HOW IS AN ATHEIST CONSCIENCE FORMED?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Carl
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
IPT

When the atheist is acting contrary to God’s natural law he is dissatisfied even though he can’t name the dissatisfaction… it is his soul crying out for the fulfillment which God intends for him.

And this why it is proper to say that, invited or not invited, God is present. Even when we deny His presence, He will make this imaginary absence felt by that very dissatisfaction of which you speak.

Why are there so many atheists in our forums? Could it be they are following the shadow of God into them?
 
Obviously I believe the catholic Church is the one institution on earth that has the key to forming a correct conscience in that the Church is the only place one can find the tools to do it.
Having said that.

I think if a person doesn’t submit to a higher authority outside of himself to form conscience, they of course become their own authority for a correct conscience.
 
First, most of the atheists I know aren’t the unschooled uncouth not nice people that most of you seem to think. In my experience they are some of the kindest, caring non-judgemental people I have ever come across.

Second, I am an atheist. I wasn’t raised this way. I studied to be this way. Not to that intent, but it was the unfortunate outcome. I say unfortunate because of the impact it has had on my family. I did not just wake up one day and decide that God didn’t exist or that I just didn’t believe anymore. It was a process, asking questions, praying and trying to seek out the answers my faith lacked. In the end I came to some conclusions about religion and god.

As an atheist my morals come from my judao-christian society I live in. Not to mention the 12 years of catholic school I attended. Also the golden rule. Now the golden rule isn’t just a rule of christian design. It makes sense from a secular view as well. Do you like to be stolen from? How about beaten? Cheated? Raped? Killed? Or have a loved one be killed? Me either. God’s got nothing to do with that need to get a long with my fellow man. Obviously I can’t expect that all people live by this rule. Hence the murder, rape and mayhem that fills our society. However, don’t think that for a minute I won’t respond in kind to someone that threatens or harms my friends or family or even those that can’t defend themselves.
You ask: How would a atheist society find its morals?
I think that an atheist society would still find it way to common laws. To prevent the rape, murder and all around mayhem. After all Hammurabi wasn’t Christian and he did a fine job of writing some rules down.
 
I believe an atheist society with no external influence might have laws very similar to a society that credits their structure of laws to God. The question that has to be asked is: to what end?
 
I believe an atheist society with no external influence might have laws very similar to a society that credits their structure of laws to God. The question that has to be asked is: to what end?

You may believe that, but you have no proof for it except possibly to look at the laws of the Soviet Union when atheism was the *official philosophy * of the land. You could not be a card-carrying communist in Russia in those days without declaring yourself an atheist. I don’t think the laws under that system were anything to admire, nor do I think they took any consideration of human rights. The man at the top of the system, Josef Stalin, himself an atheist, was as much an immoral monster as the world has ever seen. Even the Russians today repudiate him as their former national hero.
 
Carl said:
I believe an atheist society with no external influence might have laws very similar to a society that credits their structure of laws to God. The question that has to be asked is: to what end?

You may believe that, but you have no proof for it except possibly to look at the laws of the Soviet Union when atheism was the *official philosophy *of the land. You could not be a card-carrying communist in Russia in those days without declaring yourself an atheist. I don’t think the laws under that system were anything to admire, nor do I think they took any consideration of human rights. The man at the top of the system, Josef Stalin, himself an atheist, was as much an immoral monster as the world has ever seen. Even the Russians today repudiate him as their former national hero.
Click to expand...

That’s an interesting comparison. The society of atheists I modeled in my mind consisted of citizens who would be abiding by the natural law ie; obedient to the light of conscience and a law unto themselves who just didn’t attribute an external source for it.

Your comment brought to mind a common element to most societies, at least the most successfull ones. They all started out noble, with noble ideals which launched them into great nations. The events surrounding the beginning become the stuff of myth the personalities within them become the nations legendary heroes and this sustains a level of control over vise. Inevitably a breakdown of the ideals that forged the nation in the beginning snowballs and the nation crumbles.This is a pattern that’s repeated it’self since the dawn of time.
I’m thinking that the way that pattern of birth to death plays out can distinguish the degree a society credits their laws to an external authority. Perhaps the models for comparison would be the longest lived and most stable societies.
 
Perhaps the models for comparison would be the longest lived and most stable societies.

Right. There is a certain consistency in history. The atheist Hitler attacked Christianity and Judaism in general, as did Stalin. Hitler’s regime lasted only 12 years.

