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

[Dameedna]

Why? If there is no hereafter why subject ourselves to pain and suffering?

I will alway’s be extremely grateful to those institutions that keep certain people in-line. Jails, military and of course religious institutions.

It sounds to me buffalo, that you actually have no problem hurting, killing, starving or torturing other humans as a result of your rational thinking or natural human empathy.

It sounds to me, that the only reason you don’t do it, is because you believe in God.

You believing in God sounds like a very good thing to me.

 

[buffalo]

I will alway’s be extremely grateful to those institutions that keep certain people in-line. Jails, military and of course religious institutions.

It sounds to me buffalo, that you actually have no problem hurting, killing, starving or torturing other humans as a result of your rational thinking or natural human empathy.

It sounds to me, that the only reason you don’t do it, is because you believe in God.

You believing in God sounds like a very good thing to me.

But why do we put them in jail? Where did this come from?

What you have admitted is that humans have inherent value. You cannot offer objective evidence as to why you yourself have inherent value. WIthout God the strongest wins.

Where do we get this value? God’s love and love for us.

 

[PRmerger]

Where shall we start? How about Exodus 21:1-11 for starters, where the law given by this god gives specifics on the owning of other human beings, down to rules for selling one’s own daughter into slavery.

How about 1 Samuel 15:3 in which this god instructs the Israelites to “spare not” anyone from Amalek, specifying that they are to slay men, women, children, and animals.

There are countless other passages.

Ah, yes, so it is our Scripture has told you that this is who God is. And the Church gave you this Scripture, so you believe what the Catholic Church has said about God.

Then why do you reject everything else that the Catholic Church has revealed about God?

Why are you stuck on this notion of a vengeful murdering God? Yes, this is indeed the God who was revealed to the Israelites, but why stop there?

You’re like a person who’s in a Calculus class who hasn’t gotten past 2 + 2 =4. Yes, that’s true, but MOVE ON.

You can’t discuss God at at advanced level if you can’t get past such a fundamental truth.

 

[PRmerger]

Civilization has been steadily improving and growing more moral, thanks to applied reason.

You forgot to credit Christianity for this civilization’s steady improvement and growing more moral.

No society defined the inherent dignity of the human person before Christianity. NONE.

 

[grannymh]

Well, I would like to think that human life is sacred and it’s not a bad way of viewing the world. But…If the athiests are right, and the universe is all that there is, then this may not be an absolute fundamental truth.

That doesn’t mean we can’t(and don’t) care. For me, it is simply enough to know how much we really suffer and empathize with it. I don’t like to suffer…why on earth would I want to do that to another?

Life as sacred? Not sure…it IS rather extrodinary

Dear Dameedna,

It really doesn’t matter if the universe is all that there is, the sacredness of human life would still exist. Perhaps you would like to change sacredness to another equal word or words.The reason you would not make someone suffer is because you recognize that human life in its essence is “worthy of respect”. Human life is indeed beyond the ordinary.

I did read your post 139. The last line made me . That is my favorite way to go to bed. Thank you and good night.

Blessings,
granny

 

[buffalo]

You forgot to credit Christianity for this civilization’s steady improvement and growing more moral.

No society defined the inherent dignity of the human person before Christianity. NONE.

And whether they want to admit it or not, they did not grow up in a vacuum. Their minds have been illuminated by God and Catholicism.

 

[PRmerger]

And whether they want to admit it or not, they did not grow up in a vacuum. Their minds have been illuminated by God and Catholicism.

Indeed. And whether the rationally virtuous atheist wants to admit it or not, when he is virtuous, he has become like God (as St.Gregory of Nyssa proclaimed).

 

[grannymh]

You forgot to credit Christianity for this civilization’s steady improvement and growing more moral.

No society defined the inherent dignity of the human person before Christianity. NONE.

May I offer a suggestion as an expansion of the above? Please read Genesis 1: 26-31. One can read it strictly as a secular explanation of the way the Hebrew people viewed the dignity of the human person. By reading it in this manner, one can see that from the earliest of records, there was the absolute truth that human life is sacred.

 

[PRmerger]

May I offer a suggestion as an expansion of the above? Please read Genesis 1: 26-31. One can read it strictly as a secular explanation of the way the Hebrew people viewed the dignity of the human person. By reading it in this manner, one can see that from the earliest of records, there was the absolute truth that human life is sacred.

Yes, you are correct. And throughout the Old Testament we see that this inherent dignity of the human person was not respected. Christ took this view, and as you say, radically expanded upon it; as civilization has progressed Christian thought has contributed further to our understanding of what it is to be virtuous and moral.

