Atheists, Work With Us for Peace, Pope Says on Christmas

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
One definition of an atheist is someone who knows with certainty that there is no God. That is the one I find the most succinct and distinctive. Among atheists, is this acceptable? Perhaps they would prefer something else. It has been my experience that many who call themselves atheists are agnostics who simply are not sure.
 
Let us define 'atheist" in two ways: 1.) Those who simply do not believe in God, and 2.) Those who do not believe in God and want everyone else to follow their non-belief.
The Atheists I know on a secular forum I frequent belong to category #2. You are right that they are bound and determined to bury God. And Christians. There definition of “peace” is everyone thinking like them. If they cannot convince you to do so, you are to be marginalized.
 
DaddyGirl:
Quote:

Originally Posted by gilliam

“Peace is a daily commitment. It is a homemade peace,” he said.
He said that people of other religions were also praying for peace, and - departing from his prepared text - he urged atheists to join forces with believers.
“I invite even non-believers to desire peace. (Join us) with your desire, a desire that widens the heart. Let us all unite, either with prayer or with desire, but everyone, for peace,” he said, drawing sustained applause from the crowd.

nytimes.com/reuters/2013/…christmas.html

I trust he knows that most atheists are very peace-oriented, and their motives, desires and actions are often moved in this direction.
It’s one of the reasons they often become atheists in the first place, actually–because they don’t like how many come to violence because of religious differences.

Just because someone does not believe in a deity, it doesn’t mean they do not want peace and love among their fellow brothers and sisters…and I’m sure Pope Francis knows this…so good on him!
Merry Christmas, Pope Francis!

.
How could you possibly know what most atheists are or are not? You don’t know most atheists; there are millions.

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android
 
40.png
MarcoPolo:
Quote:

Originally Posted by DaddyGirl

of the thousands of atheists I have met, their belief in what is right/wrong is not “pretend” and they don’t have a “fictional reality”

That’s a really impressive number. With your Hitler comment, are you saying that belief in God induces violence more than atheism? Or is that just a random, anecdotal comment on your part?
It is made up, unsurprisingly.

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android
 
The Atheists I know on a secular forum I frequent belong to category #2. You are right that they are bound and determined to bury God. And Christians. There definition of “peace” is everyone thinking like them. If they cannot convince you to do so, you are to be marginalized.
Let me guess----they’re not so sure about attacking Islam? 🤷
 
I’m an atheist, too. But I maintain good relations with people of all faith, whether they are Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, Wiccan or a member of Scientology. Its part of my job, too since I work in the healthcare field. Richard Dawkins is just a thorn in the atheist movement. His tone is more of hostility towards believers which I can’t fathom. If he is mad at them, why should he go to the extent of condemning these people. Why be angry at something that you don’t believe in the first place. He allowed his emotions to control him rather than his intellect. I’ve read his books and they don’t dwell much on the scientific side.
People who argue on emotions act irrationally.

Some people seem to like being atheists so they can bash religion, namely Christianity which is safe to do in the West.
 
I’m an atheist, too. But I maintain good relations with people of all faith, whether they are Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, Wiccan or a member of Scientology. Its part of my job, too since I work in the healthcare field. Richard Dawkins is just a thorn in the atheist movement. His tone is more of hostility towards believers which I can’t fathom. If he is mad at them, why should he go to the extent of condemning these people. Why be angry at something that you don’t believe in the first place. He allowed his emotions to control him rather than his intellect. I’ve read his books and they don’t dwell much on the scientific side.
So what lead you to revert to atheism? Important to know if we’re to work together for peace.

And, being an atheist, how do you decide what Dawkins is doing is wrong and what you’re doing is right? What is your barometer for right/wrong (and, therefore) peace?
 
Morality for us (I’m not referring to all atheists) is based on avoiding any kind of actions that will directly or indirectly harm others. Mr Dawkins shameless antics is only hurting our cause especially for moderates. As to why I turned to this belief, its a very long story and a bit of personal journey which I prefer to keep private at the moment.
 
