for hell because I am not convinced that Jesus is the Son.

Any thoughts?

On your second point, I agree. On your first point, I’m curious: how is this possible? What are the grounds for your certainty? (Or was this purely a flippant remark?)

I am certain that I won’t be judged based on my belief that any particular sentences are true such as “God must be understood as a Trinity” or “Jesus is the Son.” My certainty comes from my belief that if there actually is an omniscient, benevolent, and omnipotent personal God, she wouldn’t be so petty as to concern herself with whether or not I was convinced that she exists. My sense of the world is that it is far more beautiful and mysterious than to be a simple test to see if I believe the right things based on insufficient evidence. I am quite certain that the universe is not God’s great multiple choice test to see if we manage to pick the right religion. That would be silly. (I am sure you see yoru Catholicism as something far richer than the silly version promoted by Charlemagne, Unworthy, and Reggie.) I don’t think of the universe as a puzzle to be solved at all. I understand people’s searches for the meaning of life–presumed to be the answer to some Ultimate Question–as rather people’s reaching for the experience of being alive. Life is not a question, it is an experience. The great spiritual masters of the world perhaps all taught one thing in common about life: be there. Be completely present to the experience of being alive. This is how I understand the notion of Eternal Life: The Kingdom of God is withing you.

Best,
Leela

 

[reggieM]

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?

Again, you’re moving the discussion from the concept to the individual - in this case, you are the individual and you’re personalizing the argument.

The topic is “atheism” - not “Leela’s belief system”. Atheism carries with it many components and that’s what we’re discussing.

… I suppose it is not evil that I am not praying right now.

The Catholic moral requirement is to pray regularly and frequently. We are also required to fulfill our duties in work and family – so, it would be wrong to pray when we have to do other tasks. In your case, if you have decided that you are going to pray later, then you will do that. When are you going to pray and worship God?
If the answer is that you are not going to pray at all, then this is the evil I’m referring to. Again, this is a violation of the Catholic moral system and atheism causes this.

Well I don’t think that. I think prayer can be good for people. Knock yourself out! I never told anyone not to pray.

Again, you’re making the discussion a personal one rather than a conceptual one.
Atheism does tell people not to pray. That’s the point. Atheism argues (and you can find it on hundreds of websites and blogs, for example) that God does not exist. Therefore, atheism argues that those who are worshipping God through prayer are doing something which is based on a falsehood.

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

Again, the discussion is not “Leela” as much as you might want it to be. If you want a discussion on something like “Let’s Talk about What Leela Believes about Life and Morality”-- then it would be best to start a discussion thread with that title. Instead, we’re talking about atheism as a topic. So, when I say “atheism is …” this does not mean “Leela believes …”, so there’s no reason to ask “what does this have to do with me”? I know little or nothing about you and I wouldn’t attempt to talk about you in this public forum in that way.

You are personifying atheism as some evil force at work in the universe.

No, on the contrary, I’m not “personifying” it. I’m talking about atheism as a “concept” – and that is the opposite of personifying it.

can’t we just have a conversation between two human beings?

Yes, definitely. We should talk about “atheism” and not seek to apply the conclusions we reach to you or any other person.

I’m not engaged in any cosmic battle between good and evil, and if I were, I would sign on for the good team.

I don’t doubt that you would sign on for the good team. Again, we’re talking about a concept – how you accept or apply it is up to you.

I’m not trying to destroy any system of morality,

That’s good to hear – but again, as repeated above … it’s not about what you’re trying to do.

We’ll disagree of course, but I see no need for either of us to call the other evil.

Can you guess what I would say here?

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.

Ok, back on topic now – we’re discussing atheism and its logical consequences - right?

 

[Leela]

Again, you’re moving the discussion from the concept to the individual - in this case, you are the individual and you’re personalizing the argument.

The topic is “atheism” - not “Leela’s belief system”. Atheism carries with it many components and that’s what we’re discussing.

