C
crowonsnow
Guest
If the subject is morality, aka goodness, the question isn’t whether morality can exist without gods but whether gods can exist without morality.
- Status
E
Exalt
Guest
How the heck are you defining morality? It seems that you’re just defining it as “What God Wants,” which seems to be lacking.
E
Ender
Guest
"crowonsnow:
Ender
As to whether gods can exist without morality it would seem the answer is clearly yes. All manner of societies offered up sacrifices to assorted imagined deities who were often seen as cruel and capricious. I don’t see any reason why gods have to be moral.
I have not tried to define morality but I don’t think “goodness” is a step in the right direction. I’m happy to let either of you give any definition you think you can defend so long as the definition isn’t simply utilitarian.
Ender
C
christmary4ever
Guest
Christianity does not teach cruelty and oppression.
Evidently these people did not live up to their
faith. but this is absolutely not a justifiable claim against the truth of christianity.
You cannot judge the merit of christianity by
the conduct of its members who are disobedient.
to its teachings.
Humanism meanwhile is hopeless because it
cannot even recognize the source of all Good.
Remember there also atheist who are guilty of
horrible crimes against humanity.
K
Kurusunami
Guest
Smile, Nino, you’re on Fundies Say the Darndest Things! fstdt.com/fundies/comments.aspx?q=55771
I advise you read some of those comments.
We have morals. Mine are fairness and logic, and I extend this courtesy equally to everybody, regardless of whether they are my mortal enemy or best friend. Does not the bible believe in the teaching of fairness and forgiveness? Note you don’t see “compassion” or anything related in there. I am not heartless. But Logic takes precedence over emotion. “What a good thing it is for those in power that people do not think.”, said an infamous leader. But shouldn’t you extend the same courtesy, morals, to us? Look what I found in the forum rules.
- Do not view the discussion area as a vehicle for single-mindedly promoting an agenda.
- Non-Catholics are welcome to participate but must be respectful of the faith of the Catholics participating on the board.
“no no no! an athiest can NOT be a good person”
Let’s substitute “Catholic” for “athiest”(Which you spelled wrong, by the way.). Would that be acceptable to you? No.
“Jesus brought goodness into this stupid bleak cruel world”
He should have brought open-mindedness instead, to you at least. His word has been a great source of support for loved ones and friends, but I cannot bring myself to believe, having been raised on solid, proven facts. His word has helped my friends through life’s turmoil, but it’s brought nothing but trouble to much of the world. Look at Gaza. The invasion is going on. Will you pray for them? Will you pray for them, knowing that your prayer itself is related to the cause of the conflict?
And I await the action of the moderators. Delete the message, and it’s going to be plastered across the front page of Encyclopedia Dramatica tomorrow morning, along with /b/. High five, fellow /b/rothers. I’m not here to troll, I’m here to talk.
E
Exalt
Guest
And a God that demanded the death of the son of Abraham, the deaths of all the people in Jericho, of Sodom and Gomorrah, of the entire world by a flood, of Onan, of the Egyptian firstborn, of the Amalekites, the Canaanites, and many, many others is any different?
Good atheists and good Christians get their morals from the same place, but it isn’t the God of the Bible.
Aaand you just lost all your credibility.
Z
Zoe_Brain
Guest
My own definition of Morality is doing the right thing even when no-one’s looking.
Consider two institutions.
In one, the populace does not go around raping, killing, thieving (or eating shellfish) even though there’s no surveillance and no police force. If someone in authority told one to eat a prawn, they would refuse on moral grounds.
In the other, a prison, the only thing preventing the populace from raping, killing, thieving (not forgetting eating shellfish) is 24/7 video surveillance, backed up by police with flamethrowers who will use them at the slightest hint of any infraction. If someone in authority told them that just for the next 5 minutes they were allowed to do anything they liked, they’d instantly rape, thieve, murder and wolf down a dozen oysters.
