If atheists deny the existence of God

[TULIPed]

Lastly, what motivates ardent atheists to argue against theists, isn’t the theists’ God, it’s the theists’ arrogance.

Ironic, given this command to followers of Christ:

“ Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above yourselves, not looking to your own interests but each of you to the interests of the others.

In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:

Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; rather, he made himself nothingby taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.

And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death—
even death on a cross!”

Clearly we could do a better job.

 

[Magnanimity]

trying to force religion in public schools. Here’s an example.

This is an example of employees within a school preferencing one religion over others, in the South, a place that the proselytizers thought was a safe space for doing so. And that is why our 1st amendment protects against such. But when you say “force” the teaching, you make it sound as if there was a religion class or that Christianity 101 somehow made it into a curriculum.

apologists Ravi Zacharias

I do know Ravi (MHRIP). He was the first “apologist” whose writings I discovered way back in ‘97. I know that he does not advocate what you claim here. He’s aware, as all reasonable people are, that atheists can be “good people.” I do not know the other fellow you mentioned, but a quick internet search would suggest to any rational person that he is in no way a “prominent theist.” Your example is an uneducated creationist?!? Naturally, I was looking for a Swinburne or a Plantinga or a Barron or a Feser or a Hart or a Zagzebski or an Audi or a Stump—you know, an actually prominent theist who suggests that being an atheist entails that one “lacks morals…”

I’d link to an example of someone opting for prayer for a sick child instead of taking them to a doctor… We can talk about the people looking to rebuild the third temple as a way to brink about Christ’s return… We can talk about the people who feel that we don’t need to take care of the Earth because Jesus’ return is imminent.

So Mike, I’m curious. You do realize that although CAF is a conservative-leaning Catholic forum, that not all here are oriented that way, right? And you would understand the difference between a fundamentalist religious person and and, say, professor Robert George of Princeton U? Or, are you unable to distinguish fundamentalists who have zealous beliefs/behaviors and the vast majority of all other people? There will always be zealots and bizarre folks, whether they are theists or atheists. But are you operating within a framework that would suggest that all religious folks are ipso facto fundamentalists? (And all atheists are ipso facto reasonable?)

 

[Magnanimity]

Well, you didn’t need a story to illustrate that. Just the last paragraph would have done for me.

I enjoy telling stories, even though I’m not so great at it!! Please indulge me.

The social mores involved would have been perhaps some internal satisfaction that I helped - tending towards pride.

Because it was the “right thing to do,” correct? It was an ought that you identified within you. A fairly universalizable one—the maxim I referred to. Arguably, even the young men who looked right at her an passed her by felt it too and a twinge of ensuing shame/guilt at not having helped when it would have cost them very little.

My social position was improved by helping and would have been affected negatively if I hadn’t

No, I don’t think so. The main players in the scenario are you, the old lady and a group of young men. Perhaps the young men know each other. But you, the lady and the group are all relative strangers to each other. You gain nothing, socially, by helping. No increase in “position,” unless you’d like to explain how. No one you know personally saw what you did. You helped bc of your internal commitment to the maxim, even when young ppl more capable of helping her than you are, simply passed her by. I see no obvious benefit that accrues to you that would fit within a “survival advantage” framework. You knew what you ought to do (somehow). Even the young men knew (somehow). We all do.

 

[Pattylt]

I’ve had interactions with “arrogant” theists but it was definitely not the norm. Often, it’s a street preacher type of encounter. In day to day living, I’ve had occasions conversations about religion and they were always considerate and unheated,barring one small occurrence where I made a comment about not understanding why religious people believe so strongly in their beliefs and it seemed to really trigger a coworker into thinking I was dissing her beliefs. I quickly apologized and explained that my being baffled wasn’t a hit on her beliefs and she quickly calmed down when everyone around us agreed that she jumped the gun a bit! It turned out fine…we worked side by side for many years after.

Most atheists that are loud about atheism have either been genuinely hurt by their church/pastor or just have a personality like a street preacher. The loud ones seem to have a bit in common with each other. Most atheists will never bring up religion. For too many years it was a taboo and actually harmful. This is changing now as the atheist community has grown. Young kids are much more open about their beliefs and some religious have become more quiet. Age may make a lot of difference here.