 

[buffalo]

Yes, you are correct. And throughout the Old Testament we see that this inherent dignity of the human person was not respected. Christ took this view, and as you say, radically expanded upon it; as civilization has progressed Christian thought has contributed further to our understanding of what it is to be virtuous and moral.

Therefore God gave us the 10 Commandments to show us.

 

[MegaTherion]

According to German law they committed no murders since the Jew were not fully human.

We’re not talking about laws. We’re talking about a rational understanding of the moral imperatives that come from situations – what laws are supposed to be based on.

If Germany changed its laws (did it? Did they actually have an official law on the books dehumanizing Jews?), it wouldn’t matter because morality does not depend on laws.

It depends on a rational evaluation of our options.

And based on that morality (which is objective), Hitler committed grave evil.

Why are you stuck on this notion of a vengeful murdering God? Yes, this is indeed the God who was revealed to the Israelites, but why stop there?

You don’t seem to get it. I don’t believe your god exists (there’s no evidence that he does), but even if he did exist, it’s clear that he’s an immoral monster.

I’m “stuck” on this notion of a murdering god because I believe that morality is absolute and unchanging. It comes from the situation, not from a supernatural power. And murder/genocide is always wrong no matter what.

If your god says otherwise, if he has ever said that murder or genocide is okay for any reason whatsoever, then that god is a monster.

I’m morally superior to such a god, and I would have no reason to worship or even respect him if he actually did exist.

 

[MegaTherion]

And throughout the Old Testament we see that this inherent dignity of the human person was not respected.

The inherent dignity of the human person was not respected by your god, who commanded the wholesale slaughter of men, women, and children.

Any being that would command such atrocities for any reason is immoral.

Edit: By the way, do you intend to reply to any of my points at all?

Do you concede that a person can use reason to determine that Hitler was evil?

 

[PRmerger]

The inherent dignity of the human person was not respected by your god, who commanded the wholesale slaughter of men, women, and children.

Any being that would command such atrocities for any reason is immoral.

Edit: By the way, do you intend to reply to any of my points at all?

Do you concede that a person can use reason to determine that Hitler was evil?

I think, Mega, that you are confusing 2 posters. I am not discussing whether a rational person can determine whether Hitler was evil or not. That’s buffalo.

 

[MegaTherion]

I think, Mega, that you are confusing 2 posters. I am not discussing whether a rational person can determine whether Hitler was evil or not. That’s buffalo.

Oh, right…sorry, it’s late. I think I’ll be going to bed now.

Please someone think logically about what I’ve said.

Here’s to hoping for some kind of intelligent reply by morning.

 

[PRmerger]

You don’t seem to get it. I don’t believe your god exists (there’s no evidence that he does), but even if he did exist, it’s clear that he’s an immoral monster.

Yup, I get it. You do not believe in God, but you keep talking about this vengeful God (who you don’t believe exists, yes I know), so I’m just trying to figure out why you focus on that part of Scripture, but not on anything else.

If your god says otherwise, if he has ever said that murder or genocide is okay for any reason whatsoever, then that god is a monster.

My God says that murder is a sin and that genocide is objectively evil. (Yes, I know that you don’t believe my God exists.)

 

[warpspeedpetey]

The inherent dignity of the human person was not respected by your god, who commanded the wholesale slaughter of men, women, and children.

where are you getting an inherent dignity to the human person? in a G-dless universe you and i are no different tthan any other collection of particles, how can you logically say that one lump of particles has any more inherent value than another? inherent dignity of a human person would be no different than the inherent dignity of a rat, a leaf, or a rock.

Any being that would command such atrocities for any reason is immoral.

have you ever had to have an old or rabid dog put down? was it an atrocity or were you dealing with your property as you saw fit?

we are G-ds literal property, we do not exist for our personal benefit or purposes. we exist for G-ds, or at least that is what we beleive.

G-d is perfect, what you decide is immoral matters not to Him, in fact from His viewpoint you have no idea at all what ‘moral’ is. your inability to see the whole and complete picture does not equate to G-d being immoral.

 

[OnlyAmbrose]

Most atheists appeal to reason as the source of moral judgments. In any given situation, it is possible to look at the spectrum of actions available to us and decide which of those actions are more likely to produce positive results and which are less likely.

No, that’s not enough. What’s the objective moral standard, then for determining what a “positive” result is instead of a “negative” one? Reason may work for determining moral means, but certainly it’s not sufficient to determine the morality of the ends.

Remember, since this life is the only one that we are all certain that we will have, it’s in everyone’s best interest to build the best possible society in the here and now.

