HOW IS AN ATHEIST CONSCIENCE FORMED?

[Carl]

AnAtheist

I like the Buddhist philosophy, that there are principles of right and wrong, that even the gods must follow…

But why isn’t this also a Christian principle with respect to one God?

 

[Carl]

WOLPERTINGER

Just in case you feel like objecting that pointing out flaws in other people’s argument is an attempt to force a change of belief, I disagree.

The use of the word force seems unnecessary here. It is a given that dialogue does not have the power to force anything.

As John Henry Newman, a Catholic convert, pointed out long ago: you can no more talk a person into belief than you can torture him into it. Not that talking cannot sometimes be a form of torture.

Moreover, Jesus said that when you preach the Gospel and are rebuffed, shake the dust of that town from your feet and move on.

*Influence a change of belief * would be my way of saying it.

By the way, I do believe you are trying to influence a change of belief or you would not be in this forum. You are either trying to influence a change of somebody else’s belief or your own.

I have noticed that some atheists have missionary zeal, just like Christians.

What say you?

 

[Lisa_N]

wolpertinger:

Not so fast. If we are the product of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent creator that allegedly gives us free will, but punishes lack of recognition unspeakably harshly, then rigging the game by making some of us more receptive to the proper message is not something to be waved away like that. .

No you keep twisting the statement. Further I don’t think anyone said that God punishes unrecognition unspeakably harshly. One of the things that really attracted me to Catholicism was the belief that if someone does not know of God or recognize God, he is not destined for the pits of hell. I’ve been around fundamentalists who believe if it’s “my way or the highway.” No one here is promoting that kind of “Cosmic Cop” as God.

We can’t possibly have both free will and equally receptive to the “proper” (your words) message. Can we grant that humans have freewill? They might not recognize God seeking them, they might be afraid, they might be swayed by someone influential. I think God is going to be harshest on those who recognize but reject him, rather than the merely ignorant.

So I am unclear as to your point. I don’t think the game is ‘rigged’ but people may or may not recognize or respond to God.

wolpertinger:

Regardless of the “god gene”, to me Christian theology implies exactly that - one of the ramifications of all the omni attributes. Of course, I don’t know which god you believe in…

Well I learned in philosophy class that the “omni” arguments are not able to stand on their own anyway. So again I don’t understand your point. You maintain the game is rigged which demonstrates the kind of God YOU believe in. That’s not my God.

wolpertinger:

There are several possible takes. To begin with, force is in the eye of the beholder. Technically, Christians are required to evangelize unbelievers, which can be construed as a forcible attempt. To put it this way, “I’m just obeying orders” is not a convincing justification. Pragmatically, however, it is more of an issue of tone. If the conversation follows the lines of:

If the side that initiated the conversation does not take no for an answer or opens the conversation with the more frequently observed “repent, or else” or “how can you be so dumb to believe what you do”, then something improper has occured.

Well in a word baloney. Talking to someone about your belief system is a “foreceable attack?” Are you kidding? Have you ever experienced a “forceable attack” by an evangalist? Again no one can force a belief. A belief is something within your mind. You might express that belief with action but no one REALLY knows whether or not you are sincere. It’s between you and God.

Further while Christians are asked to spread the good news, other than a few extremely pushy sects, arm twisting is not considered good form. Evangilizing is done by trying to be a good example of your faith, praying, and encouraging, not by torture. Further the Holy Spirit is the one to do the work, not the evangalist.

wolpertinger:

I personally consider Pascal’s Wager as so deeply flawed as being at a loss where to begin to object. Worse, I consider accepting the wager for the hope of reward and/or fear of punishment as morally bankrupt.

As I said, it worked for me when I had no real belief system. It made sense. Obviously YMMV. To claim however that MOST of us do or don’t do certain things out of hope for reward or fear of punishment is to completely dispense with human nature.

wolpertinger:

That’s a trick question. Some people believe in things they don’t know to be true, others have knowledge and yet believe otherwise. For an argument to be sound, however, it cannot be irrational.

Your opinion.

wolpertinger:

You have stated this before. It is undeniably true in some cases; to say that it is true for most is a personal opinion of yours, but to convince me of the truth of it requires more than just anecdotal evidence. Likewise, this forum alone is replete with members that exemplify corresponding charges atheists make regarding theists.

I said it was my opinion, based on my experience. I don’t know about all atheists but the ones who are more public tend to be from the halls of academia. Further their arrogance regarding the IQ level of anyone who doesn’t agree is quite obvious. Maybe you can think of an atheist who is kind, humble and uneducated? I just can’t think of any who fit that description.

wolpertinger:

Actually, you misrepresent what I said. I am indeed analytical in my assessment of what changes people’s beliefs, but I have most definitely not said that the persons in question engage in that level of introspection.