What society isn’t doing too well at, is accepting either side. We all need a bit more tolerance…some have progressed further on this road than others. I’m much more at ease in opening up about my agnosticism/atheism than even ten years ago…but, I’m also retired and don’t have fear of retribution now. That’s a real fear many atheists still carry…depending on their boss or position. It’s happening to religious folks now, too. After years of being in the privileged position, having to check their faith at the door is a new experience for some. It shouldn’t happen to anyone. Alas, such is life these days.

 

[Freddy]

No, I don’t think so. The main players in the scenario are you, the old lady and a group of young men. Perhaps the young men know each other. But you, the lady and the group are all relative strangers to each other. You gain nothing, socially, by helping. No increase in “position,” unless you’d like to explain how. No one you know personally saw what you did. You helped bc of your internal commitment to the maxim, even when young ppl more capable of helping her than you are, simply passed her by. I see no obvious benefit that accrues to you that would fit within a “survival advantage” framework. You knew what you ought to do (somehow). Even the young men knew (somehow). We all do.

But as I said, these aren’t (normally) conscious decisions. We make them automatically. The benefits or the negative outcomes (if any) accrue automatically. We don’t (normally) do these things because we want to feel pride or think that our social standing will improve.

If someone helped the old lady and you asked why and they were as honest as they could be, they probably would say, as you did, that one ‘just knows’.

It’s very rare that you can do some good without any benefits to the self. Even if you do something completely anonymously, one gets a warm feeling of ‘having done the right thing’. You can sleep well in your bed as opposed to have done the wrong thing anonymously and lose sleep.

That’s not to say that people don’t actively look to gain social position by exhibiting the fact that they are doing good. A celebrity may give a considerable sum to charity and then have someone let slip that information. But it’s risky because if we find out she wanted it known then the social standing drops considerably. But if someone does it anonymously and we find out by accident then the opposite happens (‘Aw shucks, I was just doing my bit’).

All of which means that we generally and unconsciously act correctly but…we know the benefits of doing so and so can consciously buck the system (at a significant risk) for our own benefit.

 

[Freddy]

I’m much more at ease in opening up about my agnosticism/atheism than even ten years ago…but, I’m also retired and don’t have fear of retribution now. That’s a real fear many atheists still carry…depending on their boss or position. It’s happening to religious folks now, too. After years of being in the privileged position, having to check their faith at the door is a new experience for some. It shouldn’t happen to anyone. Alas, such is life these days.

That just sounds weird to someone from Australia. In my last few years of working and the scores of people I worked with I can only name one who was either a believer or not. And he was a Muslim and I only knew because he dissapeared a couple of times a day to pray (which bothered nobody at all).

Otherwise, it’s simply not a matter that has any traction at all. It never comes up. That it’s such a mainstream, and diversive, subject in the states is baffling.

My wife and I travelled through the States for a few months a couple of years back and I had one rule: If we’re in a bar, don’t talk politics, guns or religion. We managed two out of three anyway.

 

[Pattylt]

It is different here. It’s not a major issue…until it is. I had managers and supervisors over the years where some it wouldn’t have been an issue at all but get that supervisor that goes to an evangelical or fundamentalist church, it’s really an issue. I never got used to being asked what church I went to…just out of curiosity, mind you! Never mind the rules of the organization…I worked in a hospital! People that want to place you in their little boxes find a way to casually find out. I live in Colorado…the south is even worse. My SIL lived in Texas. The day they moved into their house, the neighbors brought over a Welcome package from their church and asked, What church do you go to? When she answered None, their assumption was that she was looking for a church, not that she doesn’t attend any church. When she made it clear she wasn’t following any religion, the cold shoulders appeared. Her neighbors never interacted with her…she wasn’t even invited to Tupperware parties! . At lease they never egged her house! Texas is supposed to be known for their hospitality? She moved away after three years and hated Texas with a passion for how she was treated. She didn’t consider herself an atheist either…just a None.

