Hello Athiests!

[DavidHume]

It would seem that the atheists that are posting in these threads are former Christians with Christian upbringing so, one can make that case that the Christain upbringing had an influence on the conscience and formed any sort of “goodness” (relative to the mind of the athiest) that the atheist held on to and continues to, after apostatizing completely.

You could make that case, or you could make the far more plausible case that the vast majority of Christian moral teachings are simply specific expressions of what everyone learns anyway, regardless of their parents’ religion.

 

[jam070406]

That’s how everyone comes to know anything about anything – subjective experience. Morals are no exception.

By and large, we don’t. It is considered wrong by the vast majority of people to murder, steal, cheat others, cause others to suffer physical or mental harm, etc. Only when the conscience is absent (antisocial personality disorder) or actively subverted (e.g. by Nazi propaganda) do people make habits of doing these things, or do them without remorse.

David,
any form of morality that you maintain comes from God. Whether you wish to admit it or not. Whether it be conveyed through your parental upbringing or some other contact with believers. Otherwise there is nothing you can point to to assert that something like murder is wrong.

 

[happilycatholic]

That’s how everyone comes to know anything about anything – subjective experience. Morals are no exception.

By and large, we don’t. It is considered wrong by the vast majority of people to murder, steal, cheat others, cause others to suffer physical or mental harm, etc. Only when the conscience is absent (antisocial personality disorder) or actively subverted (e.g. by Nazi propaganda) do people make habits of doing these things, or do them without remorse.

If a person has remorse are the right (correct) morals in place?

 

[jam070406]

You could make that case, or you could make the far more plausible case that the vast majority of Christian moral teachings are simply specific expressions of what everyone learns anyway, regardless of their parents’ religion.

And then the onus would be on you to discover where this morality came from. And chances are, you will dig and the subject of God will always be the obstacle for you.

 

[happilycatholic]

If a person has the correct morals and does not act on them but acts on incorrect morals, then how can we tell where the action is coming from? Is it divine or societal?

If the source were divine, as in something not of this earth and not controlled by anything of this earth, maybe one would have the correct morals and be acting on them based upon societal influence. (Free will.)

My point being, morality is not relative, actions are. The actions you see are not necessarily an example of a person’s natural state of morality, but actually a reaction to societal influences and therefore making the reaction relative, not the actual morals.

Hence the Papal free will to sin. The Pope knows what is moral but acts in a way that is not correct according to those morals. He has sinned. But he has not become morally incorrect, his actions have. The same way your parents can be immoral but pass the correct morality on to you, this is the way the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit and the same way the Apostles were guided by Christ. They didn’t always react in a way that was moral, but they always knew what was moral and were given the authority to pass that along, not the sin.

 

[aileron]

Look, the devil’s in the details. You can’t not believe in Christianity and then say, well the Popes didn’t act like Christians so the Church must not be guided by God.

Let me repeat. The Popes could not and did not act alone. It took the willing participation of at least the bulk of the clergy if not the bulk of the laity too. If, for instance, the Pope tells Catholics that all Jews in Christian kingdoms must wear identifying badges, the Catholics required to implement that order can refuse. For the most part, they didn’t.

I would also like to point out that my argument is not about whether the people of the Church acted like Christians or not. For me the concept of acting like Christians is too vague and subject to dispute. My claim is that their moral outlook changed.

For atheists, this is to be expected. Few atheists make a claim that objective morality is real - or if it is real it’s not completely discernible at present. For a group of people who claim that objective morality exists and can been determined by revealed truths, this change in moral outlook is inconsistent with the claim.

You can’t use your own argument against religion to set a standard for religious actions. It’s stupid.

I’m positively baffled where this is coming from

We can argue all day that these things happened or didn’t happen. They did. Popes did bad things. They are sinful at times. Pope John Paul II went to confession once a week. Does that invalidate the Church’s position? No.

I did not cite John Paul II’s personal sins (I’ll go ahead and use the word). I cited historical events that required acceptance by the preponderance of members of the Church in order for them to happen at all. If the people who were required to execute them didn’t go along as willing participants, these things would not have happened. There also is reason to conclude that many or most genuinely believed that what they were doing was moral. Today we do not. That is the change I am referencing.

