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

[warpspeedpetey]

If we are indeed made in God’s Image and Likeness then we honestly can’t be considered ‘property’.

why not? in scripture the analogy of the relationship between G-d and man as the relationship between a Shepherd and His flock.

If we are indeed endowed with Free-Will to determine our own destiny then again we can’t be considered ‘God’s playthings’.

who thinks that we are G-ds playthings?

If our God is a god of Justice then we should expect to be given our due.

the fact that we are not given our due, as sinners, makes G-d very just. very merciful. our due is death

Christianity has always recognized a certain ‘dignity’ in our humanity. To think that we are ultimately ‘property’ demeans this ‘dignity’.

and yet Christ Himself uses the Shepherd analogy, i am personally honored to be the property of my Master. better the lowliest servant in heaven, than the king of hell

If our own Almighty God considers us nothing more than property we should expect nothing more from our fellow man as we should imitate God’s attributes to reflect His Goodness in the world.

we are the property of G-d, not the property of our fellow man, so, why would we then expect our fellow man to treat us as property? all the servants should treat eachother as equals.

how can one servant say to another " you are nothing but a servant, and i will treat you as such?" that guy is a servant to.

so im a little confused.

that said, i dont care for wishy washy stuff, i deal in cold hard reason, emotions and feelings dont appeal to me, and neither do flowery words

 

[grannymh]

Hi Granny,

Quote:
Originally Posted by grannymh

Thanks, William, for the challenge which I will respectfully decline.

As you probably noticed, I have stuck in the absolute truth that human life is worthy of profound respect in posts here and there. Sometimes I use different words or I agree with someone else’s statement which indirectly indicates the absolute truth that human life is of utmost value. When possible, I will get a few more comments in edgewise between these flying owls, I mean posts.

I understand why so many posts refer to Hitler in discussions about relativity. On the other hand, maybe it would be more current if someone went to the website of the actual ad and worked off of that?

Blessings,
grannymh

www.americanhumanist.org www.whybelieveinagod.org
www.whybelieveinagod.org/pressrelease.html
www.whybelieveinagod.org/whatis.html
www.whybelieveinagod.org/didyouknow.html

Then think…

 

[iamme]

Thanks, William, for the challenge which I will respectfully decline.

As you probably noticed, I have stuck in the absolute truth that human life is worthy of profound respect in posts here and there. Sometimes I use different words or I agree with someone else’s statement which indirectly indicates the absolute truth that human life is of utmost value. When possible, I will get a few more comments in edgewise between these flying owls, I mean posts.

I understand why so many posts refer to Hitler in discussions about relativity. On the other hand, maybe it would be more current if someone went to the website of the actual ad and worked off of that?

Blessings,
grannymh

www.americanhumanist.org www.whybelieveinagod.org
www.whybelieveinagod.org/pressrelease.html
www.whybelieveinagod.org/whatis.html
www.whybelieveinagod.org/didyouknow.html

Then think…

hoo?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

you seem to be trying to apply the actions of individuals (currently deceased) to the morals of an entire group, who had nothing to do with what he did.

not to individuals, but whole atheistic societies. they are entire groups and their morals have repeatedly led to genocidal behaviors. individuals had little to do with it, if so they should have had different outcomes, but they didnt, whether we talk nazis, soviets, chinese, vietnamese, cubans, czechs, north koreans, or cambodians, atheistic regimes led to genocide.

you can blame it on individuals, but they committed these atrocities as an entire group of atheists. nobody did it alone.

i am doing the same. and sure, you can be absolved through confession, but that doesnt make you any less culpable, or you morality any less flawed, by your logic.

what? you just said i cant acknowledge the wonders of atheism because G-d would get mad at me. what does that have to do with culpability, my morality, or the very neutral, ‘logic’

further, my morality or logic has nothing to do with the historical evidence of atheistic regimes genocidal actions. thats history.

and how does the church kill spirituality? really? on this site, while simply trying to learn about peoples beliefs on subject through discourse (and this is me being completely genuine, since the death of my grandmother, who was very religious and more dear to me than life, ive tried to see what she sees in a god i find less than reputable) i have been called evil more than five times, an abomination more than that, and a baby killer, just because i am pro-choice, and despite the fact that as a male, i cant get pregnant and cant get an abortion.