I’m not trying to say everywhere is like this…it’s not. My neighbors have never asked and I’ve never told them. It just never comes up. Honestly, that’s the way it should be.

When I was a child, we lived in Florida and had several horrible experiences from being Jewish but we also had neighbors that were Catholics and Baptist’s that were wonderful neighbors. Did BBQs and the whole neighborly bit. My mother even commented that while neighbors usually figured out what religion their other neighbors were, it just wasn’t discussed publicly. People were more private maybe? But, the assumption was always that you were some type of Christian. We certainly can’t do that now. Now, it seems important for some people to know who the Jews are, who the Catholics are, etc. As Christianity shrinks, more people seem to be more concerned when it still isn’t anyone’s business.

 

[PickyPicky]

That just sounds weird to someone from Australia

… and to someone from England. But then the English are prone to social embarrassment, and asking someone their religion would be like asking them their salary: Oh dear no, that would be so embarrassing.

 

[PickyPicky]

A few years ago we had some neighbours with whom we were mildly friendly — commiserating about the weather, taking in parcels when they were out, walking their dog when they were ill, the women meeting occasionally for coffee, that sort of thing. When the husband died his wife invited us to the funeral mass. We attended, of course, but that was the first time I knew they were Catholic. Had I thought about it I might have guessed, as their surname was Irish, but I didn’t think about it. It’s largely a private matter in England.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

This is an example of employees within a school preferencing one religion over others, in the South, a place that the proselytizers thought was a safe space for doing so.

This isn’t just a few rogue employees in a school, but the staff of the school from top to bottom. One doesn’t get to make announcements over the loudspeaker without getting approval as to what is said. The same is true in forcing children to pray at required assemblies, have speakers proselytize to kids at required assemblies, having Bibles distributed in classes the students must attend, or prayers plastered in the hallways they walk through.

And what does it matter if the school is in the South? If people are being treated unfairly I and others are more than welcome to speak on that no matter what distance those people are from me. And don’t think that this school was the sole example of such forcing of a faith on students in a public school.

Also this forcing isn’t limited to schools. Workplaces can have people trying to force people to either acknowledge or participate in religiosoty (e.g. employer-led prayer meetings where those not participating are passed over for raises and promotions). The U.S. military has had an ongoing trouble in dealing with non-religious members. Here’s one example where soldiers at Fort Eustis were told to attend a Commanding General’s Spiritual Fitness Concert, which technically wasn’t mandatory. When 80 soldiers chose not to they were punished by having to perform maintenance – again for not attending a Christian concert that wasn’t mandatory.

And that is why our 1st amendment protects against such. But when you say “force” the teaching, you make it sound as if there was a religion class or that Christianity 101 somehow made it into a curriculum.

Just because the 1st amendment offers protection, it’s still vital to speak out and shine a light on such infractions. It’s not the kind of thing that quickly sorts itself out. Plus we need to be ever-vigilant in the defense of these protection so they are not eroded.

There’s more than one way to force a religion on a student. Forced religious instruction (something in the line of the Jewish people in the Papal States) is one way, but the examples from just that one school are several other ways. All are wrong, and all necessitate speaking out against them.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

I do know Ravi (MHRIP). He was the first “apologist” whose writings I discovered way back in ‘97. I know that he does not advocate what you claim here. He’s aware, as all reasonable people are, that atheists can be “good people.” I do not know the other fellow you mentioned, but a quick internet search would suggest to any rational person that he is in no way a “prominent theist.” Your example is an uneducated creationist?!? Naturally, I was looking for a Swinburne or a Plantinga or a Barron or a Feser or a Hart or a Zagzebski or an Audi or a Stump—you know, an actually prominent theist who suggests that being an atheist entails that one “lacks morals…”

You’ll find that yours is not the one and only measure as to who is and is not a prominent theist. The ones I gave have numerous followers. You dismissed Eric Hovind despite the fact that he raised a million dollars from his followers for his Genesis: Paradise Lost film and netted $1.5 million in sales.