Morality for us (I’m not referring to all atheists) is based on avoiding any kind of actions that will directly or indirectly harm others.
That’s interesting. Why, may I ask does it matter if we harm others or not? Would you say human persons have an inherent dignity?
 
Absolutely yes. Humans have a big role to play. With regards to peace among believers and atheists, I think that there should be mutual respect with each other. Sadly, that’s not the case with Islam (I won’t elaborate further since everyone knows what they’ve been doing to others who don’t subscribe to their beliefs). Richard Dawkins, et al, are self-professed leaders of the movement but his stand is more confrontational which had alienated several atheists. I don’t follow his path. I’d rather follow atheists who had made a mark for themselves by doing their jobs well and steering clear from attacking other groups (there are a lot of them in the scientific field).
 
I trust he knows that most atheists are very peace-oriented, and their motives, desires and actions are often moved in this direction.
It’s one of the reasons they often become atheists in the first place, actually–because they don’t like how many come to violence because of religious differences.

Just because someone does not believe in a deity, it doesn’t mean they do not want peace and love among their fellow brothers and sisters…and I’m sure Pope Francis knows this…so good on him!
Merry Christmas, Pope Francis!

.
Interesting; I compare my experience of atheists with your account, and my experience has been different: most atheists are like anybody else: willing to be confrontative, argumentative, and perhaps even more than most willing to stick out like a sore thumb or be expressive of individuality.

Not sayin’ , just sayin’ YMMV
 
Absolutely yes. Humans have a big role to play.
Do humans only have dignity because they have a “big role” to play? Or is there something about human nature that deserves to be treated without harm?
 
Peace is the ultimate goal, right? But an atheist has yet to tell me why without it being opinion. I’ve not been able to get a much specifics. Just “peace.”

Why don’t we all just get along? Agree to disagree? Because it’s impossible. There will never be “peace on earth” the sense that there will be 0% sadness, hate, fighting, marginalizing, wealth gaps etc.

With free-will, there is no peace. Your peace is not my peace (usually because I want your piece for my piece).
 
Here’s a little something from a “peace” loving atheist:
I grew up amongst catholics.
There is really not much to them worth knowing about.
Once I have built my Reich these people will be punished.
I’m sorry to put a quote like this here, but Catholics in particular and Christians in general must be made aware of what is happening and how others are thinking. The above opinion is not an isolated one.
 
Peace is the ultimate goal, right? But an atheist has yet to tell me why without it being opinion. I’ve not been able to get a much specifics. Just “peace.”

Why don’t we all just get along? Agree to disagree? Because it’s impossible. There will never be “peace on earth” the sense that there will be 0% sadness, hate, fighting, marginalizing, wealth gaps etc.

With free-will, there is no peace. Your peace is not my peace (usually because I want your piece for my piece).
From what I understand about Catholic morality and natural law, much of what the Church believes in terms of good behavior vs bad behavior can be arrived at through rational means.
It is not just a matter of faith. It is a matter of reason.
For certain our arguments with the secular minded leftists on issues such as marriage and abortion give St Augustine’s ultimate pessimism on the corruptibility of the will great grounds, the better and most rational argument for morality is invariably the Catholic one.
 
Do humans only have dignity because they have a “big role” to play? Or is there something about human nature that deserves to be treated without harm?
Dignity is a trait that everyone should strive to build. I believe no one was born to be bad. Evil deeds are the product of several factors (family upbringing, environment, etc). Regarding dealing with human nature, everyone deserves to be treated in a humane way.
 
Of course he was. But he did not practice what Christ taught. He did not practice what the Catholic Church teaches.
Or maybe he did. Hitler was raised in a pre-vatican 2 catholicism based in Europe. In those days there were a lot of anti-semitic inuendos taught. Now we can say he didn’t practice the core of Catholic teaching but that doesn’t mean that he didn’t hear things that didn’t excuse his hatred. The Church didn’t say it was ok to murder them but he found what he needed to fuel his hatred. If anything his catholic upbringing did nothing to quell whatever anti-semitism he had brewing in him.