OK if paralysis by analysis works for you, go for it.

Lisa N

 

[wolpertinger]

Lisa N:

No you keep twisting the statement.

So I am unclear as to your point.

So again I don’t understand your point.

Well in a word baloney.

Your opinion.

Maybe you can think of an atheist who is kind, humble and uneducated? I just can’t think of any who fit that description.

OK if paralysis by analysis works for you, go for it.

Please let me summarize. You don’t understand, you disagree, you misrepresent.

 

[Lisa_N]

wolpertinger:

Please let me summarize. You don’t understand, you disagree, you misrepresent.

And your point would be?

Maybe you no longer wish to engage so you belittle me as a way out? It’s easier just to say that the discussion is going nowhere and we can bow out more gracefully.

Lisa N

 

[Benadam]

Carl:

AnAtheist

I like the Buddhist philosophy, that there are principles of right and wrong, that even the gods must follow…

But why isn’t this also a Christian principle with respect to one God?

It is, and because it is you don’t believe He exists.

 

[otm]

abcdefg:

a TRUE atheist doesn’t have any conscience. any activity that doesn’t cause legal troubles is ok with him. my parents are not quite pure atheists.

You are confusing a true hedonist with a true atheist. One only has to look beyond the Christian world to realize that anyone who lives in society has to get along, and the way to do that is to follow the “Golden Rule”. Following the Golden Rule doesn’t require any belief if God. And many people who don’t believe in God do follow the Golden Rule.

 

[Carl]

otm

Following the Golden Rule doesn’t require any belief if God. And many people who don’t believe in God do follow the Golden Rule.

Many of the people who follow the Golden Rule do so because of the Judaeo-Christian heritage they participate in.

We should be grateful to the One who gave us that heritage. He was not Plato. He was not Aristotle. He was not Darwin. He was not Einstein. He was the one and only … Jesus Christ … the One whose birthday we soon celebrate in spite of attempts by atheists to obliterate his name from all public places.

 

[otm]

Carl:

AnAtheist

A society can only work, if certain rules are obeyed, like not to kill other members of that society.

Yes, but I need you to tell me where the moral authority for such laws resides. Does it reside within each individual. Does it reside in certain groups of individuals? Which groups? How does society make its laws? Do the majority decide? What if the minority disagree? Are they morally compelled to obey the majority? Are the majority morally compelled to obey the minority? Who can we refer to as the ultimate authority? Is there any ultimate authority in the atheist’s world concerning the moral rightness or wrongness of an act?

*Basically what one does not want to be inflicted on oneself, should not be inflicted on others. *

Close to a notably Judaeo-Christian sentiment!

That is such a simple principle, that even a caveman can understand that.

Yet there are some simple moral principles that even modern high-tech men and women refuse to understand. Common sense is not sufficient to persuade many people of the rightness or wrongness of an act, especially if they are chronic subscribers to the act.

Some adult professionals, who ought to know better (have never lived in a cave) routinely have sex with kids of their own sex or the opposite sex. They see nothing morally wrong with it so long as it is consensual and some are actively engaged in promoting the legalizing of it (North American Man Boy Love Association, for instance … NAMBLA).

This, however, doesn’t distinguish atheists from theists. Both have had sex with kids.

and as an aside, I question whether or not they see nothing morally wrong with it. The only people who see nothing wrong with such acts (or others we consider immoral) are either psychopaths or sociopaths, niether of which has any relevance to atheism.

Carl:

Would an atheist be more likely to agree or disagree with this kind of morality? On what grounds? Where would the moral authority lie since the atheist can’t use in this case: what one does not want to be inflicted on oneself, should not be inflicted on others.?

The moral authority lies in the society and the individuals. We may state that conscience is given by God; they might say that conscience is evolved, and a product of living in society. They would not deny a conscience, and many would agree with many of the conclusions re: conscience of a theist.

 

[AnAtheist]

Carl:

AnAtheist

I like the Buddhist philosophy, that there are principles of right and wrong, that even the gods must follow…

But why isn’t this also a Christian principle with respect to one God?

Oh, it is. It is only the other way round.
In christianity God is the source of that principle, while in Buddhism the principle exist on its own, and the (personalised) gods are obliged to follow it.

 

[Carl]

otm

The moral authority lies in the society and the individuals.

Too vague for me.

When individuals and groups disagree, where is the moral authority?

 

[AnAtheist]

Carl:

We should be grateful to the One who gave us that heritage. He was not Plato. He was not Aristotle. He was not Darwin. He was not Einstein. He was the one and only … Jesus Christ … the One whose birthday we soon celebrate in spite of attempts by atheists to obliterate his name from all public places.