You have to understand that no matter what extent of “No True Christian” used, there are a sizeable percentage of Christians who question the morality of anyone without a faith, and their followers will believe that. It’s important to dismiss such canards when possible. It’s no different than a Catholic defending against falsehoods made by non-Catholics. Too often the reason why people are told to be quiet is because they speak a truth others find uncomfortable.

 

[Magnanimity]

But as I said, these aren’t (normally) conscious decisions. We make them automatically. The benefits or the negative outcomes (if any) accrue automatically.

Hey Freddy. I doubt that “automatically” is the best way to construe it. There must be something that accounts for why you helped the lady when the young men passed her by. As in, what made it “automatic” for you but not for them?

Perhaps we could say that you did it on the basis of your extant character (I.e., you’re the type of person who normally stops what he’s doing to help others, especially if the other seems to be in a near dire situation). And maybe the young men have not yet developed that character (no “force of virtuous habit” would apply to them in the scenario). But maybe we’re saying essentially the same thing here.

If someone helped the old lady and you asked why and they were as honest as they could be, they probably would say, as you did, that one ‘just knows’.

Well, certainly. That’s precisely the point I was making regarding the somewhat mysterious nature of knowing an “ought” that isn’t derived from a what is. I was musing about an interior sense of ought and it’s intrinsic mysterious nature.

It’s very rare that you can do some good without any benefits to the self.

This strikes me as a very Modern, Western pov - the mythic isolated “self.” In reality, humans are communal and relational by their very natures. As a parent, I could not even count the numbers of times that I have ceased doing something that I had been enjoying doing, or that I had put off the doing of something that I would derive pleasure from, to assist my kids with something. Or my parents. Or siblings. Or coworkers. Or best friends. And on and on it goes.

What I’m describing is that in the daily activities of our ongoing lives, we repeatedly and frequently put off the things that we believe will bring pleasure to our interior selves for the sake of others, or for the greater good of the wider community. Trying to theorize that moral decision-making always at its essence somehow reflects back upon an individualized self Is likely deeply flawed.

 

[goout]

If people tried to:

• force the teaching of the Easter Bunny in schools
• claim that people who don’t believe in the Easter Bunny lack morals
• want taxpayer money to build homages to the Easter Bunny
• claim that a lack of belief in the Easter Bunny makes a person unfit for political office
• direct people to do illogical things or have a skewed sense of science based on the Easter Bunny

Which are all tending toward fundamentalist fringe Christianity, not mainstream, and definitely not Catholic positions.
It’s typical of atheists to address fundamentalist caricatures. Odd thing…

 

[goout]

I do know Ravi (MHRIP). He was the first “apologist” whose writings I discovered way back in ‘97. I know that he does not advocate what you claim here. He’s aware, as all reasonable people are, that atheists can be “good people.” I do not know the other fellow you mentioned, but a quick internet search would suggest to any rational person that he is in no way a “prominent theist.” Your example is an uneducated creationist?!? Naturally, I was looking for a Swinburne or a Plantinga or a Barron or a Feser or a Hart or a Zagzebski or an Audi or a Stump—you know, an actually prominent theist who suggests that being an atheist entails that one “lacks morals…”

You’ll find that yours is not the one and only measure as to who is and is not a prominent theist. The ones I gave have numerous followers. You dismissed Eric Hovind despite the fact that he raised a million dollars from his followers for his Genesis: Paradise Lost film and netted $1.5 million in sales.

You have to understand that no matter what extent of “No True Christian” used, there are a sizeable percentage of Christians who question the morality of anyone without a faith, and their followers will believe that. It’s important to dismiss such canards when possible. It’s no different than a Catholic defending against falsehoods made by non-Catholics. Too often the reason why people are told to be quiet is because they speak a truth others find uncomfortable.

So the limited perspective you are addressing is pointed out to you, and you double down on it as a comprehensive address of Christianity, when it’s definitively not.

Why do atheists need fundamentalism?

 

[Polak]

They don’t just talk about God a lot, but they talk about him with great anger. ‘What kind of an awful God does this and that’. Bad things happen in the world, and if you truly do not believe there is a God, then deal with it without mentioning what you don’t believe in.