The Catholic moral requirement is to pray regularly and frequently. We are also required to fulfill our duties in work and family – so, it would be wrong to pray when we have to do other tasks. In your case, if you have decided that you are going to pray later, then you will do that. When are you going to pray and worship God?
If the answer is that you are not going to pray at all, then this is the evil I’m referring to. Again, this is a violation of the Catholic moral system and atheism causes this.

Again, you’re making the discussion a personal one rather than a conceptual one.
Atheism does tell people not to pray. That’s the point. Atheism argues (and you can find it on hundreds of websites and blogs, for example) that God does not exist. Therefore, atheism argues that those who are worshipping God through prayer are doing something which is based on a falsehood.

Again, the discussion is not “Leela” as much as you might want it to be. If you want a discussion on something like “Let’s Talk about What Leela Believes about Life and Morality”-- then it would be best to start a discussion thread with that title. Instead, we’re talking about atheism as a topic. So, when I say “atheism is …” this does not mean “Leela believes …”, so there’s no reason to ask “what does this have to do with me”? I know little or nothing about you and I wouldn’t attempt to talk about you in this public forum in that way.

No, on the contrary, I’m not “personifying” it. I’m talking about atheism as a “concept” – and that is the opposite of personifying it.

Yes, definitely. We should talk about “atheism” and not seek to apply the conclusions we reach to you or any other person.

I don’t doubt that you would sign on for the good team. Again, we’re talking about a concept – how you accept or apply it is up to you.

That’s good to hear – but again, as repeated above … it’s not about what you’re trying to do.

Can you guess what I would say here?

Ok, back on topic now – we’re discussing atheism and its logical consequences - right?

I don’t know why you think that I am irrelevent to this discussion. You are making generalizations about atheism. I am offerring myself as a counter example to your claims about atheism. Your claims simply don’t hold up because I am an atheist and they don’t apply to me (and lots and lots of other atheists). Your so-called logical consequences just don’t logically follow from a simple lack of belief in God or gods.

An atheist can be more moral than someone who believes in God. A person who believs in God can be more moral than an atheist. Agreed?

Best,
Leela

 

[o_mlly]

… 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?

Ontologically, God exists or He does not. Ontologically, the earth is round or it is flat.

Just as the “flat earthers” believers didn’t fall off the edge when they sailed to the horizon, atheists are not un-loved by their Creator simply becuase they do not recognize Him. God speaks to them just as He speaks to theists. He writes His natural law on all hearts, believing and non-believing.

So, yes – the love pagans have for their children is exactly the same as the love theists have for theirs because the Source is the same.

 

[UnworthyApostle]

Now, neither I nor anyone can say who is going to be condemed. That is a grave sin of presumption. I simply have looked at the issue of non-belief logically. I am a natural skeptic who argued his way into religion. I have investigated and continue to look at how the world works. Part of this, is understanding how the mind of a human being works. In our society, the guns are turned towards religious beleifs, and many insults are thrown at us. One of these is that we are un-educated and irrational people. Well, I am educated and I am very analytical. I have just analyzed what lies behind un-belief without attacking any one indiviudal. I just look at what lies behind certain thought processes, including beleif and un-belief. I and many can trace the attack against belief back to a certain portion in history which lies more within psychological and philosophical issues than anything else. I simply am trying to understand how the world works just as the non-beleiver does. I just do it through a different set of lenses.
Now, on to the question of morality in on-beleivers. Yes, an atheist can have an idea of morality. We Catholics call that the “Natural Law”.
I refer everyone to the Dave Armstrong website for more information no the topic at hand:
socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/11/atheism-agnosticism-secularism-index.html
he has a few dialouges with non-believers on the issue of morality which are edifying.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

If it is evil to not pray, then you are doing evil right now, aren’t you? (Presumably, you can’t read messages from an atheist and pray at the same time, but I could be wrong.)