That is not entirely true. Of course there is a great deal of christian heritage in our culture, but there is a lot more. And many things of our cultural heritage do come the the ancient Greek, Romans and modern secular humanism.

The USA would not even exist, if all Americans would have followed the christian heritage in the 18th century, Mark 12:17 for example. And the US constitution would not exist, it clearly violates Exodus 20:3. And why do contemporary christians not live in pre-communist communities like those in Acts 4?

And Jesus’ birthday, that’s really christian heritage, after the christians stole that day from the pagans and turned it into a bizarre mix of Yule and Saturnalia. That’s only topped by Easter.

 

[buffalo]

**HOW IS AN ATHEIST CONSCIENCE FORMED? - from Catholics of course!
** I. THE NATURAL MORAL LAW

[1954](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/1954.htm’) Man participates in the wisdom and goodness of the Creator who gives him mastery over his acts and the ability to govern himself with a view to the true and the good. The natural law expresses the original moral sense which enables man to discern by reason the good and the evil, the truth and the lie:

**The natural law is written and engraved in the soul of each and every man, because it is human reason ordaining him to do good and forbidding him to sin . . **. But this command of human reason would not have the force of law if it were not the voice and interpreter of a higher reason to which our spirit and our freedom must be submitted.5 [1955](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/1955.htm’) The “divine and natural” law6 shows man the way to follow so as to practice the good and attain his end. The natural law states the first and essential precepts which govern the moral life. It hinges upon the desire for God and submission to him, who is the source and judge of all that is good, as well as upon the sense that the other is one’s equal. Its principal precepts are expressed in the Decalogue. This law is called “natural,” not in reference to the nature of irrational beings, but because reason which decrees it properly belongs to human nature:

Where then are these rules written, if not in the book of that light we call the truth? In it is written every just law; from it the law passes into the heart of the man who does justice, not that it migrates into it, but that it places its imprint on it, like a seal on a ring that passes onto wax, without leaving the ring.7** The natural law is nothing other than the light of understanding placed in us by God; through it we know what we must do and what we must avoid. God has given this light or law at the creation.8** [1956](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/1956.htm’) The natural law, present in the heart of each man and established by reason, is universal in its precepts and its authority extends to all men. It expresses the dignity of the person and determines the basis for his fundamental rights and duties:

For there is a true law: right reason. It is in conformity with nature, is diffused among all men, and is immutable and eternal; its orders summon to duty; its prohibitions turn away from offense . . . . To replace it with a contrary law is a sacrilege; failure to apply even one of its provisions is forbidden; no one can abrogate it entirely.9 1957 Application of the natural law varies greatly; it can demand reflection that takes account of various conditions of life according to places, times, and circumstances. Nevertheless, in the diversity of cultures, the natural law remains as a rule that binds men among themselves and imposes on them, beyond the inevitable differences, common principles.

[1958](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/1958.htm’) **The natural law is *immutable *and permanent throughout the variations of history;**10 it subsists under the flux of ideas and customs and supports their progress. The rules that express it remain substantially valid. Even when it is rejected in its very principles, it cannot be destroyed or removed from the heart of man. It always rises again in the life of individuals and societies:

Theft is surely punished by your law, O Lord, and by the law that is written in the human heart, the law that iniquity itself does not efface.11 [1959](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/1959.htm’) The natural law, the Creator’s very good work, provides the solid foundation on which man can build the structure of moral rules to guide his choices. It also provides the indispensable moral foundation for building the human community. Finally, it provides the necessary basis for the civil law with which it is connected, whether by a reflection that draws conclusions from its principles, or by additions of a positive and juridical nature.

[1960](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/1960.htm’) The precepts of natural law are not perceived by everyone clearly and immediately. In the present situation sinful man needs grace and revelation so moral and religious truths may be known "by everyone with facility, with firm certainty and with no admixture of error."12 The natural law provides revealed law and grace with a foundation prepared by God and in accordance with the work of the Spirit.

 

[Benadam]

AnAtheist:

Oh, it is. It is only the other way round.
In christianity God is the source of that principle, while in Buddhism the principle exist on its own, and the (personalised) gods are obliged to follow it.

I don’t understand how you draw a conclusion like that based on that information. A principle is a fundamental law, doctrin or assumption according to Webster’s. If two agree on a principle they can’t be on opposite sides of it at the same time. .

 

[Carl]

Well done, buffalo!

Your explanation, however, answers the question of final authority only from the Catholic point of view. The atheist doesn’t have to buy it since he does not believe there is a creator of the natural law. Rather, the natural law for him seems to rise out of itself and expresses itself in what he might call common practice or common sense. Whereas you would refer him to God as the source for answering all disputes over the law, he can refer you to no one at all. He might, as has been done above, vaguely refer to individuals or groups as the final authority, but that does not get us around the problem of dictators and fascists who also comprise individuals and groups. Likewise, the atheists might say the majority should rule as the final authority. But what good is that if the majority in any given instance is clearly wrong?