YOu don’t see them debating the Easter Bunny, do you ?

Nope, much like I don’t waste my time arguing about not believing in little green men flying around space and abducting people on earth who happen to live near crop fields.

 

[Magnanimity]

The same is true in forcing children to pray at required assemblies

You are overstating your case. No one “forces” students to do anything. How could one force another to pray? How might a person force a student to say the Pledge of Allegiance? None of these things are remotely possible, especially not today.

And what does it matter if the school is in the South?

That fact gives context to the strange behavior. If something militantly secularistic were to occur in the states of Washington or Oregon, I would be a little more forgiving of it due to the highly secularized population that lives there. Context does matter in all of these situations. Anti-religious sentiment should not be tolerated (anymore than proselytizing in schools), but I would be more understanding of it occurring in Portland or Seattle.

You’ll find that yours is not the one and only measure as to who is and is not a prominent theist. The ones I gave have numerous followers. You dismissed Eric Hovind

If you’ll recall, I did originally ask for a “prominent theist” who advocated that atheists can’t have ’good morals.’ You gave two names. The first of which, Ravi, does not and has not advocated what you suggested. So that was incorrect. The only other name you mentioned is an uneducated creationist. Perhaps you could name an academic? A well-known writer or public speaker? Basically, anyone whose influence extends beyond the under-educated in America? If not, then I’ll take your point to have been at best a misleading one and at worst, false.

 

[Magnanimity]

Why do atheists need fundamentalism?

It’s a good question. I think it’s always tempting to go after the “low hanging fruit” on the tree of the other side. This Hovind character would be an example of such fruit, as Richard Dawkins is for Catholics—easy to undermine and discredit as fundamentally unqualified to speak on religious/theological/philosophical matters.

I agree that it’s always best to steer clear of fundamentalists who lack any sort of credentials to speak on religious/spiritual matters. This is true for theists and atheists.

 

[Freddy]

Mike_from_NJ:

You’ll find that yours is not the one and only measure as to who is and is not a prominent theist. The ones I gave have numerous followers. You dismissed Eric Hovind

If you’ll recall, I did originally ask for a “prominent theist” who advocated that atheists can’t have ’good morals.’ You gave two names. The first of which, Ravi, does not and has not advocated what you suggested. So that was incorrect. The only other name you mentioned is an uneducated creationist. Perhaps you could name an academic?

William Lane Craig?

‘…if God does not exist, then morality is just a human convention, that is to say, morality is wholly subjective and non-binding’. Can We Be Good without God? | Popular Writings | Reasonable Faith

 

[FiveLinden]

I’m amazed at the people I interact with who claim to be atheist, but they love talking about “well if there was a god then why does X happen”?

Yup. That’s me. I love finding out why people believe things for which I see no compelling reason to believe. The JWs who called me the other day found this out after about 40 minutes!

I’m interested in other things too and love talking with people about those things also.

I’m not at all interested in changing people’s minds away from (not of their) their beliefs but find posing challenges is a good way to understand more.

 

[goout]

Magnanimity:

Mike_from_NJ:

You’ll find that yours is not the one and only measure as to who is and is not a prominent theist. The ones I gave have numerous followers. You dismissed Eric Hovind

If you’ll recall, I did originally ask for a “prominent theist” who advocated that atheists can’t have ’good morals.’ You gave two names. The first of which, Ravi, does not and has not advocated what you suggested. So that was incorrect. The only other name you mentioned is an uneducated creationist. Perhaps you could name an academic?

William Lane Craig?

‘…if God does not exist, then morality is just a human convention, that is to say, morality is wholly subjective and non-binding’. Can We Be Good without God? | Popular Writings | Reasonable Faith

You have to admit that “subjective morality” is self contradictory. This doesn’t mean that atheists behave immorally any more than Christians who support objective moral standards will behave morally.

He is simply making the observation that morality by nature must be pointed to something transcending the individual or group of individuals, or else it’s simply opinion, or preference, or power. (or you can simply redefine “morality” in a way that it’s never been used before and make the term meaningless)