How do you feel about atheists?

[JustaServant]

How do you feel about atheists? Do you pity them? Hope for them? Argue with them? Pray for them?

I’d like to return to the OP’s question.
For about a decade I worked with, and later for, a self-described atheist named Rodney.
Rodney was a very intelligent black man with a background in the air force. I was a conservative Baptist in those days, so we had many spirited conversations.
On the positive side, Rodney taught me how to ask questions. How to ask them in such a way that it forced me dig deeper into my intellect and use rationality. In some ways, a piece of why I abandoned fundamentalism and became a Catholic again, I owe to him and those many talks we had. He also had an ethical nature that was, sorry to say, superior to the ‘born-again’ Christian supervisor he replaced. He wasn’t anti-Church, he just disliked hypocrisy. More than a few times I remember his reaction to the stupidity of employees by looking up and saying to the Deity he did not believe in “See? This is why I don’t believe!” His sense of humor got our office through many bad times.
On the negative side, Rodney never seemed to have any joy in his life. He went from one woman to the next without ever finding happiness with another human being. He had a negativity that was eating away at him. He had nothing to ‘latch onto’, no source of stability or permanence. His mother was a Christian who often prayed for him
Rodney died four years ago. I had lost touch with him after moving. I still occasionally remember Rodney when I pray the Rosary.
And I hope his mother never stopped praying either.

 

[RebeccaJ]

evil means are not justified by a good end

Well that is where the grey area is IMO. If someone is threatening to kill 1000 innocent people if I don’t kill one person. What should I do? What if the 1 person is not a good person? What is the 1 person is on death-row and is going to die next week anyway? I have no idea what the answer is tbh. But it is certainly not black and while imo.

Defending defenseless innocents from evil is not an evil act, but of course other means should be tried first, if possible.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

This is not a correct articulation of theistic beliefs. At least, not Catholic beliefs.

There is no such thing as “arduous rituals” in Catholicism.
And these rituals are not entertained in order to vouchsafe ourselves against moral slippage.

From the atheist perspective, waking early on a Sunday to attend Mass may be construed as an ‘arduous ritual.’ As might a habit of routine prayer, penance, fasting, lent, confession, praying the rosary, etc. All of these take work and delay access to more immediate pursuits.

1. Morality appears largely regional, rather than universal.

Absolutely not.

Though we in Western cultures might think it so, seemingly it is not so where it may be respectfully practiced…after all, was not male genital mutilation considered entirely moral within the context of Judaism (and to some extent Christianity for a time)?

1. Standards of morality appear to change with time.

Can you give an example of this?

Where once it appeared entirely moral to have multiple wives now such a practice is largely frowned upon. Where this raises a potential conflict with morality as being a guidepost to God is that which appears to be malleable and regional appears less to proceed from a divine, unchanging source of divine goodness and more to be a learned behavior that appears to better fit with an evolving humanity.

1. God’s own original morality does not appear to match the standards of the modern era.

Can you please 'splain what you mean here?

Might it still be correct to condemn an entire household to be burned alive for the sins of the father of the house?
Might one consider the demanded sacrifice of one’s own son to be a moral test, as was the case with Isaac?
Might the rules of how to treat nubiles captured in battle still apply?

1. Jesus’ own morality does not appear to match that of his father, which is paradoxically himself.

Firstly, this is not a correct enunciation of the Trinity. The Son is not the Father.

Kindly pardon the lack of clarity. The precise divisions among the three individual persons of the singular God could probably be described in a much clearer fashion.

But what do you mean by Jesus’ own morality does not match that of His Father?

Seemingly Jesus’ teachings appeared sufficiently revolutionary to the Jews’ own hearing to suggest that they stood apart from the tone typically ascribed to God. His suggestion that those who would live by the sword would die by the sword seems to suggest he would not have approved the wholesale slaughter of the inhabitants of Canaan, for one simple example.

1. The purported account of the struggle among the angels, which allegedly led to Lucifer’s downfall, seemingly suggests that moral behavior is not guaranteed even in Heaven.

Prior to the Incarnation, this was true.

Why might it make sense that this would be the case? Is it to be believed that the denizens of Heaven were once able to argue with God, but that after the Incarnation they were somehow modified so as to no longer be able to do so? Or is it perhaps the constant sight of Hell that might remind them of the consequences of rebellion?

1. Holy wars seemingly undermine any substantive purpose to morality

It is a mistake to appropriate the sinful acts of men to the will of God.

Perhaps so. Alternately, would not the mustering of an entire nation towards the intent of a Holy War at the very least gain the attention of God? If so, why might He appear to give tacit approval by doing nothing to countermand it?

1. The concept of Hell removes a believer’s free choice to choose morality for morality’s sake thereby potentially stripping much virtue from positive action

This would seem to indict all moral actions done by atheists as well. Some atheists choose moral actions because it makes them feel good, no?

It is possible…but then the atheist seemingly must be less concerned with an argument that might support the concept of free will and more interested in pursuing moral action for its apparent natural consequences…

1. Radical extremists suffer no rebuke by a purportedly moral God.

This, of course, is begging the question.

Quite possibly…I will concede that it depends entirely upon the will of God and His disposition towards such things…concepts which I am not quite certain could be reasonably understood if even properly postulated…

 

[Jelrak_TB]

1. Jesus hates the lukewarm, suggesting a love for extremism, which in turn suggests an intolerance towards tolerance, cooperation, and compromise.

This limns a fundamentalist’s interpretation of Scripture.

