How to defend morals to atheists/agnostics

  • Thread starter Thread starter angeline15
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
EasterJoy said:
Actually, playfully turning the tables and training the microscope on the super-nosy is another useful ploy. When someone says, “why not?” and will not let it go, you can ask, “Wow. Does it bother you that I’m not doing the same thing you did? Why is that? Does it make you *uncomfortable *that some people still live apart before they are married? I mean to say that you seem VERY interested in this, and that is intriguing to me. Are there other ways in which it makes you uncomfortable when other people do things a different way than you did? Or does it only bother you when other people run their sex lives differently than you do? I mean, are you sure it doesn’t bother you the least little bit that you didn’t wait for marriage after all? Really? Are you sure?..”

Then let them stammer and defend themselves for a minute, and when you change the subject, they’ll see it as a mercy. 😉 😃
Click to expand...
👍
 
If someone was trying to tell me it is okay to sin and then said “Im Catholic and I did it” I would have no problem telling them that they suffer from a lax conscience and that me doing the same as them would make me a hypocrite, apostate Catholic, Cafeteria Catholic ect. They will get the hint.

With others who do not share my religious beliefs I would explain to them why I cannot cohabitate and if they continue to try to tell me it is ok, I would bluntly tell them that they are not going to change my mind, so they should cut it out. It will not work telling a atheist or agnostic why it is wrong to cohabitate because they do not believe like we do. All you can do is tell them why you choose not to. Don’t act as if the morals that your religion sets forth applies to them too (Just like you don’t want to be told what to do by them, they do not want to be told what to do by you) Gods law is binding on all people, but if they choose not to believe in God, that is their choice. But there is nothing wrong in pointing out that just like you are sure they do not want you calling one of their life choices immoral by your standards, you do not want them telling you that something you deem immoral is something you should not have a problem doing by their standards.
 
LaughingBoy1503 said:
… But there is nothing wrong in pointing out that just like you are sure they do not want you calling one of their life choices immoral by your standards, …
Click to expand...
There is no need to enter the realm of the moral and immoral, because their “life choices” don’t end as they go out their doors and into society. Polygamy [not to start an argument about that] was once considered a “life choice” by some segments of society, and still is.
Reynolds v. United States was the 1878 Supreme Court decision that upheld the constitutionality of anti-polygamy laws. It was a landmark decision. It defends the idea that American democracy rests upon specific family structures, which are legitimately protected by law. Chief Justice Morrison Waite, writing for a unanimous Court in Reynolds, quotes Francis Lieber, the most respected American legal authority of the day: “… polygamy leads to the patriarchal principle, . . . which, when applied to large communities, fetters the people in stationary despotism, while that principle cannot long exist in connection with monogamy. … For all their differences, Brigham Young and Chief Justice Waite would have agreed that monogamy and polygamy give rise to divergent governing principles.”
“Polygamy Versus Democracy: You can’t have both”
by Stanley Kurtz
Click to expand...
So we have legal precedent that shows us that different family structures lead to different political arrangements. What arrangements would co-habiting lead to? Since the burden of proof is on the advocate of social change to prove his case, I think it is incumbent on the advocates of co-habitation to prove what those arrangements and their consequences would be, and not the job of the defender of the status quo to disprove anything.
 
unstoppable_II said:
There is no need to enter the realm of the moral and immoral, because their “life choices” don’t end as they go out their doors and into society. Polygamy [not to start an argument about that] was once considered a “life choice” by some segments of society, and still is.

So we have legal precedent that shows us that different family structures lead to different political arrangements. What arrangements would co-habiting lead to? Since the burden of proof is on the advocate of social change to prove his case, I think it is incumbent on the advocates of co-habitation to prove what those arrangements and their consequences would be, and not the job of the defender of the status quo to disprove anything.
Click to expand...
Yeah, challenging them to a debate might work, or not.
 
Unless there is some duty to explain it to them i myself might leave it at “this is how I am choosing to do things” and leave it at that. I am fine with people not having a complete understanding of my motivations.

Pardon my mistakes. Sent from my mobile device.
 
ThinkingSapien said:
Unless there is some duty to explain it to them i myself might leave it at “this is how I am choosing to do things” and leave it at that…
Click to expand...
Good point. It’s ironic that we get this from those who champion “free choice.” 🤷
 
unstoppable_II said:
Good point. It’s ironic that we get this from those who champion “free choice.” 🤷
Click to expand...
I don’t think asking limits or impacts ones free choice any more than asking “why do you put whipped cream on icecream” would prevent some one from having their whipped cream. It’s not unusual for people to be curious about behaviours that are less common to themselves. If some penalty is being applied for. non-conformance then we would be in different territory. But as it stands now it sounds like it’s one people asking questions.
 
