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.
what?! that is nowhere near true, Jesus is G-d, G-d has three parts The Father( what we have in common with Jews and muslims), The Son (Jesus), and the Holy Spirit

we do not, let me repeat, do not worship the same G-d as muslims.

before you make those kind of errors you should check what Catholics actually believe.

ok, 20,000 heretics a thousand years ago.

less than 4000 executions over 300 years, and those, several centuries ago

.

we are talking murders here, being silent isnt the same thing.

further, the Church was not silent, They were surrounded by the axis, they had to work under the radar. just like the resistance did everywhere in europe.

true, the direct secular power of the church varied other like any
other state

do you see now that the atheistic morality that resulted in the genocide of more than 100,000,000 people in what amounts to a consecutive run of 30 years or so, cannot really be compared to the inquisition or the cathars?

we killed a few thousands over the course of more than a thousand years, atheists killed many times that number in the course of a few decades.

on a numbers basis, you are making our case, atheism is morally much inferior to Catholicism

and that is just by the numbers.
actually, the atheist case is basically “they were killed because of a few people in charge” YOUR case, is “an insignificant amount of people were killed long ago enough to be forgotten were killed in the name of god” people can be held accountable, god cant.
also, those killings that so dont matter because it was only a few thousand of the course of centuries, were only killed because they were threatened with death if they didnt convert, and then continued to practice their religion in secret. but who cares? atheist evil church infallible!

and lots of countries who were vocal against the axis were also surrounded by them. the silence of the church was cowardly, plain and simple.
 
Well, I’m the kind of person that would rather be corrected than continue in ignorance. Where do you think I’ve went wrong?
i think youre using justice as a tool, as opposed to an ideal.
you use equality as a fact, as opposed to something to inspire to.

its an idealistic difference that i dont expect you to agree with, but i think its a pretty important one, myself.
also, when i spoke of equality, i wasnt waxing poetic, it truly is as necessary as breathing.

and the opinions of the masses do form what is right and wrong. so they do kind of matter.
 
i think youre using justice as a tool, as opposed to an ideal. You use equality as a fact, as opposed to something to inspire to.
In any society the institution of Law is the means to establish Justice. The means can change but the end should be the establishment of Justice. That is not a ‘tool’. One could argue using Justice as you did “simply the remedy to a wrong” is also using it as a tool. If we don’t agree on what Justice is then what is the purpose of instituting a Justice System?

Do you see where I am coming from?
its an idealistic difference that i dont expect you to agree with, but i think its a pretty important one, myself.
Justice is an ideal only in the sense that it is difficult to achieve everyone’s due when everyone is claiming more than their own…
also, when i spoke of equality, i wasnt waxing poetic, it truly is as necessary as breathing.
and the opinions of the masses do form what is right and wrong. so they do kind of matter.
If equality is as necessary as you claim then you might agree the most important activity we could pursue right now would be to understand Justice and how to establish it. With Justice comes equality. This was Martin Luther King Jr. whole purpose in life… the establishment of justice.

Personally, I don’t believe Justice is difficult to define but it is difficult to practice.
 
i think youre using justice as a tool, as opposed to an ideal.
you use equality as a fact, as opposed to something to inspire to.

its an idealistic difference that i dont expect you to agree with, but i think its a pretty important one, myself.
also, when i spoke of equality, i wasnt waxing poetic, it truly is as necessary as breathing.

and the opinions of the masses do form what is right and wrong. so they do kind of matter.
No matter how much the “opinions of the masses” matter, they never determine “right” and “wrong”. How do I know? Because frequently they change their minds. For “right” to be “right” it must alway be so.

The masses may determine social acceptability or legality, but never moral correctness.
 
No matter how much the “opinions of the masses” matter, they never determine “right” and “wrong”. How do I know? Because frequently they change their minds. For “right” to be “right” it must alway be so.