There you go, using words like “best” and “positive”. They all boil down to “good”, so tell me, what is “good” and how do you know?

Note: I personally define “positive results” as “results that are in accord with the natures of all parties involved and that do not unnecessarily violate the free will of anyone or cause unnecessary harm to any party.”

Ah, here we go, the meat

And why do you define it as such? How does “reason” state that positive results are those that make the most people happy?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

We’re not talking about laws. We’re talking about a rational understanding of the moral imperatives that come from situations – what laws are supposed to be based on.

If Germany changed its laws (did it? Did they actually have an official law on the books dehumanizing Jews?), it wouldn’t matter because morality does not depend on laws.

It depends on a rational evaluation of our options.

thats called relativism, it all depends on what values you are basing your ‘rational evaluation’ on. that kind of thinking allows a wide variety of supposedly ‘objective’ morals to be enacted

And based on that morality (which is objective), Hitler committed grave evil

.

have you thought that it may be that hitler believed that he was acting on some ‘objective morality’ also, specifically ‘mein kampf’?

You don’t seem to get it. I don’t believe your god exists (there’s no evidence that he does), but even if he did exist, it’s clear that he’s an immoral monster.

you claim there is no evidence, but here we are, that is evidence, nothing can cause itself.

the argument is not really about whether or not a G-d exists, its the interpretation of G-d.

since you cannot create one single thing, you cant make your hair grow any faster, and you have a finite limit to the processing power of your brain, how is it that you can say that a being with none of those limitations is immoral?, you created nothing, you own none of it, and you dont know hardly anything in comparison to an omniscient G-d. i find it hard to believe that you or any human can claim to know what is immoral apart from having those qualities.

how can a blind man explain a painting?, he just complains that the oils stink, and the surface is rough. he simply doesnt have the sense of sight to see the beauty above the unpleasant

I’m “stuck” on this notion of a murdering god because I believe that morality is absolute and unchanging. It comes from the situation, not from a supernatural power

.

so did hitler, stalin, mao, pol pot, etc. relativism is a fallacy that sounds great in philosophy 101 but in the end, it makes all morality subjective, allowing darn near anything. everybody thinks they are behaving rationally.

And murder/genocide is always wrong no matter what.

unless some one is raped right? then maybe its ok in that situation. or what if your mother asks you to pull the plug after a car accident leaves her in agony, then its ok right? and the guy that raped and tortured that little girl down the block, it would be ok to kill him to wouldnt it?

its a slippery slope, ever here of josef mengele? everybody believes they are acting rationally. see where it leads?

 

[Realcatholicgk]

hi Mega,

You don’t seem to get it. I don’t believe your god exists (there’s no evidence that he does), but even if he did exist, it’s clear that he’s an immoral monster.

**
Our God exists and the proof is in Creation. Nothing makes itself! Everything is “made”. There is an old saying that "If there wasn’t a God, humans would have to create one to explain creation! I rather just give credit where it is due! God Bless, God! Even if He doesn’t exist in your mind! **

I’m “stuck” on this notion of a murdering god because I believe that morality is absolute and unchanging. It comes from the situation, not from a supernatural power. And murder/genocide is always wrong no matter what.

**God is not murderous. Humans are murderers this is no more apparent then when God is denied and countries turn from His word and follow their minds! Then they blame their evil on God. **

If your god says otherwise, if he has ever said that murder or genocide is okay for any reason whatsoever, then that god is a monster.

Our government says it is OK. Abortion is geneocide of the purest form. All people who don’t believe in God are eligible to partake in the slaying of our future!

I’m morally superior to such a god, and I would have no reason to worship or even respect him if he actually did exist.

**You are not morally superior to God. He isn’t subject to Human rules or limits and as such is amoral. Humans are moral or immoral. Depending on their Love. Love would be the only reason you should worship or respect anyone. Without Love there is only emptyness and dispare. God is Love, He sent His only Son to pay for your sins, even the one of denying Him!

God Bless**

 

[grannymh]

Do you concede that a person can use reason to determine that Hitler was evil?

Question: Do you concede that a person can use reason to determine that Hitler was evil?

Yes. I can concede that a person can use reason to determine that Hitler was evil.

Why?

Because reason as you used it in your question, is a tool, a method, a way that can be used to analyze, evaluate, conclude. Analysis, evaluation, concluding can be both verbs as in using tools as well as nouns used in a variety of ways.

Please note that I am not a “mutually exclusive or” type of person. Thus, I view many possible answers to questions, problems, life in general. In that regard, would you please respond later if you can accept that reason is also a tool or another word meaning the same? Thank you.

Blessings,
grannymh