Also I would be careful in saying that Stalin or Mao are examples of what atheists do when they are in power. With people like that atheism is a means to an end in order to rule with complete dictatorial rule.
There is no God. Everything is there because of chance. So we must do good things? What is good anyway? There are NO OUGHTS. A sadist can molest, a humanitarian can feed, etc. The person is a slave to her passions.
That is not true there is much you can say to an atheist without bringing in the formal teaching of god. I for example try to be good not because I fear anything but because I believe philosophically it is the right and correct thing to do. With an atheist you have to come at them from a logical and philosophical point of you. There are plenty of texts and articles and writings where good acts can be rationalized without using fear of an almighty being.
 
Or maybe he did. Hitler was raised in a pre-vatican 2 catholicism based in Europe. In those days there were a lot of anti-semitic inuendos taught. Now we can say he didn’t practice the core of Catholic teaching but that doesn’t mean that he didn’t hear things that didn’t excuse his hatred. The Church didn’t say it was ok to murder them but he found what he needed to fuel his hatred. If anything his catholic upbringing did nothing to quell whatever anti-semitism he had brewing in him.
Certainly what Hitler did in many ways led to the need for Vatican II in order to repent from the kind of attitudes that led to the extermination of European Jewry. It is one thing to note that anti-semitism has no part in the Magesterium of the Church, which is of the Holy Spirit. But to not acknowledge the role of antisemitism in Catholicism as it has been practiced by many Europeans both from the pews and from the pulpits over the centuries is to engage in revisionist history too.
That being said, Hitler was not acting as a Catholic, but his was a thoroughly secular understanding of Germanies role,based in the science of the day rather than what this modernist German considered to be the progressive superiority of the Germans based in their very genes.
David Berlinski points out that it was Darwinism that made Hitler possible. The argument for extermination is a genetic one. For Catholics, the hatred was not directed against who Jews were, but against what Jews believed.
Also I would be careful in saying that Stalin or Mao are examples of what atheists do when they are in power. With people like that atheism is a means to an end in order to rule with complete dictatorial rule.
There is nothing in the ideology of Marxism that would serve in any way to constrain a Stalin or a Mao, or the hordes of other petty dictators that have looked to either fascism or Marxism as a model for their own countries in this last century and a half of the rise of the secular point of view as the dominant ideology of the world.
That is not true there is much you can say to an atheist without bringing in the formal teaching of god.
Yes.
That is my understanding of the Catholic belief in natural law and the rational nature of the moral universe as well.
I for example try to be good not because I fear anything but because I believe philosophically it is the right and correct thing to do. With an atheist you have to come at them from a logical and philosophical point of you. There are plenty of texts and articles and writings where good acts can be rationalized without using fear of an almighty being.
While this is true, I think it is a Talmudic saying that notes that it is the fear of God, rather than wisdom, that is the more instrumental protector of the moral order.

I do take that saying with a grain of salt however. it is certainly true about sexual behavior, but in terms of crime where the harm is much more discernible, the countries of the secularized West at any rate are become less inclined to crimes of violence over the years, in spite of the loss of belief in God and the even greater loss in belief in Hell.

Atheist may well have rejected the Judeo-Christian code on sexual behavior, but they have not by and large rejected the ethical code and humanitarianism that have developed out of the Judeo-Christian traditions.

The warped and evil excesses of godless Marxism and neo-pagan Fascism have been by and large rejected by most of the atheists that are likely to meet in the West at any rate.
 
new atheist;11558486]Morality for us (I’m not referring to all atheists) is based on avoiding any kind of actions that will directly or indirectly harm others.
Problem is that those are not so obvious. People say a lot of times that so-called “gay marriage” isn’t harmful despite evidence to the contrary. The phrase “how does it affect you” is also used against folks as they are sued for refusing service, something which any business owner should have the right to do for any reason.

Another biggie is pornography. Folks really ought to listen to some of the former actresses testify about that; it’s a far cry from the feminist excuse that it’s just a “choice”. Same can be said for prostitution, and guess what? Some people in the USA actually want nuns to pay for their contraception. :rolleyes:
 
Regarding dealing with human nature, everyone deserves to be treated in a humane way.
Right, but my question remains. From an atheistic perspective, what about human nature warrants humane treatment?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top