That in itself is a belief, that you can do nothing about your lack of belief. There is no proof of any such thing. All you have to do is found out why you have put up so great a wall of resistance to God. Then you can climb over it and will be home free.

If it is evil to not pray, then you are doing evil right now, aren’t you? (Presumably, you can’t read messages from an atheist and pray at the same time, but I could be wrong.)

Whew! Yikes! Zowie! :banghead:

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Leela

An atheist can be more moral than someone who believes in God. A person who believs in God can be more moral than an atheist. Agreed?

I suppose you don’t want me to answer this question because it was addressed to someone else. I suspect, however, that you have answered many questions that were not addressed specifically to you. So I’m going to do what everybody in this forum should be able to do, jump in where relevant.

The first sentence is only true for an atheist who sees no virtue in believing in God and having a personal relationship with God because God is a total fiction. For the atheist it might be allowed that the theist is engaged in a happy delusion at best, but not in a moral or virtuous act.

For the theist it is just the opposite. The theist is following the first and greatest of commandments of the living God, who is not a fiction. This God deserves our humble and loving approach to Him because He created us and loves us far more than we could ever love Him. It is therefore intrinsically evil, and the greatest of evils, to treat God as a fiction. All other evils flow from this single evil. If we all worship God and follow his commandments, there would be no evil anywhere in the world. But because we do not love Him we are prey to the demons that atheists also don’t believe in, the demons who prowl about the world seeking to devour everyone.

This is a Catholic forum. This is our belief. You don’t have to assume we are demonizing you in particular. There are probably plenty of Catholics who are not going to make it to heaven … God have mercy on us all.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

The first quote in post 273 should have been:

*Even if I believed the threats, I could do nothing about my lack of belief. *

To which my answer was:
*
That in itself is a belief, that you can do nothing about your lack of belief. There is no proof of any such thing. All you have to do is found out why you have put up so great a wall of resistance to God. Then you can climb over it and will be home free. *

Sorry about that.

I wish CA could give 30 minutes to revise posts.

 

[Leela]

Leela

An atheist can be more moral than someone who believes in God. A person who believs in God can be more moral than an atheist. Agreed?

I suppose you don’t want me to answer this question because it was addressed to someone else. I suspect, however, that you have answered many questions that were not addressed specifically to you. So I’m going to do what everybody in this forum should be able to do, jump in where relevant.

The first sentence is only true for an atheist who sees no virtue in believing in God and having a personal relationship with God because God is a total fiction. For the atheist it might be allowed that the theist is engaged in a happy delusion at best, but not in a moral or virtuous act.

For the theist it is just the opposite. The theist is following the first and greatest of commandments of the living God, who is not a fiction. This God deserves our humble and loving approach to Him because He created us and loves us far more than we could ever love Him. It is therefore intrinsically evil, and the greatest of evils, to treat God as a fiction. All other evils flow from this single evil. If we all worship God and follow his commandments, there would be no evil anywhere in the world. But because we do not love Him we are prey to the demons that atheists also don’t believe in, the demons who prowl about the world seeking to devour everyone.

This is a Catholic forum. This is our belief. You don’t have to assume we are demonizing you in particular. There are probably plenty of Catholics who are not going to make it to heaven … God have mercy on us all.

I can’t tell if you answered my question: It is a given that you think believer tend to be more moral, but…

Do you think that there are some people in the world who do not believe in God that are morally superior to some people who do believe in God?

Yes or no?

 

[Leela]

The first quote in post 273 should have been:

*Even if I believed the threats, I could do nothing about my lack of belief. *

To which my answer was:
*
That in itself is a belief, that you can do nothing about your lack of belief. There is no proof of any such thing. All you have to do is found out why you have put up so great a wall of resistance to God. Then you can climb over it and will be home free. *

Sorry about that.

I wish CA could give 30 minutes to revise posts.