The masses may determine social acceptability or legality, but never moral correctness.
morality is what is accepted by people as a whole, which means it changes.
what youre thinking of is ethics, and thats something that CAN change, but it takes a whole lot to change it, since ethics is normally considered (as ive observed) to be set in stone.
and nothing is unchangeable. everything changes, or it dies, including concepts. they evolve.
 
actually, the atheist case is basically “they were killed because of a few people in charge”
it took millions of cooperaters for those atrocities to be carried out.
hitler, stalin, mao, etc and a few buddies could in no way carry out those actions.
YOUR case, is “an insignificant amount of people were killed long ago enough to be forgotten were killed in the name of god” people can be held accountable, god cant. also, those killings that so dont matter because it was only a few thousand of the course of centuries, were only killed because they were threatened with death if they didnt convert, and then continued to practice their religion in secret. but who cares? atheist evil church infallible
!

G-d cant be held accountable any more than a shepherd can be held accountable for slaughtering His sheep, they are His sheep to do with as He pleases, He owns them. so no, G-d cannot be held accountable. it is His right

the point is that atheism kills millions, in a short time, that is obviously evil. no wway around it. no matter what the church does, atheism still murdered more than a hundred million in a couple decades. plain fact.

as to the killing of heretics, we havent done that in centuries, give it up, and when we did, it was many centuries ago

atheism killed many times the number we ever did, and did so within my grandparents lifetime.

atheism is proven evil by history. they killed millions

the church does not claim infallibility, thats only when the Pope or Councils speak ex cathedra.
and lots of countries who were vocal against the axis were also surrounded by them. the silence of the church was cowardly, plain and simple.
who were these ‘lots of countries’? because the axis overran europe. and the church was not silent, but what good would trumpeting your opinion in the middle of mussolinis italy have done?

still you try to avoid the issue of atheistic morality, by casting blame elsewhere, in the light of recent history, atheistic morality has been flat out evel in application?
 
G-d cant be held accountable any more than a shepherd can be held accountable for slaughtering His sheep, they are His sheep to do with as He pleases, He owns them. so no, G-d cannot be held accountable. it is His right.
What you are saying is that God doesn’t have to be Just. My God is a God in which Mercy, Righteousness and Justice are one and the same quality which is expressed through God.

You appear to be presenting a tyrant… 😦
 
it took millions of cooperaters for those atrocities to be carried out.
hitler, stalin, mao, etc and a few buddies could in no way carry out those actions.
!

G-d cant be held accountable any more than a shepherd can be held accountable for slaughtering His sheep, they are His sheep to do with as He pleases, He owns them. so no, G-d cannot be held accountable. it is His right

the point is that atheism kills millions, in a short time, that is obviously evil. no wway around it. no matter what the church does, atheism still murdered more than a hundred million in a couple decades. plain fact.

as to the killing of heretics, we havent done that in centuries, give it up, and when we did, it was many centuries ago

atheism killed many times the number we ever did, and did so within my grandparents lifetime.

atheism is proven evil by history. they killed millions

the church does not claim infallibility, thats only when the Pope or Councils speak ex cathedra.

who were these ‘lots of countries’? because the axis overran europe. and the church was not silent, but what good would trumpeting your opinion in the middle of mussolinis italy have done?

still you try to avoid the issue of atheistic morality, by casting blame elsewhere, in the light of recent history, atheistic morality has been flat out evel in application?
im not casting the blame elsewhere, im saying that PEOPLE are responsible for evil, whether they be “holy” or “heathens”…
ill never understand the need for people who so need to be seen as righteous to compartmentalize people into a catergory that doesnt fit. some of the best and some of the worst people ive known were people, both atheist agnostic, christian, hindu (ok, maybe not hindu). hitler, was by and large christian. he claimed to be a christian, so he was. stalin was an evil man, and charismatic. that doesnt mean that atheist ideals are evil. egyptians had a busload of jewish slaves. i think egyptian morality is wrong, and no one should listen to them. americans owned slaves, theyre evil. the roman church killed thousands for not sharing their faith, theyre evil. we can go around in circles about this for days, but we wont, because i refuse to acknowledge your assertion that atheism cant be a good thing. as someone who is a theist, you cant admit it, ever, because it means you will be damned. i CAN say that good things can come from christianity, because i dont have to be fearful of reprimand from god, if he exists. and while the catholic church may not kill people physically, it surely drives millions away from god by killing them spiritually.
 