Our own republic, to the extent that it has remained fundamentally if not entirely Judeo-Christian, has lasted well over two centuries.

It’s the present descent into culture wars that is tearing apart the moral fabric of our society and is reflected in the current assault on Christmas, the Ten Commandments, and all references to God on public property. The assault, so far as I can tell, is led not by Buddhists, Muslims, or any other religion.

It is led by individual atheists who would like to forget the very precise wording of the Declaration of Independence.
 
In the Scriptures the most successfull society after th flood was dismantled on earth by God. He accomplished the task simply by hindering communication between it’s citizens. I think there is a fundamental principle within this story that relates to this topic. These were people the text describes as ‘wanting to make a name for themselves’ and reach the height of God. God even declares ’ there will be nothing to hard for them to do’ This story reveals that God is the source of their ability to understand one another or else He couldn’t have confused them. Once they weren’t able to understand one another they stopped building and scattered over the world. This points to the reason for my final statement in a previous post.

To what end? That is the question I would want an atheist to answer in regards of the moral laws that are chosen to form conscience.
 
40.png
jameson2:
You ask: How would a atheist society find its morals?
I think that an atheist society would still find it way to common laws. To prevent the rape, murder and all around mayhem. After all Hammurabi wasn’t Christian and he did a fine job of writing some rules down.
Click to expand...
Was Hammurabi an atheist? I don’t think so. You claim that an atheist society could find morals through “common laws.” Well who decides what is right and what is not? Given that an atheist society recognizes no power greater than man, it would be man who made the decisions. Given those in power would be the ones making decisions about what is “right” it would seem likely they would set the law to benefit only themselves and their families.Given that someone like Hammurabi had all the power, what inspired him to grant some of that power to the weaker? Maybe God?

Lisa N
 
Lisa

Given that someone like Hammurabi had all the power, what inspired him to grant some of that power to the weaker? Maybe God?

Merry Christmas Lisa and all!!!

God bless,
Carl
 
Carl said:
Perhaps the models for comparison would be the longest lived and most stable societies.

It’s the present descent into culture wars that is tearing apart the moral fabric of our society and is reflected in the current assault on Christmas, the Ten Commandments, and all references to God on public property. The assault, so far as I can tell, is led not by Buddhists, Muslims, or any other religion.

It is led by individual atheists who would like to forget the very precise wording of the Declaration of Independence.
Click to expand...

I wonder is the constitution intended to be enterpreted through the mind of the author . I mean can it’s meaning deviate from the meaning it had in the author’s mind? If not how can it be enterpreted that the authors would allow the removal of all references to God in public places if they would allow the very money passed through it to have a reference to God? Such as 'In God We Trust"
 
40.png
buffalo:
Individual Christians may disagree what is evil, but the Catholic Church understands what is evil quite well.
Click to expand...
So you are saying that there has never been disagreement within the catholic church regarding what is evil?
 
*I wonder is the constitution intended to be enterpreted through the mind of the author . *

You would think so. And so it has. Until very recently, the First Amendment, as intended by the Framers, referred strictly to the freedom of all Americans to practice their own religion. The reason for that amendment was to show no favoritism to one religion over another … specifically with regarding one church as a state church to be supported by public taxes, such as was common in Europe at the time. This was equitable for the obvious reasons.

Atheists today have magnified that separation of Church and State to include all references to any God or religion in the public sector. But when you go back and read public documents of the 18th century, God is mentioned everywhere. So the original intent was not to remove God from the public square, but merely to give no particular church special preference or indulgence.

Now we have a situation where atheists have become so bold as to regret even the teaching of the Declaration of Independence. They hate that word Creator. They love the word Deist. So you would think they would not mind substituting the word Deity for Creator in the Declaration.

Think again.
 
the First Amendment, as intended by the Framers,

The attempt to force a redefined idea of family onto the world was thwarted by the vatican in Cairo 1993 I think it was. I know that in relation to culture war that would have been an atomic bomb on traditional values. You’re right the modern arsenal today is in redefining principle ideas like family, God, good, etc.

In regards of redefining principle ideas with new words I would say: If a thing is so highly regarded that it frames a nation, and then the nation actually proves it’s worth in that the world adopts it’s concepts, it seems rebellious to suggest that those principle ideas be abandoned.
 