But if I don’t already think that there is a God, why would I concern myself with overcoming my resistance to belief in God? Why would I think that I am actively resisting the truth if I doubt that God’s existence is a fact? I don’t think that there is any wall that needs to be climbed over. I feel like I am already free.

Best,
Leela

 

[Leela]

Now, neither I nor anyone can say who is going to be condemed. That is a grave sin of presumption. I simply have looked at the issue of non-belief logically. I am a natural skeptic who argued his way into religion. I have investigated and continue to look at how the world works. Part of this, is understanding how the mind of a human being works. In our society, the guns are turned towards religious beleifs, and many insults are thrown at us. One of these is that we are un-educated and irrational people. Well, I am educated and I am very analytical. I have just analyzed what lies behind un-belief without attacking any one indiviudal. I just look at what lies behind certain thought processes, including beleif and un-belief. I and many can trace the attack against belief back to a certain portion in history which lies more within psychological and philosophical issues than anything else. I simply am trying to understand how the world works just as the non-beleiver does. I just do it through a different set of lenses.
Now, on to the question of morality in on-beleivers. Yes, an atheist can have an idea of morality. We Catholics call that the “Natural Law”.
I refer everyone to the Dave Armstrong website for more information no the topic at hand:
socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/11/atheism-agnosticism-secularism-index.html
he has a few dialouges with non-believers on the issue of morality which are edifying.

Hi Unworthy,

I understand what you are getting at here. Lots of nonbelievers have a belief in the intellectual inferiority of believers. I recognize that a lot of smart people believe in various religions and that such people have good reasons for their beliefs. While I think that they (and you) are wrong, I don’t think that they (or you) are stupid by any means. I know that many believers have thought as deeply about belief as I have and have come to different conclusions. I don’t suppose that your belief comes from any will to not know what is true but is rather motivated by your desire to know the truth about the world and what is right conduct.

Best,
Leela

 

[reggieM]

I don’t know why you think that I am irrelevent to this discussion. You are making generalizations about atheism. I am offerring myself as a counter example to your claims about atheism. Your claims simply don’t hold up because I am an atheist and they don’t apply to me (and lots and lots of other atheists). Your so-called logical consequences just don’t logically follow from a simple lack of belief in God or gods.

An atheist can be more moral than someone who believes in God. A person who believs in God can be more moral than an atheist. Agreed?

Best,
Leela

Charlemagne offered a very good reply so I’ll only comment briefly.
First, the topic is not about you. I can’t analyze you or study you or draw conclusions about Leela. Even if I could, Leela is not the topic here.
You have offered yourself as an example of atheism, but atheism is a concept, not a person.
In philosophical discussions, we’re looking for the “consistent and logical meaning” of the proposal (in this case, atheism). So, it is judged for what it is, not how any one person lives it.

So, it’s an objective thing. Its like studying biology.
The science shows: “Smoking cigarettes causes cancer”.
A false argument against it: “I smoke cigarettes and I feel fine”.

So, you can’t offer yourself as an example since we’re discussing the concept, not Leela.

You give additional proof and understanding here:

An atheist can be more moral than someone who believes in God. A person who believs in God can be more moral than an atheist. Agreed?

There are a very large number of problems here. First, as Charlemagne points out, this is a Catholic forum. We have a defined system of morality. When you say “be more moral”, are you accepting our moral code, or some other one?

But more importantly, consider this …

You’re claiming that an atheist can be more moral than a believing Catholic. But the basis of this is that some Catholics do not live consistent with Catholic moral teaching.

So, this argument is based on the correct idea that people do not live consistently with what they profess. That’s exactly why Leela is not the topic. How consistent are you in living your moral system, and how would we know?

Instead, we say this: A person who lives consistent with Catholic morality is more moral (in the Catholic moral system) than any atheist (living consistent with atheism) is. Why? Because the Catholic is conforming to the moral code, and an atheist denies the necessity of many moral requirements that every Catholic must follow.