It is the failing of the atheist to take all religious texts at their word…it is conceded that this can be an unfair practice…

1. Jesus seemingly offers conflicting messages with regards to morality: eg. simultaneously lauding the peacemakers while equally stating that he, himself, did not come to bring peace.

As does this.

Well, it may not be my best effort, but I did make an honest attempt…

1. The flagrant lack of morality found in the entirety of non-human nature–both before and after the ‘Fall.’

Then does the presence of extremely virtuous acts of morality prove God’s existence?

I would be willing to concede that it might…but I am no less puzzled that it appears to be absent from the rest of creation. Might this suggest that morality is not a principled requirement for God, but merely a construct specifically for humanity? If so, might a purported Heaven no longer require any such concept?

 

[PRmerger]

“Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.” - Here Craig takes a law of this universe and applies it to that which lies outside of this universe when we KNOW the laws of this universe breakdown at certain length scales. Furthermore, we know that time as we understand it is linked to space and this universe (space-time) so what would it even mean to have cause and effect without time???

So, I guess the follow up question is this: you believe that something *can *come from nothing?

 

[PRmerger]

I totally agree, however you have added a qualifier.

Let’s just stop here.

You asked for an example of a moral absolute.

I gave one.

You agree, then, that it’s always, for every person, in every age, no matter what the circumstances, immoral to torture children for fun?

You agree in moral absolutes?

Yes?

 

[PRmerger]

Of course I would disagree , however it is certainly interesting topic of conversation. IMO morality can only be understood through evolutionary psychology, in particular the development of cooperative societies. I understand evolution is a banned subject? Nonetheless, I am sure I can present my side of the discussion without getting into a debate about the theory of evolution.

I am interested in hearing your arguments.

I would like you to consider, when presenting your arguments, whether the sacrificial act of Maximilian Kolbe was moral, and if so, how this can be understood through evolutionary psychology.

 

[estesbob]

So, I guess the follow up question is this: you believe that something *can *come from nothing?

And it happened just once and then life sprang from nonlife. But it happened just once.

 

[PRmerger]

And it happened just once and then life sprang from nonlife. But it happened just once.

There has to be some suspension of reason in order to accede to this, no?

 

[estesbob]

There has to be some suspension of reason in order to accede to this, no?

As I heard one person put it the theory is " give me one free miracle and I’ll explain the rest "

 

[PRmerger]

As I heard one person put it the theory is " give me one free miracle and I’ll explain the rest "

That, too, requires a suspension of the intellect, though, doesn’t it?

The existence of even one miracle means…

God exists.

Right?

 

[estesbob]

That, too, requires a suspension of the intellect, though, doesn’t it?

The existence of even one miracle means…

God exists.

Right?

Does to me. I simply cannot look at the intricacies and the beauty of the world and believe it is all the result of one primordial explosion 4 1/2 billion years ago - and that doesn’t even take into account where the materials necessary for the explosion came from

 

[PRmerger]

Does to me. I simply cannot look at the intricacies and the beauty of the world and believe it is all the result of one primordial fart 4 1/2 billion years ago - and that doesn’t even take into account where the materials necessary for the fart came from

And even that implies a Great Farter.

And I mean no disrespect here. It is simply the logical conclusion of an atheistic argument.

EDIT: I think I will delete this.

In a few minutes.

 

[MrEmpiricism]

So, I guess the follow up question is this: you believe that something *can *come from nothing?

I am not even sure that is a valid question, is it even possible for there to be nothing? If so where would it exist, what even is it? Until someone can show me “nothing”, whatever that even is I have no idea what that would even mean?

The only observations we have in this case, is something can come from something.

 

[MrEmpiricism]

Defending defenseless innocents from evil is not an evil act, but of course other means should be tried first, if possible.

Of course not, but in the first case I mentioned there were innocents on both sides.

 

[Faithdancer]

There has to be some suspension of reason in order to accede to this, no?

Of course, there wasn’t truly “nothing” before the act of creation. There was God + nothing.

 

[Faithdancer]

Does to me. I simply cannot look at the intricacies and the beauty of the world and believe it is all the result of one primordial explosion 4 1/2 billion years ago - and that doesn’t even take into account where the materials necessary for the explosion came from

Actually the Big Bang is a misnomer, estesbob. The “Big (and very rapid) Expansion” is more apropos. Started roughly 14 billion years ago, and still going strong! Goooooooo God! (well it *is *football season, finally, Hallelujah!)

 

[MrEmpiricism]

Let’s just stop here.

You asked for an example of a moral absolute.

I gave one.

You agree, then, that it’s always, for every person, in every age, no matter what the circumstances, immoral to torture children for fun?

You agree in moral absolutes?

Yes?

It is not as simple as that, nice try though

I believe there are cases when there is objective right and wrong, but the point is it has to be taken on a case by case basis.

It is immoral for person A to torture someone for fun
It is NOT immoral for person A to torture an evil person to save 10000 innocent lives.

The action is the same, and given that absolution morals refers to “actions”, clearly I do not accept absolute morals. Like is said the case you mentioned you added a qualifier to the action, an it was the qualifier that made it immoral, NOT the action.

 

[PRmerger]

I am not even sure that is a valid question,

You are correct.

It’s like asking, “Can you make me 2 parallel lines that are perpendicular?”

So, the logical conclusion is that you realize it’s absurd to believe that something can come from nothing.

QED.

 

[estesbob]

Actually the Big Bang is a misnomer, estesbob. The “Big (and very rapid) Expansion” is more apropos. Started roughly 14 billion years ago, and still going strong! Goooooooo God! (well it *is *football season, finally, Hallelujah!)

And it was first described some 4,000 years ago in Genesis"And the Lord said let there be light"