Do the Atheists have it right: Just Be Good for Goodness' Sake?

  • Thread starter Thread starter PRmerger
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Fran65 said:
You (dameedna) think that the only way you hurt others is by choosing to?

I would laugh, only, that’s not funny.
Click to expand...
to an extent tho, its true.
when you do something with the intention of hurting others, thats choosing to hurt others. if someone is offended, or “hurt” because of beliefs you hold (or dont hold) or because you offend their sensibilities, well, thats really more their problem, and not anything you have done, because an argument can be made both ways that two groups are always trying to hurt each other, simply by existing and holding different beliefs.
 
williamric said:
Well you say lets presume He exists but then in the rest of your reply you forget that assumption 😛
Click to expand...
No I do not. I made a very clear statment and I’ll make it again.

There is god, which we will presume for aguments sake exists. And then there are those that “claim” there is a God".

Two distinct things.
As I said earlier I am not trying to build an objective case from Catholic morality, I am trying to demonstrate that taken in the context of the Catholic worldview, the morality is consistent
Click to expand...
No you didnt say that. If you want to attempt to create a “consistant” argument for catholicism that is a different thread.

Sorry, but I think you are changing course, because you have no answer to what I’ve said.

Cheers
 
Fran65 said:
Nothing wrong with trying to be good.

Those who try to be good should be applauded.

But why do those who are atheist insist on trying to argue those who are not out of faith?
Click to expand...
Hi Fran,

My understanding of this thread is that it is not concerned with the truth or falsehood of atheist or theist positions on God. The question is about what morality means for those who do not believe in God.

But to answer your question, atheist’s are often concerned about believer’s faith because they find the consequences of many believer’s beliefs to be bad. It is about conflicting views on morality rather than about amorality versus morality as it is characterized by many believers.

Best,
Leela
 
PRmerger said:
Yup. And what is society except a bunch of individuals like myself? What gives a bunch of individuals the power to decide what’s moral or not?

What gives them more superiority collectively than individually?
Click to expand...
nothing in fact it was collectively that the atrocities were committed.

no matter what atheists like dameena, mega, or logos say, we have lots of actual historical evidence of the moral behavior of an atheistic model in practical application.

they are desperately blowing smoke to avoid the fact that the world has already experimented many times, in just the last century, with their proposed model of morality or ethics.

and in every case, atheistic regimes have become genocidal, tyrannical, mass murderers. nazis, soviets, chinese, vietnamese, pol pot… the list goes on and on.

so no matter what words are said, the deal is already done, we know what happens with applied atheism, they kill folks.

their reply?
  1. something was wrong with those atheists, that is not wrong with us.
since those people were just as smart, educated, and desiring to be moral as any current atheists. i find it hard to believe. people are people. current atheist have no logical claim to being better than the people who participated in these regimes.
  1. atheism or atheistic morality had nothing to do with those atrocities
since the atrocities were committed by extremely disparate groups separated by language, culture, politics, ethnicity, and geography, whose only link was that atheism, either official, or implied. i find that hard to believe also.

when trying to solve a murder, detectives, look for factors that victims had in common, did they all know the same person? did they belong to the same clubs?, did they work in the same area?

so that answer doesnt hold much water, when you find mass murder, all too often the victims all knew the atheist.

history is proof that these posters are wrong, we dont need further evidence than history.

applied atheism kills.
 
warpspeedpetey said:
nothing in fact it was collectively that the atrocities were committed.

no matter what atheists like dameena, mega, or logos say, we have lots of actual historical evidence of the moral behavior of an atheistic model in practical application.

they are desperately blowing smoke to avoid the fact that the world has already experimented many times, in just the last century, with their proposed model of morality or ethics.

and in every case, atheistic regimes have become genocidal, tyrannical, mass murderers. nazis, soviets, chinese, vietnamese, pol pot… the list goes on and on.

so no matter what words are said, the deal is already done, we know what happens with applied atheism, they kill folks.

their reply?
  1. something was wrong with those atheists, that is not wrong with us.
since those people were just as smart, educated, and desiring to be moral as any current atheists. i find it hard to believe. people are people. current atheist have no logical claim to being better than the people who participated in these regimes.
  1. atheism or atheistic morality had nothing to do with those atrocities
since the atrocities were committed by extremely disparate groups separated by language, culture, politics, ethnicity, and geography, whose only link was that atheism, either official, or implied. i find that hard to believe also.

when trying to solve a murder, detectives, look for factors that victims had in common, did they all know the same person? did they belong to the same clubs?, did they work in the same area?

so that answer doesnt hold much water, when you find mass murder, all too often the victims all knew the atheist.

history is proof that these posters are wrong, we dont need further evidence than history.

applied atheism kills.
Click to expand...
everything you listed applies to the roman catholic church at some point or another.
 
iamme said:
everything you listed applies to the roman catholic church at some point or another.
Click to expand...
In one sense, what you claim is correct. Thus, we all ought not throw stones.