You say that the Church was corrupt and misguided.

That is NOT what I am saying. I’m saying that at the time these events took place, the preponderance of people in the Church seems to have accepted them as moral actions.

Don’t you believe that Judas did the same thing?
It wasn’t perfect in the OT, hence the reason for Christ’s first coming. Got it?

I’m not going to speculate or comment. These are inter-faith disputes, not mine.

But again, why use all this if you don’t believe in God in the first place. Just stop using the guidance of the Church as if you don’t believe in the One who Guides it.

Why bother with this if I don’t believe in God in the first place? This is a common question asked by believers and honestly I don’t see how they miss the answer. I think the bumper sticker says it all: “Dear Lord, please save me from your followers.”

Atheists, agnostics, etc. are not the ones portending to have revealed truth on our side. When formulating secular policy or law, prove the claim or abandon it for that purpose. When even people who reject this claim stop treating it with misguided respect, then people will be required to provide real reasons, not vague insinuations of an inside track to a transcendental authority.

 

[josie_L]

If a person has the correct morals and does not act on them but acts on incorrect morals, then how can we tell where the action is coming from? Is it divine or societal?

If the source were divine, as in something not of this earth and not controlled by anything of this earth, maybe one would have the correct morals and be acting on them based upon societal influence. (Free will.)

My point being, morality is not relative, actions are. The actions you see are not necessarily an example of a person’s natural state of morality, but actually a reaction to societal influences and therefore making the reaction relative, not the actual morals.

Hence the Papal free will to sin. The Pope knows what is moral but acts in a way that is not correct according to those morals. He has sinned. But he has not become morally incorrect, his actions have. The same way your parents can be immoral but pass the correct morality on to you, this is the way the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit and the same way the Apostles were guided by Christ. They didn’t always react in a way that was moral, but they always knew what was moral and were given the authority to pass that along, not the sin.

:extrahappy:

 

[jam070406]

I think the bumper sticker says it all: “Dear Lord, please save me from your followers.”

It’s these types of comments that render all these sort of discussions pointless.

 

[happilycatholic]

Let me repeat. The Popes could not and did not act alone. It took the willing participation of at least the bulk of the clergy if not the bulk of the laity too. If, for instance, the Pope tells Catholics that all Jews in Christian kingdoms must wear identifying badges, the Catholics required to implement that order can refuse. For the most part, they didn’t.

I would also like to point out that my argument is not about whether the people of the Church acted like Christians or not. For me the concept of acting like Christians is too vague and subject to dispute. My claim is that their moral outlook changed.

For atheists, this is to be expected. Few atheists make a claim that objective morality is real - or if it is real it’s not completely discernible at present. For a group of people who claim that objective morality exists and can been determined by revealed truths, this change in moral outlook is inconsistent with the claim.

I’m positively baffled where this is coming from

I did not cite John Paul II’s personal sins (I’ll go ahead and use the word). I cited historical events that required acceptance by the preponderance of members of the Church in order for them to happen at all. If the people who were required to execute them didn’t go along as willing participants, these things would not have happened. There also is reason to conclude that many or most genuinely believed that what they were doing was moral. Today we do not. That is the change I am referencing.

That is NOT what I am saying. I’m saying that at the time these events took place, the preponderance of people in the Church seems to have accepted them as moral actions.

I’m not going to speculate or comment. These are inter-faith disputes, not mine.

Why bother with this if I don’t believe in God in the first place? This is a common question asked by believers and honestly I don’t see how they miss the answer. I think the bumper sticker says it all: “Dear Lord, please save me from your followers.”

Atheists, agnostics, etc. are not the ones portending to have revealed truth on our side. When formulating secular policy or law, prove the claim or abandon it for that purpose. When even people who reject this claim stop treating it with misguided respect, then people will be required to provide real reasons, not vague insinuations of an inside track to a transcendental authority.

“… insinuations of an inside track to a transcendental authority.”