What you are saying is that God doesn’t have to be Just. My God is a God in which Mercy, Righteousness and Justice are one and the same quality which is expressed through God.

You appear to be presenting a tyrant… 😦


does this make god an atheist?
:confused:
 
morality is what is accepted by people as a whole, which means it changes.
This is what I call popular opinion. it is not morality. Since this is a Catholic forum, I would respectfully request that you use the Catholic meaning of the word. We define morality as the obedience of the moral law. The CCC has this to say about the moral law.
1950 The moral law is the work of divine Wisdom. Its biblical meaning can be defined as fatherly instruction, God’s pedagogy. It prescribes for man the ways, the rules of conduct that lead to the promised beatitude; it proscribes the ways of evil which turn him away from God and his love. It is at once firm in its precepts and, in its promises, worthy of love. 1951 Law is a rule of conduct enacted by competent authority for the sake of the common good. The moral law presupposes the rational order, established among creatures for their good and to serve their final end, by the power, wisdom, and goodness of the Creator. All law finds its first and ultimate truth in the eternal law. Law is declared and established by reason as a participation in the providence of the living God, Creator and Redeemer of all. "Such an ordinance of reason is what one calls law."2
what youre thinking of is ethics, and thats something that CAN change, but it takes a whole lot to change it, since ethics is normally considered (as ive observed) to be set in stone.
and nothing is unchangeable. everything changes, or it dies, including concepts. they evolve.
I was not thinking of ethics. The Catholic Encyclopedia defines ethics as the
scientific treatment of the moral order
 
Hi William,
Oh thats not what I mean… I’m not trying to say that talking to Hitler about Christian morality would sway him… My comment was about the moral obligation of an act. I think Hitler would have rejected the “rational” argument because it never builds any moral obligation.
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.
On the other hand, the argument from Christian morality builds a moral obligation… (of course one could reject the system in which case there is no obligation, but I think for arguments sake we can make the assumption)… Hitler can still reject my argument. The fundamental difference is that I can say he is morally wrong, an Atheist cannot do the same
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.
Whether or not its bad for humanity is besides the point… because now you are basing morals on what is “good/bad for humanity” … This is an arbitrary standard…
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.
Definitely, I agree with you entirely… My only cue to join this thread was an Atheist claiming that what Hitler did was morally wrong, i.e. an absolute moral standard. This is inconsistent with Atheism, and the only real point I am trying to emphasise.
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
 


does this make god an atheist?
:confused:
In the Ancient Church there is the term “demiurge”… which is a ‘sub-god’ in gnostic philosophy. The “demiurge” created the physical world and subjugated many ‘souls’ into the physical realm. When an individual projects a concept of God that isn’t God, we in Philosophic Circles, describe that concept to be a “demiurge” (i.e. a sub-god). These “demiurges” are not properly to be understood to be God and do not merit veneration as such. They should be rejected as manmade ‘idols’ that distract us from a more complete and worthy understanding of God Almighty.

God is not an atheist as He clearly believes in Himself and is not deluded in his identity as the Creator.

Nice try though… 👍
 
If you claim that your god would not command an evil action, then you must have a concept of good and evil that is separate from your god.

If good and evil are concepts that are separate from your god, a person could rationally figure out what is good on his own and effectively ignore your god.