On the other hand, the Church has never ever been able to enforce its doctrine of Love One Another in a society, so we have no example of what this type of society would look like. We do, however, have many, many examples of what happens when atheistic regimes are able to enforce its doctrine–the result: mass murder/genocide.
 
PRmerger said:
In one sense, what you claim is correct. Thus, we all ought not throw stones.

On the other hand, the Church has never ever been able to enforce its doctrine of Love One Another in a society, so we have no example of what this type of society would look like. We do, however, have many, many examples of what happens when atheistic regimes are able to enforce its doctrine–the result: mass murder/genocide.
Click to expand...
this church hasnt had that chance, but the middle east is all about god. its based on gods land, who is gods people, and why they deserve gods land more than the other group, and its also proven the result of a monotheistic dictatorship yields the same results, especially when more than one vies for the same area.
 
iamme said:
this church hasnt had that chance, but the middle east is all about god. its based on gods land, who is gods people, and why they deserve gods land more than the other group, and its also proven the result of a monotheistic dictatorship yields the same results, especially when more than one vies for the same area.
Click to expand...
Indeed. Which just goes to show that monotheistic dictatorship is horrid.

No Catholic here is claiming that we want a monotheistic dictatorship, right?
 
PRmerger said:
Indeed. Which just goes to show that monotheistic dictatorship is horrid.

No Catholic here is claiming that we want a monotheistic dictatorship, right?
Click to expand...
not exactly, but by condemning atheistic rule, and saying that the churchs way of thinking is superior by proxy, its at least implying that, given that chance, the world would be a better place under catholic rule.
then again, i might just be inferring.
 
iamme said:
not exactly, but by condemning atheistic rule, and saying that the churchs way of thinking is superior by proxy, its at least implying that, given that chance, the world would be a better place under catholic rule.
then again, i might just be inferring.
Click to expand...
If the world fully embraced the Catholic proposition, it would indeed be a wonderful place.
 
PRmerger said:
😃

Buffalo’s claim is a far, far cry from proposing monotheistic dictatorship.
Click to expand...
i dunno. if you think that the world would be a wonderful, peaceful place under a monotheistic dictatorship (which would be the case if everyone followed catholocism and all its rites and rituals), regardless if there WERE individual governments in place (still following catholic law) wouldnt you be proposing that there should be one? but im kinda playing with words here, i know he wasnt saying “catholic church smash!” or anything 😃
 
iamme said:
i dunno. if you think that the world would be a wonderful, peaceful place under a monotheistic dictatorship (which would be the case if everyone followed catholocism and all its rites and rituals), regardless if there WERE individual governments in place (still following catholic law) wouldnt you be proposing that there should be one? but im kinda playing with words here, i know he wasnt saying “catholic church smash!” or anything 😃
Click to expand...
The two great commandments that summarize Catholicism are:

Love God, and Love you Neighbor as Yourself.

Now I know you wouldn’t be happy with the Love God part, but think what kind of world it would be if all were adherents.

Would you be willing to tolerate the Love God part for the benefits of the rest?
 
Dameedna said:
No, I think that to love someone, is to say that their happiness, is more important than your own.
Click to expand...
I totally agree.

My observation is that my feelings (nothing to do with proof) for my beloved are quite different from my feelings for animals. While the happiness for my dog was very important to me and I did love him while he was living, my love for my beloved is so special that it is naturally on a higher plane. It is as if I considered him sacred, not in the religious sense, but in the sense of his profound person. I gladly say that his happiness is more important than my own.

Maybe it is true that love is not always based on rational evidence. ❤️

Blessings,
an old-fashioned granny
 
The major advantage of being good for goodness’ sake is that each individual can decide what good is.

Thus, “I believe that it is good for me to have an affair as it contributes to my happiness” . For example.
 
buffalo said:
The two great commandments that summarize Catholicism are:

Love God, and Love you Neighbor as Yourself.

Now I know you wouldn’t be happy with the Love God part, but think what kind of world it would be if all were adherents.

Would you be willing to tolerate the Love God part for the benefits of the rest?
Click to expand...
firstly, you dont know the first thing about me, while i have seen some of the hate youve shared.
i dont have anything against god in any way. if anything, i envy those who can have a relationship with him, but as for me, weve had a parting of ways, and he wont make it easy to mend things.

also, if what you have displayed in a lot of your posts is your loving your neighbor as you would yourself, then no, the world owuld not be a wonderful place, in any capacity.

ignoring all that, if we all obeyed every rule set before us, and followed one line of thought, i would also be against that as well, because that would be the most vapid, boring world i could imagine, like a world made up only of shrimp.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top