*THIS IS GOD, so if you’re going to keep siting this as a standard of proof or a reflection of guidance, then I’m going to keep stating that you can’t say that we change our moral precepts and then act accordingly and therefor we are not guided by God. (your transcendental authority thingy) (*I would also like to point out that my argument is not about whether the people of the Church acted like Christians or not.)

MAKE UP YOUR MIND, please.

You say the popes didn’t act alone, is there some numerical value placed on societal influence when it relates to morals and the lack thereof? I mean can one person not lead a group of people to act immorally? The fact that there were cartloads of catholics behind the Crusades does not change the argument. There are cartloads of catholics today that are sinful. There will probably be certain moral precepts (A rule or principle prescribing a particular course of action or conduct) in the Church today that will change with time. IVF may be one of them. That means nothing. NOTICE: Precepts change, morals do not. If a living body cannot from time to time change and evolve, doesn’t it die eventually? The source of life doesn’t change, only the way in which it lives or develpes over time. This is the natural course of things.

You keep citing change as error. Where else is this the case in nature? Change doesn’t usually occur without negative force, otherwise why would it occur at all?

Just because individuals within the Church change its moral precepts does not mean the source wasn’t there or it was incorrect. It means those individuals interpreting the moral(s) were incorrect. And this myth that those within the catholic Church can do no wrong is simply that. A myth. Those within the Church have corrected themselves and effected a different course. (correct moral actions)

“…this change in moral outlook is inconsistent with the claim.” Okay, see, here is where you do it again. You basically use that transcendental authority thing again and then deny it when I say you are using it as a standard. Then what the heck? How am I supposed to answer this?

Here goes…

Again, morals are not actions, they are standards and cannot be defined as actions. Ones actions may not reflect they’re actual morality.

 

[jam070406]

Why bother with this if I don’t believe in God in the first place? This is a common question asked by believers and honestly I don’t see how they miss the answer.

I know the answer. It’s been given to us by your arguments in these threads. All one has to do is read between the lines.

There is a moral issue that you and the Church don’t see eye to eye on. Now you come in here to try and discredit the Church (perhaps to ease your own mind and conscience, I can’t say.) But somehow you thought it would be easy and Catholics would roll over to your superior intellect. Which didn’t happen. And around and around we go.

 

[happilycatholic]

I know the answer. It’s been given to us by your arguments in these threads. All one has to do is read between the lines.

There is a moral issue that you and the Church don’t see eye to eye on. Now you come in here to try and discredit the Church (perhaps to ease your own mind and conscience, I can’t say.) But somehow you thought it would be easy and Catholics would roll over to your superior intellect. Which didn’t happen. And around and around we go.

Bingo!
:yeah_me: (there’s an emoticon for everything, I love it)

 

[josie_L]

That’s how everyone comes to know anything about anything – subjective experience. Morals are no exception.

By and large, we don’t. It is considered wrong by the vast majority of people to murder, steal, cheat others, cause others to suffer physical or mental harm, etc. Only when the conscience is absent (antisocial personality disorder) or actively subverted (e.g. by Nazi propaganda) do people make habits of doing these things, or do them without remorse.

Let me make it clear to you that I believe in a natural moral law, however, if said law exists how then can one subjectify morality? The law must be delineated in absolute terms. And there is only one source that I know of that does just this. Moreover, if morality is based on how it makes me feel, I can easily make excuses for myself to commit deeds that benefit me?

 

[happilycatholic]

I just want to say this, as Christians we go on faith. Faith DOES NOT equal a blind following like most Christians like to claim. Faith = SURRENDER.

We do not continue to try and find reasons, answers or proof. We ACCEPT that God IS and everything that goes along with that. And because we believe that as catholic Christians, the Church IS the Holy Spirit, we surrender to it. God doesn’t change, but the way we relate to Him is EVERCHANGING because we are…human. That can be applied to the people leading His Church as well. No matter how hard we try, we are still miserably human. We only had one Perfect Leader, Christ. And although the Church = God, it’s followers do not. I think you confuse the word “church” with it’s members which include the Pope. The Church is the Holy Spirit incarnate, not subjectible to error. However imperfect and mistaken it’s followers may be, they are not misguided or undguided, they are sinful and rebellious and just plain incorrect at times.