if you promote an evil act, such as abortion, you are guilty of it. for us the sin begins in the mind, you know like if you lust after a woman, you are guilty of adultery. etc.

and the fact that you are trying to defend atheism morality in light of its recent history, doesnt help either.

for a religion thats so loving, and caring for its fellow man, thats not the way to make people believe in a loving god. if you want to bring the atheist to god, you dont condemn and insult his ways, then speak down to him, as you have down throughout this discussion.

i condemn the history of genocide that applied atheism has. its historical fact.

so now its my fault, for pointing out that history, on a thread about the validity of atheistic morality?

im not buying it

 

[iamme]

im not buying it

only because you cant afford it.
stalins era was not an atheistic society, it was a tyrannical dictatorship. youre applying the actions of one man, who yes, had underlings (much like the inquisition had the inquisitors) to carry out his orders (who may or may not have believed in them, but did so out of fear, how would you know) and apply them to an entire group of people far outnumbering this one man. its basically saying one black guy mugged you, so all black guys must be criminals. its stereotyping at its worst.
and i like how you asked me how the church kills lpirituality, i answered the question, and you completely ignored it, yet you chastise others for doing the same thing.
waiter, theres hypocrisy in my soup!

EDIT: and to clarify, you admit that the church has had it share of atrocities (well, not really, it wasnt bad enough, or recent enough, i guess) but its ok because the church got better, yet atheism cant evolve past the one horrific instance youve been able to mention? really?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

only because you cant afford it.

?

stalins era was not an atheistic society, it was a tyrannical dictatorship.

the soviets were communists, not a dictatorship. they were a nation who was officially atheist in policy and phhilosophy. marx, the founder of communism said that religion was the opiate of the masses. it was endemic to their system

youre applying the actions of one man, who yes, had underlings (much like the inquisition had the inquisitors) to carry out his orders (who may or may not have believed in them, but did so out of fear, how would you know) and apply them to an entire group of people far outnumbering this one man.

sorry, but they were a nation as big and as advanced as us at the time, do you think that obama could order the execution of people, and it would be carried out because people would be scared that he would kill them?

no, he would have to have state organs, people who agreed with him, and his actions, and enough of them to prevent an uprising. it took millions to do that.

it is never just one man, it is not possible. it requires a huge organization of like minded people.

its basically saying one black guy mugged you, so all black guys must be criminals. its stereotyping at its worst.

you dont seem to understand the scale of this, it takes many people to carry out these actions. not one guy, not one hundred, not onethousand, but millions, of likeminded cooperators.

and i like how you asked me how the church kills lpirituality, i answered the question, and you completely ignored it, yet you chastise others for doing the same thing.
waiter, theres hypocrisy in my soup!

you can keep trying to make it about me, but that wont distract from the historical evidence of atheistic regimes genocidal actions.

EDIT: and to clarify, you admit that the church has had it share of atrocities (well, not really, it wasnt bad enough, or recent enough, i guess)

i admitted no such thing, i just didnt argue the point. because the numbers destroy the validity of the idea of atheistic morals. i didnt need to. the church killed a few thousand over more than a thousand years, atheism killed 100 million in just the last century, whats to argue?

but its ok because the church got better, yet atheism cant evolve past the one horrific instance youve been able to mention? really?

maybe your not reading my posts before you reply. but you should note that i have given many examples

1. nazis
2. soviets
3. Chinese
4. pol pot
5. cuba
6. czechs
7. vietnam
8. north korea

just to name a few different groups of atheists

and in every case atheism official, or unofficial, was the common factor.

you cant get away from what atheism does when it is applied. it keeps happening, so no, history says that atheistic morality always leads to the same thing.

it doesnt matter where you cast blame, the historical facts are facts.

