L
- Status
T
tonyrey
Guest
They claim heaven is too good to be true and hell is too bad to be true, implying that mediocrity or even neutrality is the best explanation - which at least makes a change from absurdity. In either case it passes the buck and lets them off the hook! 
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
They think.
O
Oreoracle
Guest
Charley and Tony are right: We atheists are scheming schemers of schemes who fancy ourselves as gods and desire nothing more than the moral bankruptcy of humanity. Our position is completely indefensible of course, which is why we’re using all of these ad hominem attacks…oh wait, that wasn’t us, huh?
A
AntB
Guest
No sir, the book is based on metaphysics and cosmology but no mention of the star…I watched that movie because you mentioned it
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
Well, here’s the rub.
Atheism allows every individual to invent his own moral code. Some will do better than others, for sure. Unfortunately, the freedom to create one’s own moral system flies in the face of creating a morality that binds men together in a common respect for law … moral, natural, or political.
With Catholicism you are not allowed to invent your own preference for morals. So if, as in North Korea, the most atheistic nation in the world, you want to ram tyranny down everybody’s throat, there is no higher law, such as “Do unto others as you’d have them do unto you,” standing in your way. Instead, you’d have a ruler like the present one who simply orders his uncle to be executed for no good reason and without a trial and a jury.
All this also happened in Russia under the atheist Stalin and in China under the atheist Mao.
Neither Stalin nor Mao were respecters of God and the moral law. Neither was Hitler, that lying self-professed Christian who meant to destroy religion (and especially the Catholic Church) throughout his realm.
So the atheist can no more create his self professed morals than the universe could create itself.
Yes, Catholics can also scheme. But they know that sooner or later they will have to answer to a higher power for their schemes. The atheist comforts himself by assuring himself that he will never have to pay for his schemes if he can just get away with them.
O
Oreoracle
Guest
This is a red herring. Here’s an analogy for what you’re doing right now:
Doctor: The test results are back…I’m sorry, Miss, but your son has an inoperable brain tumor. There’s nothing we can do.
Parent: No, you’re wrong! He’s just a kid, he can’t die this young. I’m going to get a second opinion.
Just because a conclusion is inconvenient for you doesn’t make it irrational.
The truth is that everyone creates their own morality. We are all born atheists, and we choose a religion later. Choosing a religion = choosing a moral code. Have you ever found it to be a staggering coincidence that people always agree with their gods of choice on an overwhelming number of issues? Either we are very godlike in our opinions, or God is very humanlike in his. Heck, you’re more likely to find a god that agrees with you than a human. Imagine that!
A
Aloysium
Guest
The doctor is telling the patient his understanding of the situation. This does not make it true. It is an opinion. For the parent, the stakes are high, and every effort would have to be employed to deal with the situation. The response is also part of a process of trying to make sense of an unexpected, serious situation. IMHO, neither person is acting “irrationally”. It all makes sense.
For morality to have any meaning, it must be true. The behaviour must be seen as truly right or wrong. You can’t create a moral code; it must be realized, revealed or discovered. That you choose to act in a manner that I might choose not to is our prerogative. To be able to discuss the morality of an action, are we not appealing to something outside ourselves? The fact that you speak of what is irrational tells me that you do believe that there is an order. So when you state that “everyone creates their morality”, I hear that you do not believe there to be a right or wrong outside of our imaginings, and that thereby you are agreeing with Linus.
I have never heard it said that we are born denying the existence of a personal God.
“God” = truth and reality.
Our belief system constitutes what we believe is real; our god is what gives our lives meaning.
If we do not believe it is true, we will not agree with it. You seem to be making a circular point with the statement, “people always agree with their gods”.
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
Well, this is true, that God plants in all of us a natural law that we all are meant to conform to, whether we do or not. That is Catholic teaching. The problem with your analysis is not that it takes into account the many areas where most people might agree, but that it doesn’t take into account the areas where many people might disagree … and disagree with a vengeance. The Dictator who thinks it is O.K. to lie to the people so long as he gets his way by doing so, the Dictator who thinks it is O.K. to kill as many of his critics as he can as long as he gets his way by doing so, nine times out of ten is not appealing to divine guidance, or submitting to any law but the hateful law in his heart. He has put himself above the natural law, and by doing so has also put himself above the supernatural law.
Atheism has no claim on the natural law that is exclusive to atheism. The natural laws of ethics are as universal as they can be, but the atheist is free to disregard them and replace them with his own law, since he is free to deny that these natural laws depend on a supernatural source for their very existence. So again, the atheist is free to play God, so long as he thinks there is no real God to get in his way.
O
Oreoracle
Guest
Right, but at least it is a medical opinion. The parent has no medical reason for objecting to the doctor’s conclusion. She objects simply because the conclusion is inconvenient.
I see nothing self-contradictory about moral subjectivism. If morality is subjective, we would expect to see a world with crime, where people have disagreements, have differing priorities, and get in heated (and sometimes violent) disputes over what is right and wrong. And lo, that is precisely what we see in the world.
But I don’t expect this to satisfy you, so consider a few other questions: If morality doesn’t depend on our preferences, would moral claims still have meaning in a universe where sentient beings don’t exist? Also, if morality is objective, then we would suspect that moral truths could be deduced just like theorems in math. Could a computer be programmed to “prove” moral truths? If yes, then this “moral calculus” would have to have axioms just like any other deductive system. Would these axioms not simply be a list of your preferences?
But now your theory is unfalsifiable. If everyone agrees on morality, then you would argue for a natural law. If there is disagreement regarding morality, you still argue for natural law, but just make the excuse that people don’t follow it. You’ve created a situation where you can never be proven wrong.
I don’t know what you mean. Disagreement was the crux of my argument, actually. And in spite of this large variety of competing moral codes, everyone finds a religion that suits their preferences. Are we to believe that everyone “discovered” the correct moral law, and it just so happened to concur with the opinions they already had? No, they had the opinions already, and they just searched for a religion that agrees with their views.
T
Tomdstone
Guest
I cannot take you seriously if you continue to misstate my position.
B
Ben_Quincy
Guest
Over 1,000 posts. Thanks for participating.
- Status