[please note that I don’t actually believe in any gods – including yours – I’m granting the assumption that your god exists for the sake of argument]
Mega,
Atheists have nothing right.
See Jn.3;16 and tell them about this passage. Pray for them.
We are saved by grace through faith, even faith is a gift. Eph.2:8-9
He that believeth and is baptized will be saved.
Jn.16:23 “I tell you the truth, my Father will give you whatever you ask in my name,”
Ask for Jesus to come into your life. 🙂

God bless,
jean8

god bless,
jean8
 


does this make god an atheist?
:confused:
When God the Father sent his Son into the world he handed judgement over to Him. Jesus died for our sins. That was the purpose by which He was sent. See Titus 3:4-5
there are other scriptures to prove this point.

God bless,
jean8
 
That, is complete nonsense.
I assume you’re referring to the comment that no other society prior to Christianity championed the worth of the human being.

See essay by Dinesh D’souza here: blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2007/10/a-christian-fou.html

excerpt: The preciousness and equal worth of every human life is a Christian idea. We are equal because we have been created equal in the eyes of God. This is an idea with momentous consequences.** In ancient Greece and Rome, human life had very little value. The Spartans, for example, left weak children to die on the hillside. Greek and Roman culture was built on slavery.**

Christianity banned infanticide and the killing of the weak and “dispensable,” and even today Christian values are responsible for the moral horror we feel when we hear of such practices. Christianity initially tolerated slavery — a universal institution at the time — but gradually mobilized the moral and political resources to end it. From the beginning, Christianity discouraged the enslavement of fellow Christians. Slavery, the foundation of Greek and Roman civilization, withered and largely disappeared throughout medieval Christendom in the Middle Ages.

The first movements to abolish slavery completely occurred only in the West, and were led by Christians. In the modern era, first the Quakers and then the evangelical Christians demanded that since we are all equal in God’s eyes, no man has the right to rule another man without his consent. This religious doctrine not only supplies the moral justification for anti-slavery but also for democracy. Yes, the idea of self-government is also rooted in the Christian assumption of human equality. One reason the atheist philosopher Nietzsche hated democracy is because he understood its religious foundation.

Rights and Christianity

Consider finally modern notions of human rights — the right to freedom of conscience, or to property, or to marry and form a family, or to be treated equally before the law — as enshrined in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The universalism of this declaration is based on the particular teachings of Christianity. The premise is that all human lives have equal dignity and worth, but this is not the teaching of all the world’s cultures and religions. Even so, it’s appropriate that a doctrine Christian in origin should be universal in application. Christianity from the start promulgated its message as one for the whole world.

There are some atheists and even some Christians who admit that theism and Christianity have shaped the core institutions and values of America and the West. But now that we have these values, they say, why do we still need God and Christianity? Oddly enough, the answer is supplied by Nietzsche.

Nietzsche argued that since the Christian God is the foundation of Western values, the death of God must necessarily mean the erosion and ultimate collapse of those values. Remove the base and the whole building will slowly crumble. For a while, Nietzsche conceded, people would out of custom or habit continue to respect human life and treat people with equal dignity, but eventually there would be ferocious assaults on these values, and practices once unthinkable such as the killing of people deemed inferior or undesirable would once again occur. This is precisely what we have seen in our time, and Nietzsche predicted that it will only get worse.

If we cherish the distinctive ideals of Western civilization, and believe as I do that they have enormously benefited our civilization and our world, then whatever our religious convictions, we will not rashly try to hack at the religious roots from which they spring. On the contrary, we will not hesitate to acknowledge, not only privately but also publicly, the central role that Christianity has played and still plays in the things that matter most to us.
 
What you are saying is that God doesn’t have to be Just. My God is a God in which Mercy, Righteousness and Justice are one and the same quality which is expressed through God.