The external behaviour of both groups is identical: but by my definition, only the first is acting morally (even though I think eating prawns and oysters is fine).
In a Universe where there is an omniscient God, who notes even the sparrow’s fall, and who guarantees eternal, inescapable and inexorable punishment for sin by casting the sinners into the fires of Hell for eternity… then I contend that there can be no morality, only obedience compelled by fear of punishment.
Only the atheist, who does not believe in an “invisible sky policeman” as he mockingly calls the Almighty, and yet adheres to Christian principles of charity to his fellow human, who never shoplifts even when the cameras are broken, and who follows the Golden Rule can be said to be “moral”. Doing Good for it’s own sake, because good is its own reward.
Such a person would be a Kantian Realist, even if he’d never heard of the “categorical imperative”. And despite not having faith in God, he has faith in Good. And if some deity told him to go put babies - or shrimp - on the barbecue, he would refuse, even if it meant eternal damnation. Because it wouldn’t be right.
F
fhansen
Guest
Can’t argue with that.
But Christians just claim to know the *source *of the morality.
The concept of heaven and hell implies that justice ultimately reigns in the universe- that the victims of rape, killing, thieving won’t cry out for justice forever without being heard-that good and evil are concepts reflective of truth and that evil won’t always be allowed to co-exist with good.
But the fact that the Almighty “invisible sky policeman” rightly condemns evil, as we all should, in no way implies that those Christians who choose good don’t do so out of and in conjunction with love for Him/love for the Good.-regardless of whether they’ve recognized His right to condemn evil.
Z
Zoe_Brain
Guest
Excellent reply.
A follow-up question though - is God’s word defined as Good because He is creator of the Universe, or because it is good for some other reason.
In other words, does “Might make Right” when the might is Godlike power? Do we obey God because He is God, or do we obey Him because He is Good?
P
PRmerger
Guest
We obey because God is Love.
This question has been answered eons ago by St. Augustine:
Saint Augustine asks: “Does love bring about the keeping of the commandments, or does the keeping of the commandments bring about love?” And he answers: "But who can doubt that love comes first? For the one who does not love has no reason for keeping the commandments".
P
PRmerger
Guest
All who are in hell chose it. God honors the choices of individuals.
As CS Lewis says, "There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, ‘Thy will be done,’ and those to whom God says, in the end, ‘Thy will be done.’
Z
Zoe_Brain
Guest
Excellent and Illuminating answer, that is most enlightening. May I take the opportunity to thank you all for these answers? You’re doing it in a spirit of Charity, to help a fellow human being, that’s obvious. I thank you for the gift of your precious time in thinking on the issue, and even doing research.
I agree with the blessed saint that indeed, “Love comes first”.
I do wonder though if the first commandment is a necessary consequence of Love, for that is the question we’re really asking when we ask “Can Atheists be Moral?”.
1 Corinthians 13 admonishes that, in effect, “without Charity, following the forms and the laws is meaningless”… If you do it for reasons other than Love, you’ve missed the point.
Can one state a corollary - that if one follows the admonition to act out of love, with conduct indistinguishable from that of Church teaching except in one respect - Atheism - that one acts out of Love,for its own sake, rather than out of Love for God,- then one is acting morally? Even if it means eternal damnation due to the stain of Original Sin?
Whether such damnation is “just” or “proper”, and in accordance with a Loving God is another issue.
I should state here that I am not a Christian. I lack faith, so am unworthy of the name, no matter what “good works” I do, and I do so few compared with perfection! If my place is in the Pit, then I cannot say I don’t deserve it. For I would not be, I could not be, happy in a Heaven when I knew people who acted morally but whose only fault was lack of faith were condemned to perdition.
(See Pride, sin of).
I would most humbly request though that I be allowed while serving my eternal sentence to give what comfort and solace I could to others in a similar situation. A Loving God would not refuse that, even of the most imperfect sinner. I wouldn’t refuse, and I know I can’t possibly be as loving as Him.