The best any atheist in this forum has come up with is the Golden Rule, which is at the heart of Christian tradition (even when not always practiced, it is the ideal to which Christians aspire).

I’m still waiting for an atheist to explain his final authority on matters of right and wrong. Is it the Golden Rule and only the Golden Rule? Then why shouldn’t atheists be celebrating Christmas right along with the rest of us?

 

[Benadam]

AnAtheist:

That is not entirely true. Of course there is a great deal of christian heritage in our culture, but there is a lot more. And many things of our cultural heritage do come the the ancient Greek, Romans and modern secular humanism.

It’s true that our culture has many heritages that enfluence it, on the other hand your comment would have to show how christianity isn’t the primary enfluence of conscience to be able to say it isn’t true.

The USA would not even exist, if all Americans would have followed the christian heritage in the 18th century, Mark 12:17 for example. And the US constitution would not exist, it clearly violates Exodus 20:3. And why do contemporary christians not live in pre-communist communities like those in Acts 4?

The Americans didn’t want to consider the King of England their Ceasar anymore, as the events of that time were statements of the colonial desire for independence. As for Ex:20:3 how is the constitution idolatrous? It actually keeps the door open for God to be freely expressed. Christians do live in communities like those in acts 4, it’s just that they have to strictly guard their membership in order to preserve the communal purity of the early church.

And Jesus’ birthday, that’s really christian heritage, after the christians stole that day from the pagans and turned it into a bizarre mix of Yule and Saturnalia. That’s only topped by Easter

It is christian heritage because christians pointed the pagan symbols at the object that makes them true…
.

 

[Monarchy]

Carl:

The best any atheist in this forum has come up with is the Golden Rule, which is at the heart of Christian tradition (even when not always practiced, it is the ideal to which Christians aspire).

The golden rule is older than christianity, and is part of most religions, not just yours.

 

[Carl]

MONARCHY

Hello again!

The golden rule is older than christianity, and is part of most religions, not just yours.

But is it at the center of most religions? Which ones? Please document. Which religions put love at the center; not just human love, but divine love too?

“God so loved the world He gave His only begotten Son.”

Merry Christmas!
Carl

 

[wolpertinger]

I have long given up on responding to Carl’s posts, but what Monarchy quoted made me smile. So the best atheists can come up with is the ideal to which Christians themselves aspire - even if they not always practice it.

 

[WhatIf]

Carl:

Well done, buffalo!

Your explanation, however, answers the question of final authority only from the Catholic point of view. The atheist doesn’t have to buy it since he does not believe there is a creator of the natural law. Rather, the natural law for him seems to rise out of itself and expresses itself in what he might call common practice or common sense. Whereas you would refer him to God as the source for answering all disputes over the law, he can refer you to no one at all. He might, as has been done above, vaguely refer to individuals or groups as the final authority, but that does not get us around the problem of dictators and fascists who also comprise individuals and groups. Likewise, the atheists might say the majority should rule as the final authority. But what good is that if the majority in any given instance is clearly wrong?

The best any atheist in this forum has come up with is the Golden Rule, which is at the heart of Christian tradition (even when not always practiced, it is the ideal to which Christians aspire).

I’m still waiting for an atheist to explain his final authority on matters of right and wrong. Is it the Golden Rule and only the Golden Rule? Then why shouldn’t atheists be celebrating Christmas right along with the rest of us?

As an atheist, I did celebrate Christmas. It is so commercial, people would not know the atheists from the Christians. We put up a tree, decorated it, bought gifts and shared our love as a family. We had Christmas spirit, but did not understand the true significance of Christmas as I do now that I am a Christian. I think an atheist is one who does not believe in God or any other higher “being” and not necessarily someone who rebels against all Christian traditions and holidays.

I read a post that implied Atheist would not have salvation. I think differently. I think it is quite possible that a person could live life as an atheist and possible still go to heaven, if he never recognized God’s call to him and at the moment of his death, when he realized there is a God, if he says yes and acknowledges God’s existence and loves him, then he may be saved. Many Christians however are more accountable for their actions because they know the difference between sin and no sin and still choose mortal sin. What will the accountability be for an Atheist. I think it depends on the reason for it. If brought up by atheist parents, then I think he will be less responsible for his actions. However, if raised by Christian parents and taught his faith, then I think he will perhaps be judges more strictly. Doesn’t the cathechism address this to some degree about some being held more accountable than others. Also, an Atheist could not commit a mortal sin, if he is unaware that his actions are sinful. I wouldn’t say that no atheist will go to heaven. I think that depends on a lot of circumstances, especially those right before death.