You may choose not to believe and that is your choice. To question our belief is to ultimately question your unbelief because both are possible in your world.

Why are you here? What answers can you possibly find that you will surrender to and/or accept?

 

[DavidHume]

And then the onus would be on you to discover where this morality came from. And chances are, you will dig and the subject of God will always be the obstacle for you.

No. Why is there an onus on me to discover where this morality came from?

 

[DavidHume]

Let me make it clear to you that I believe in a natural moral law, however, if said law exists how then can one subjectify morality? The law must be delineated in absolute terms.

I never said anything about a “law” – that’s your term. Of course a law must be delineated in “absolute” terms – it’s in the definition of the word “law.”

My claim is that all moral decisions, whether by Christians, atheists, or followers of any religion, are guided by conscience and conscience alone.

Moreover, if morality is based on how it makes me feel, I can easily make excuses for myself to commit deeds that benefit me?

Presumably most deeds that benefit you are not immoral. But if your conscience is underdeveloped or perverse enough to let you rationalize harmful actions on a regular basis, then there’s not much I can do to stop you from such justifications. However, if you commit acts that offend my conscience enough, or the combined consciences of members of society enough, then of course you will end up in jail or whatever.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

It would seem that the atheists that are posting in these threads are former Christians with Christian upbringing so, one can make that case that the Christain upbringing had an influence on the conscience and formed any sort of “goodness” (relative to the mind of the athiest) that the atheist held on to and continues to, after apostatizing completely.

Speaking for myself – yes I was raised Christian (Catholic to be more specific) & obviously that upbringing influences my behavior to some degree (probably quite a bit). Perhaps a better case to examine atheism would be a country like Japan; where virtually all of its citizens are raised without any religion at all – yet they seem to be among the best behaved people on earth.

Perhaps you can provide a location with no Christian (or simply theist for that matter) influence where the people were atheist from birth maintaining that belief throughout life in a society with no theistic thought or influence.

I just did – Japan! We can only wish that we had such a well behaved society (in fact the same holds true for any Christian western country & all other theist countries for that matter).

These stats mean nothing. For one, we don’t known the number of whom that are apostates. Also, we can’t measure the ammount of Christian influence that was maintained or that influenced these people. You would have to conduct an experiment with zero theist influence.

(Side note, those that turn from God whether it be a mortal sin of sexual nature, crime, murder or apostasy are all in the same boat, cut off from God.)

To be honest I think this is a terrible argument. If you’re going to say that the sinner is cut off from Christ … then what’s the point of it all? Didn’t Christ give Christians a mandate to visit those in prison? Didn’t he forgive the worse of men for their indiscretions?

As far as the question of whether or not those who once were believers, but then walk away (or commit a sin that’s so bad it can’t be forgiven) reside in a state of irreversible apostasy – isn’t that a subject of intense debate within the Christian community? I’ve never heard of anyone being turned away at the confessional and told their sin was too grave to be forgiven. Isn’t it true that even mobsters find solace in the confessional & gain forgiveness for their horrible crimes.

 

[jam070406]

To be honest I think this is a terrible argument. If you’re going to say that the sinner is cut off from Christ … then what’s the point of it all? Didn’t Christ give Christians a mandate to visit those in prison? Didn’t he forgive the worse of men for their indiscretions?

As far as the question of whether or not those who once were believers, but then walk away (or commit a sin that’s so bad it can’t be forgiven) reside in a state of irreversible apostasy – isn’t that a subject of intense debate within the Christian community? I’ve never heard of anyone being turned away at the confessional and told their sin was too grave to be forgiven. Isn’t it true that even mobsters find solace in the confessional & gain forgiveness for their horrible crimes.

I was making the point that those that commit crime and those that reject God are both in a state of sin and need reconcilliation. So Catholics in prison are in the same boat as atheists that have managed to avoid prison. The sins are different and not all sin will necessarily lead you to prison. So the comparison of who is in prison more is rather faulty. It’s still a rejection of God’s commandments, atheism being a rejection of the first. (And of course I am speaking from my Catholic perspective) And of course they can be forgiven. As well you! If you turn to Him. I have Faith you will.