F
fhansen
Guest
Well, the answer is “both”, in a way. Catholic teaching claims that man has a distorted view of God-a view that God is “jealous of His prerogatives”-that a mistrust and an enmity exist which comes from mans side-not Gods-along with a fear which isn’t based simply on a deserved awe or love of one so vastly good as well as powerful but is rather an unreasonable fear. In this view, man must come to* learn* of Gods goodness- to restore that trust. As this doesn’t come overnight, an interior transformation must occur within man whereby his mistrust is replaced by a love which continuously grows as he tastes of Gods goodness. As Gods own love and goodness are inexhaustible, unfathomable, that process may be interminable but the bottom line is that man is never more sound or complete as when he loves God with his whole heart, soul, mind, and strength.
P
PRmerger
Guest
The Catholic Church’s answer is an emphatic YES. If one acts out of Love, for its own sake, one is acting morally. Indeed.
The question that follows, then, is of course, if one can be moral without God, then why believe in God?
The answer is: because it’s True.
Truth trumps everything.
B
buffalo
Guest
Every atheist whether they admit it or not has been influenced in their thinking by history and the broader culture.
If they grew up in a vacuum would they still think this way?
If they grew up in a vacuum would they still think this way?
P
PRmerger
Guest
Again, if you are in “the Pit”, then it’s because you choose to be there.
See Peter Kreeft’s essay on hell here: peterkreeft.com/topics/hell.htm
excerpt: "The fires of hell maybe made of the very love of God, experienced as torture by those who hate him: the very light of God’s truth, hated and fled from in vain by those who love darkness. Imagine a man in hell—no, a ghost—endlessly chasing his own shadow, as the light of God shines endlessly behind him. If he would only turn and face the light, he would be saved. But he refuses to—forever
K
Kurusunami
Guest
If one chooses to be in the pit, then let them choose it. I agree with Zoe, I wouldn’t be happy in a heaven where I knew that it wasn’t rewarded to me for being a good person, it was rewarded to me for believing in some faith. And about not turning to the light? Knowing that you were not put into the pit for being a bad person, but because you refused to pledge yourself to an “uber-parent”, it would be hard to forgive Him. And what would we do after we were saved? Be sent to that heaven that we knew we were not fairly awarded?
P
PRmerger
Guest
Kuru, you absolutely misunderstand the Christian concept of heaven. Are you an ex-Catholic? It seems that you were poorly catechized.
Heaven is not rewarded to you for believing in some faith. Heaven is the result of accepting God’s Divine Marriage Proposal to the soul. God proposes to you in Love. You can accept or reject.
Have it your way, God says.
K
Kurusunami
Guest
You contradict yourself. Accepting God’s Divine Marriage Proposal to the soul would involve binding one to Him. And to bind yourself to Him, is it not necessary to believe firmly in his existence? I accept my own thought, that death is a final death, and all that is left will be what we accomplished, not what we dwelled on. The word of God inspires great deeds, but I will make my own deeds.
No, I have never been a Catholic, or even religious (Unless you count various joke religions I joined for social interaction). I am simply trying to offer the people here a modicum of respect by capitalizing “Him” and “God” and acknowledging that the word of God is an invaluable source of support for those that Believe. I am trying to bring open-mindedness and respect for belief, things that some members of your community refuse to extend to us, despite the fact that the forum rules say it. Why have rules if a majority is granted immunity to them?
EDIT: Oh, and thank you for getting my name right.
P
PRmerger
Guest
For the purposes of discussion, I will respond to Kuru, although presumable s/he will not see it…
Kuru seems to be saying that Catholicism teachs that all one needs is faith in order to be accepted to heaven. That is not our belief as Catholics. Scripture denies this–for does it not say in Scripture that even the demons believe?
Certainly, being in heaven presupposes faith, but that faith is not the “ticket” into heaven. Again, it is accepting the Divine Marriage Proposal.
- Status