 

[buffalo]

Hi William,

We are both begging the question here. Your “moral obligation” that you require for a valid perspective on morality is of course an obligation to God–a premise I do not accept. My view is based on the idea you won’t accept–that there is no God out there to act as a final arbiter of truth or goodness. From my perspective, morality is an obligation to other humans, and the position we are in is not to discover the essence of goodness but to find out what practices help create the sort of world that we would like to live in and which practices hinder achievements of our hopes. If I am right on the God question, then this is the position that we’ve always been in.

As an atheist I have no problem at all saying that Hitler was morally wrong and no problem justifying that statement to other human beings (who don’t happen to be white supremacists). The only difference is that when I say that he was wrong I don’t mean that he opposed what God wants, I mean that his actions were antithetical to human flourishing.

Human flourishing is not a standard at all. It is just what people like me mean when they use the word morality. As I see it. we are contrasting two views of morality–the theist view that morality is concerned with doing what God wants and the humanist view of morality understood in terms of human suffering and human flourishing. There is nothing arbitrary about being concerned with those things if you are a human.

If what you mean by an absolute moral standard is having specific knowledge of what God wants in a given sort of situation, then of course atheists will never say that. But an atheist is certainly free to assert that there are true and false things to be said about ethics. As a pragmatist who only wants to talk about such terms in practice, facts and values are not neatly divided. It is either true or false that forcing women to wear burkas helps humanity flourish and the truth or falsehood of that assertion is as knowable as any claim once we decide on how the veracity of the claim is to be evaluated.

Saying that smoking can cause cancer is no more true than saying that certain other practices that we consider to be in the realm of morals actually have specific and real consequences for individuals or societies. Such truths can be discovered in the same ways that we learn other truths.

Are adult men who were taught that masturbation is evil as a child now more happy and well-adjusted or less happy and well-adjusted than men who did not receive this teaching? Are societies who prohibit young men and women from interacting more or less healthy than ones who allow such interactions? We can ask all sorts of questions about morality when we think of it in terms of human well-being and have hope of answering them in the same way that we know that smoking causes cancer.

Best,
Leela

Hitler’s whole purpose was to let the human race flourish through eugenics. He was creating the master race with the purest of genes.

 

[iamme]

maybe your not reading my posts before you reply. but you should note that i have given many examples

1. nazis
2. soviets
3. Chinese
4. pol pot
5. cuba
6. czechs
7. vietnam
8. north korea

just to name a few different groups of atheists

and in every case atheism official, or unofficial, was the common factor.

you cant get away from what atheism does when it is applied. it keeps happening, so no, history says that atheistic morality always leads to the same thing.

it doesnt matter where you cast blame, the historical facts are facts.

actually i see now youre down on communism, which isnt atheistic, as the state is god, in their case.
also if anyone is off topic here, its you. nothing youre saying has anything to do with the op, and you seem to be getting off on talking about how athiests were bad, so they can never be good…
im glad youre not in charge of things, otherwise wed all be damned. every single one of us.

 

[chrisb]

actually i see now youre down on communism, which isnt atheistic, as the state is god, in their case.

Communism isn’t atheistic?

Perhaps you can argue that the State ‘replaced’ God but you have to admit that the state taught the citizenry that there was ‘no God’.

 

[iamme]

Communism isn’t atheistic?

Perhaps you can argue that the State ‘replaced’ God but you have to admit that the state taught the citizenry that there was ‘no God’.

except for the state.

so communism is monotheistic.

 

[chrisb]

except for the state.

so communism is monotheistic.

No. My father was Russian. They were taught that there is no God. The State is not God. The State is the Community and the Community is what is important but the State is not God because there is no God.

 

[iamme]

No. My father was Russian. They were taught that there is no God. The State is not God. The State is the Community and the Community is what is important but the State is not God because there is no God.

nah.
theyre monotheistic.

 

[chrisb]

nah.
theyre monotheistic.

Well, then you are clinging to an erroneous opinion.

 

[grannymh]

?
you cant get away from what atheism does when it is applied. it keeps happening, so no, history says that atheistic morality always leads to the same thing.
it doesnt matter where you cast blame, the historical facts are facts.

Dear Warpspeedpetey,

It seems to me that you are on topic since the topic asks “Do the atheists have it right; Just be good for goodness’ sake?”