I can’t comment on Japan, I know nothing about Japan.

 

[jam070406]

No. Why is there an onus on me to discover where this morality came from?

I guess you don’t have to if you don’t want. But if there is a more plausable explanation then the religious upbringing of your parents I figured you would wanna find out that source of morality that is more plausable, before you merely reject religion altogether.

 

[DavidHume]

I guess you don’t have to if you don’t want. But if there is a more plausable explanation then the religious upbringing of your parents I figured you would wanna find out that source of morality that is more plausable, before you merely reject religion altogether.

How about “my parents are moral people and brought me up as a moral person?”

While they are Catholic, I can’t think of a single instance where in moral teachings they said to me “Do this because the Church says so.” It was always “Do this because it is the right thing to do.” Why? Because it is the right thing to do, regardless of whatever a church says. Churches say lots of things.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

And then the onus would be on you to discover where this morality came from. And chances are, you will dig and the subject of God will always be the obstacle for you.

Morality wasn’t invented by Judeo-Christianity. Even dogs have emotions, travel in packs, and form very primitive rules of social conduct (within the constraints of their intellectual ability). Most mammals care for their young, form bonds with mates, and in the case of dogs form bonds with their owners (and protect them to the death in many cases). Do dogs have a soul? Are they governed by natural law … and if so then what the heck is natural law?

Are you really proposing that no society had laws proscribing murder, theft, etc. before the Old Testament was written & distributed? I assume your not (and I assume you have a sufficient grasp of history to know this is not the case). I assume you propose that this “natural law” you assert exists resides within man in the form of a soul, which is our spiritual medium to god.

However, the fact is the only thing we know is true is that if there is any sort of natural law it’s dictated by nature – in other words our biology.

Let’s face it third or twelfth century Christianity can hardly be compared to contemporary Christian mores. Back then it was perfectly within the bounds of so called natural or divine moral law to kill and conquer in the name of religion. Jews were treated like cattle, restricted to ghettos, and forced to wear identification badges. Blacks were herded into ships, carted off to southern plantations, and treated as inhumanely as any people on earth were ever treated. All of this under the blind eye of so called religious men (or in some cases it was the church itself that did these things).

So please folks … save the preaching about moral or natural law; because it’s just another old myth. Law has always been formed by us & no one else. We make our world better or worse. There’s no invisible devil to shift our culpability to when we screw up; just as there’s no invisible god guiding our actions to give credit to when we get things right.

Whether reality is good news or harsh … it’s reality all the same. What do we say to those who just lost a loved one? Obviously it’s easy to say they’re in a better place (and I’ve had to comfort people who experienced loss & I always did the easy thing and said something like they’re in a better place or whatever to provide them comfort). No one wants the story to end … it’s our nature to want to survive and want our loved ones to survive (we might say this survival instinct is a form of natural law).

I suspect mankind will need religion until science provides a real alternative to the dreams of religion (which are great dreams). Will we one day be able to travel back in time? I seen a great show on NOVA where physicists are trying to build a time machine (a sort of mini-worm hole) as we speak. Will we one day live indefinitely? With genetic science, nanotechnology, and all the rest I don’t doubt it. Will we finally perfect quantum computing and learn how to control our atmosphere? Will we perfect genetically modified food technology to ensure our long term survival (one day mankind will face something like the eruption of a super-volcano & we will need technology to grow foods with little or virtually no sunlight). I even remember reading somewhere that scientists teleported an electron (or some sort of sub-atomic particle) through space. Obviously it’s a stretch to think we can do this with a mammal one day – but this laptop I’m typing this post on was unimaginable to our founding fathers (maybe with the exception of Ben Franklin ). Will we learn how to download the contents of our brain onto a computer one day? There are scientists trying to figure out how to do this right now. Heck medical scientists just invented an artificial womb they think can be used to produce human infants within the next ten years.

Scary stuff to many people (particularly religious people) – but incredible and wonderful to me. I place my hope on ourselves … but I guess for most mythology will have to suffice until there’s a tangible alternative to allay their fear of death.