You appear to be presenting a tyrant… 😦
i neither said or implied anything of the sort.

i said G-d is entirely within His rights, like any shepherd it is completely moral and just to use His property in any matter that He finds desirable to meet His goal.

there is nothing in that idea that can be construed as unjust.

be careful that you dont apply human standards, with their finite ability to know good from bad, as the standards by which G-d may be held.
 
i neither said or implied anything of the sort.

i said G-d is entirely within His rights, like any shepherd it is completely moral and just to use His property in any matter that He finds desirable to meet His goal.

there is nothing in that idea that can be construed as unjust.

be careful that you dont apply human standards, with their finite ability to know good from bad, as the standards by which G-d may be held.
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.
 
im not casting the blame elsewhere, im saying that PEOPLE are responsible for evil, whether they be “holy” or “heathens”…
yet the OP is about the validity of atheistic philosophy.

instead of defending atheistic philosophy, you have been trying to cast blame on the church.
ill never understand the need for people who so need to be seen as righteous to compartmentalize people into a catergory that doesnt fit. some of the best and some of the worst people ive known were people, both atheist agnostic, christian, hindu (ok, maybe not hindu). hitler, was by and large christian. he claimed to be a christian, so he was.
hitler neither claimed to be a Christain, or acted in accordance with Christain ideals. if he had then no atrocities would have occured.
stalin was an evil man, and charismatic. that doesnt mean that atheist ideals are evil.
stalin was not charismatic, he was ruthless. and in every case of official or actual atheism genocide resulted, that would seem to be evil to me, plus these folks all had help, they didnt do it alone
egyptians had a busload of jewish slaves. i think egyptian morality is wrong, and no one should listen to them. americans owned slaves, theyre evil. the roman church killed thousands for not sharing their faith, theyre evil. we can go around in circles about this for days, but we wont, because i refuse to acknowledge your assertion that atheism cant be a good thing. as someone who is a theist, you cant admit it, ever, because it means you will be damned.
what? how would i be damned for it? thats not a mortal sin and if it was i could still attend confession.

refusing to acknowledge that applied atheism has always led to genocidal behavior, even in the face of evidence, doesnt matter. it is in every history book, it is plain to see.

you can try to cloud the issue with bad acts from everyone under the sun. but that will never change the historical fact that avowed, official atheistic regimes, murdered more than 100,000,000 in the last century. and in no case were certain crazy individuals responsible, it took millions of cooperators to carry out these atrocities. they were all official members of the states official atheistic parties,

in other words, in most cases, the individuals involved were avowed atheists. and there were many of them

Atheism is, by many orders of magnitude, a worse moral system than Catholicism.

so acknowledge it or not, the proof can be found in every textbook, in every school, library, and university in the world. your acknowledgement is not required
i CAN say that good things can come from christianity, because i dont have to be fearful of reprimand from god, if he exists. and while the catholic church may not kill people physically, it surely drives millions away from god by killing them spiritually.
you have such strange ideas as to what Catholics believe, why do you think i would recieve a reprimand from G-d if i thought atheism had its good points?

i dont think it does, because i see no logical rational reason to doubt the existence of G-d in the first place. everything that follows from an irrational system like that is then suspect. how could anyone come to the conclusion that something comes from nothing? not because i think G-d will get mad at me.

further, how do you think that the Catholic Church kills people spiritually?
 
This is what I call popular opinion. it is not morality. Since this is a Catholic forum, I would respectfully request that you use the Catholic meaning of the word. We define morality as the obedience of the moral law. The CCC has this to say about the moral law.

I was not thinking of ethics. The Catholic Encyclopedia defines ethics as the
this is a catholic forum, but if you look at the title of the topic, this isnt a catholic topic, so im using the actual meaning of the word. and im not being disrespectful in doing so, im just being on topic. were talking real world here, not catholic view of the world.
 
what? how would i be damned for it? thats not a mortal sin and if it was i could still attend confession.

further, how do you think that the Catholic Church kills people spiritually?
im only going to respond to these two because thats what i want to respond to and my wallet just got raped by the dentist who wanted to charge me thousands of dollars for something he couldnt do.
here goes.
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. 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.

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. 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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top