In my humble opinion, it would be legitimate to include the ordinary citizens in these horrible events who were not necessarily militant atheists but who believed in relativism. Because there was no real absolute truth about the value of human beings, these people could rationalize whatever atheistic regimes did even if it included beating a friend to death.

Is today all that different from the past? Look at the videos on the net where young people stand watching somebody being kicked into unconsciousness because it is fun. After all, fun is good for most people. Where is the truth that a human being is worthy of profound respect?

Blessings,
granny

 

[PRmerger]

If we are indeed made in God’s Image and Likeness then we honestly can’t be considered ‘property’. If we are indeed endowed with Free-Will to determine our own destiny then again we can’t be considered ‘God’s playthings’.

If our God is a god of Justice then we should expect to be given our due.

Christianity has always recognized a certain ‘dignity’ in our humanity. To think that we are ultimately ‘property’ demeans this ‘dignity’. If our own Almighty God considers us nothing more than property we should expect nothing more from our fellow man as we should imitate God’s attributes to reflect His Goodness in the world.

We’re not God’s playthings, but we are the creature. God, as Creator and as author of life, has the supreme right and authority (that is, “author’s rights”) to take away that life as He sees fit.

So, although it’s wrong for us to take away life, God can, and indeed, does take away life.

The Lord giveth, the Lord taketh, blessed be the name of the Lord.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

actually i see now youre down on communism, which isnt atheistic, as the state is god, in their case.

they werent all communists. there were also fascists and socialists, dictatorships

also if anyone is off topic here, its you. nothing youre saying has anything to do with the op,

blaming me yet again i see, i havent spoken about you, i am talking about the outcome of applied atheistic morality, the topic of the OP

and you seem to be getting off on talking about how athiests were bad, so they can never be good…

in science one tests a hypothesis, when one reaches a conclusion other people recreate the test to verify the results.

in this case the experiment of atheism has been done repeatedly on a societal level, and the results have been consistently verified, the result has repeatedly been mass murder.

im glad youre not in charge of things, otherwise wed all be damned. every single one of us.

how do you get that conclusion from the historical data? but isee once again you try to divert from the data, and make personal comments.

thats ok, that tells me you are running out of reasoned argument, and are now down to just not admitting the invalidity atheistic morals in light of their historical outcome

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Dear Warpspeedpetey,

It seems to me that you are on topic since the topic asks “Do the atheists have it right; Just be good for goodness’ sake?”

In my humble opinion, it would be legitimate to include the ordinary citizens in these horrible events who were not necessarily militant atheists but who believed in relativism. Because there was no real absolute truth about the value of human beings, these people could rationalize whatever atheistic regimes did even if it included beating a friend to death.

Is today all that different from the past? Look at the videos on the net where young people stand watching somebody being kicked into unconsciousness because it is fun. After all, fun is good for most people. Where is the truth that a human being is worthy of profound respect?

Blessings,
granny

left to our own devices we are capable of horrible things. think ‘lord of the flies’

when not constrained by society we are little more than pack animals. we seek to do that which will profit us the most with the least risk.

a machivellian nighmare

 

[warpspeedpetey]

The Lord giveth, the Lord taketh, blessed be the name of the Lord.

i love that phrase, i think that is an eloquent statement of the my view of the Divine relationship

 

[grannymh]

Quote:
Originally Posted by PRmerger forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif

“The Lord giveth, the Lord taketh, blessed be the name of the Lord.”

i love that phrase, i think that is an eloquent statement of the my view of the Divine relationship

I love that phrase because we bless the name of the Lord in all things, coming and going. You’re right. It is an eloquent statement of our relationship with our God.

Just had a thought from long ago that should be brought back. When I was with certain people and the conversation referred to God, we would stop talking and say a short prayer. It would be a good idea if readers, when they come to this post, would stop and say a short prayer before moving on. Suggestion for atheists, agnostics, etc. My daughter, my non-theist, respects my value of prayer. But instead of praying, she will send me Good Thoughts. This works.

Blessings,
granny

 

[chrisb]

Where is the truth that a human being is worthy of profound respect?

In the potential inherit in all mankind to be Sons of God.