ThinkingSapien said:
… It’s not unusual for people to be curious about behaviours that are less common to themselves. If some penalty is being applied for. non-conformance then we would be in different territory. But as it stands now it sounds like it’s one people asking questions.
Click to expand...
It’s a possibility. However, asking about your preference for food is not quite as personal as asking why you do or not do something of a moral nature. I’ve been in these discussions many times, and they all end up with their trying to get you to justify your existence.
 
Wow, these people are being ridiculous and rude. Ugh.

I wouldn’t bother “defending” anything to them. Your private life is none of their business. I can understand having this conversation with a close friend who, because they ARE a friend would be respectful, but for others to badger you about any of this is just rude.

There is always the “Oh, didn’t know we needed to discuss our personal choices with you first. I’ll bring by some paint colors and see if you approve…”

The “I’m Catholic, and I did it”…is clearly them wanting you to approve of THEIR choice. To that one “that’s your peragotive, and this is ours” seems a reasonable response.
 
schaeffer said:
Wow, these people are being ridiculous and rude. Ugh.

I wouldn’t bother “defending” anything to them. Your private life is none of their business. I can understand having this conversation with a close friend who, because they ARE a friend would be respectful, but for others to badger you about any of this is just rude.

There is always the “Oh, didn’t know we needed to discuss our personal choices with you first. I’ll bring by some paint colors and see if you approve…”

The “I’m Catholic, and I did it”…is clearly them wanting you to approve of THEIR choice. To that one “that’s your peragotive, and this is ours” seems a reasonable response.
Click to expand...
👍
Lots of good responses here, but usually in a conversation there isn’t time to reflect on a good answer. We have all asked ourselves, “why didn’t I think of that at the time?”

Mega dittos on your last two sentences.
 
angeline15 said:
Hello Forum!
I am in always in need of advice here, yet have so little advice to give. 🤷

My bf and I are soon to be engaged, and all of our friends (and much of our family) is asking why we are not planning to live together first. We try to explain that it’s not our beliefs or religion… but many of them respond with “I’m catholic and I did it” or “everyone should live together before getting married, that’s what leads to divorce”… and other unsolicited advice. Many of our contemporaries do not believe in any faith or custom, and cannot relate to us on any level.

I do not wish to judge or offend anyone. I do not try to overshare details of our relationship like abstinence or living apart… because I feel like it would pass judgment on how they live their lives…but should I use this as a preaching moment? I know that I shy away from the topic, but I do not know a polite way of firmly stating my beliefs.

My bf usually changes the topic to sports. I’m still working on that.

Thanks!
-A.

PS. Should I distance myself from my atheist/agnostic “friends”? I know that we are having less and less in common as my faith grows and their antagonism to religion grows…I also don’t know how to politely quit friendships.
Click to expand...
You can ask them why they care so much whether you and your intended live together before marriage. What’s it to them?
 
Sarcelle said:
You can ask them why they care so much whether you and your intended live together before marriage. What’s it to them?
Click to expand...
What if everyone did it? And don’t say they wouldn’t; about 70% of black children are born into one-parent families headed by a woman. Just look at the plight of black, one-parent families to get an answer to your question. Or do you think that is none of society’s business?
 
unstoppable_II said:
What if everyone did it? And don’t say they wouldn’t; about 70% of black children are born into one-parent families headed by a woman. Just look at the plight of black, one-parent families to get an answer to your question. Or do you think that is none of society’s business?
Click to expand...
That might not be the best of examples. Depending on the person’s situation it may be to her economic benefit to not be married. But that’s another topic.
 
ThinkingSapien said:
That might not be the best of examples. Depending on the person’s situation it may be to her economic benefit to not be married. But that’s another topic.
Click to expand...
Robbing banks might be to the economic benefit of the bank robber, but not to society.
 
unstoppable_II said:
What if everyone did it? And don’t say they wouldn’t; about 70% of black children are born into one-parent families headed by a woman. Just look at the plight of black, one-parent families to get an answer to your question. Or do you think that is none of society’s business?
Click to expand...
Oops. I forgot to put the word “not” in my sentence.

I was trying to defend the OP and her decision to NOT live together with her intended before marriage. I forgot the word NOT.

I was in no way, shape or form trying to defend premarital sex but chastity.
 
Sarcelle said:
You can ask them why they care so much whether you and your intended live together before marriage. What’s it to them?
Click to expand...
Okay the above sentence should have been

You can ask them why they care so much whether you and your intended do NOT live together before marriage. What’s it to them?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top