Carl said:
*I wonder is the constitution intended to be enterpreted through the mind of the author . *

You would think so. And so it has. Until very recently, the First Amendment, as intended by the Framers, referred strictly to the freedom of all Americans to practice their own religion. The reason for that amendment was to show no favoritism to one religion over another … specifically with regarding one church as a state church to be supported by public taxes, such as was common in Europe at the time. This was equitable for the obvious reasons.

Atheists today have magnified that separation of Church and State to include all references to any God or religion in the public sector. But when you go back and read public documents of the 18th century, God is mentioned everywhere. So the original intent was not to remove God from the public square, but merely to give no particular church special preference or indulgence.

Now we have a situation where atheists have become so bold as to regret even the teaching of the Declaration of Independence. They hate that word Creator. They love the word Deist. So you would think they would not mind substituting the word Deity for Creator in the Declaration.

Think again.
Click to expand...

Now we have a situation where atheists have become so bold as to regret even the teaching of the Declaration of Independence. They hate that word Creator. They love the word Deist. So you would think they would not mind substituting the word Deity for Creator in the Declaration.

Your exactly right, that is how conscience is slowly reformed almost imperceptibly. In fact this is what I believe is the true motive of some who want gender references removed from the scriptures and the litirgy.
 
TizMe

So you are saying that there has never been disagreement within the catholic church regarding what is evil?

Buffalo seems to be away. Mind if I take your question?

Yes, there has been disagreement … and plenty of it. When a matter of doctrine has not been the issue, you will find Catholic theologians touting a hundred different theories.

But where doctrine is concerned, where the official teaching of the Church is concerned, you will find very little disagreement among theologians.

Now with the laity, that’s a different matter. Many laity disagree with the teachings of the Church for different reasons: they do not understand them; they have been brainwashed away from them; they are in direct disobedience to them; they are about to leave the Church anyway; etc.

This does not mean that Church doctrine is not universal in a way far superior to what the Protestants can claim. Just look in your local telephone directory under “Churches” if you want to know where most of the disagreements are going on. Look under “Protestant” if you want to see a dazzling display of contrary denominations with only one unifying principle: they all Protest the Catholic Church…
 
Originally Posted by jameson2
*
You ask: How would a atheist society find its morals?
I think that an atheist society would still find it way to common laws. To prevent the rape, murder and all around mayhem. After all Hammurabi wasn’t Christian and he did a fine job of writing some rules down.*
Yes, I agree, but I also believe there would be a sense of why? That can be answered if we burst the bonds and slough off our intellect and decide there is nothing but this life and to die. So lets all get along and have as much fun as possible while we’re here. This by appearances will look like a very ‘nice’ culture. Where the truth of things would be seen is when their things are taken away and it’s seen that humanity means less than things. We’re close as it is.
 
Alright Lisa, Was H a Christian? I don’t think so. Maybe he was a Jew or at least worshipped the God of Abraham. Last I checked which was some time ago he was Babylonian. Which made him a polytheist. Now according to the actual laws God (god being Marduk) isn’t mentioned anywhere.
Hammurabi states in a kind of prologue: “When Marduk sent me to rule over men, to give the protection of right to the land, I did right and righteousness in . . . , and brought about the well-being of the oppressed.”
I got this information at wsu.edu/~dee/MESO/CODE.HTM
I can agree that H wasn’t an atheist. His laws are pretty secular though. There aren’t any threats concerning regular service attendance or worshipping one god or the other. I perused all of the laws and saw that they all were about man’s dealings with man.
 
Benandam, Fun? I don’t recall saying that being an atheist was fun. In fact I believe I mentioned that it was a hardship on my family as my wife is Catholic. This is something that I have struggled with for years. There are no easy answers.

Who puts value on humanity? You might say God. I say humanity does. Last I checked God hadn’t come down and saved all the aborted babies or those about to be aborted. Nor did he stop his chosen people(the Jews) from being slaughtered by Hitler’s nazi’s.
In several cases God himself ordered the destruction of several races of people down to their cattle. He also got angry when these orders weren’t carried out because his followers got weak stomachs. What does this mean? We are the people that put value on our own humanity. To carnivorous animals we are a source of food. I think that to some, humanity is worth less than the value of material things. It’s sad.
 
40.png
Carl:
Now we have a situation where atheists have become so bold as to regret even the teaching of the Declaration of Independence. They hate that word Creator. They love the word Deist. So you would think they would not mind substituting the word Deity for Creator in the Declaration.

Think again.
Click to expand...
Where? I have no problem with the teaching of the DoI. I do have a problem with “One Nation, Under God, Indivisible” though. Change it back to the original and remove Under God.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top