Increase of Atheists around the world, increase of crime any coincidence?

[Freddy]

jan10000:

An Atheist would say the opposite. An atheist could say Catholicism increases suffering.

Your post would be a great deal of fun to completely dismantle one point at a time, but let’s start here.

An atheist would see absolutely no value in suffering, so an atheist believes any discomfort imposed by moral precepts and liturgical rules are creating unnecessary suffering due to limitations on self-indulgence.

For an atheist, feelings and pleasure are the benchmarks for morality, ergo any deprivation of those is evil. Self-discipline, temperance, altruism, self-sacrifice, are all causes of suffering and displeasure, which is why atheists think that “Catholic dogma is immoral.”

I don’t think you’ve read much of John Stuart Mill. Self-discipline, temperance, altruism and self-sacrifice are some of the benchmarks we should use for defining ‘human pleasure’. Because if you had read him then you’d know he wasn’t talking about simple ‘pleasures of the flesh’ (not that there’s anything wrong with those). It’s a somewhat naiive interpretation of utilitarianism. As he says: ‘It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied’.

Meaning that the pleasure we refer to are the ‘higher pleasures’ that we get, not just from a sunny day or a decent wine or a roll in the mud, but from stretching ourselves mentally and physically as well.

So I would probably prefer to go down the pub right now rather than spend an hour studying Spanish. But the long term satisfaction I get from speaking (rather badly) a foreign language exceeds the transient pleasures of a couple of cold beers. Likewise the hard work and self sacrifice one puts in to run a marathon is more than compensated by the satisfaction of completing one (and getting fitter into the bargain).

And this includes putting something back into the community. From volunteering to coach the local under 11 soccer team to standing for a council position or helping a local charity.

We all know people who just prefer a few cold ones down the local rather than aiming higher. And I think we all know who ends up being happier.

So there is benefit in discomfort. There are advantages in self sacrifice and temperance. Altruism will often lead to better things.

So to suggest that atheists are simply hedonistic pleasure seekers and lotus eaters is, again I must say, a somewhat naive view.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

jan10000:

An Atheist would say the opposite. An atheist could say Catholicism increases suffering.

Your post would be a great deal of fun to completely dismantle one point at a time, but let’s start here.

An atheist would see absolutely no value in suffering, so an atheist believes any discomfort imposed by moral precepts and liturgical rules are creating unnecessary suffering due to limitations on self-indulgence.

For an atheist, feelings and pleasure are the benchmarks for morality, ergo any deprivation of those is evil. Self-discipline, temperance, altruism, self-sacrifice, are all causes of suffering and displeasure, which is why atheists think that “Catholic dogma is immoral.”

I don’t think you’ve read much of John Stuart Mill. …

Aside from the fact that Mill was an agnostic and skeptic, not an atheist, I don’t recall even bringing him up.

So your castigation was one big waste of time (along with being a herring strongly cured in brine and possibly heavily smoked.)

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

HarryStotle:

jan10000:

An Atheist would say the opposite. An atheist could say Catholicism increases suffering.

Your post would be a great deal of fun to completely dismantle one point at a time, but let’s start here.

An atheist would see absolutely no value in suffering, so an atheist believes any discomfort imposed by moral precepts and liturgical rules are creating unnecessary suffering due to limitations on self-indulgence.

For an atheist, feelings and pleasure are the benchmarks for morality, ergo any deprivation of those is evil. Self-discipline, temperance, altruism, self-sacrifice, are all causes of suffering and displeasure, which is why atheists think that “Catholic dogma is immoral.”

I don’t think you’ve read much of John Stuart Mill. …

Aside from the fact that Mill was an agnostic and skeptic, not an atheist, I don’t recall even bringing him up.

My apologies. I must be careful from now on in not to quote anyone who is not a dyed-in-the-wool atheist. And I also promise not to bring up anyone into the discussion unless you have mentioned that person first. I am suitable chastened.

However…the point still stands. Which was nothing to do with the genus clueidae (of any shade of red), but was a refutation of your claim. The point being that any atheist who adheres to that which Mill proposed (i.e. the dreaded materialistic utilitarianism - thunder rolls, a scream and maniacal laughter offstage) does not consider self-discipline, temperance, altruism, self-sacrifice etc to be negative concepts. If you did think that then at least now you know a little better. At least as far as this atheist is concerned. But I think you’ll find it quite common a view amongst almost all people who would prefer to be disatisfied persons than satisfied pigs.

But then again, maybe you know a lot of happy pigs who are also atheist. You must have got your ideas from somewhere. You can’t have just made them up.

 

[FiveLinden]

For an atheist, feelings and pleasure are the benchmarks for morality, ergo any deprivation of those is evil. Self-discipline, temperance, altruism, self-sacrifice, are all causes of suffering and displeasure, which is why atheists think that “Catholic dogma is immoral.”

Do you really believe this of me, my wife, children and friends?

 

[HarryStotle]

However…the point still stands. … but was a refutation of your claim.

The point being that any atheist who adheres to that which Mill proposed (i.e. the dreaded materialistic utilitarianism - thunder rolls, a scream and maniacal laughter offstage) does not consider self-discipline, temperance, altruism, self-sacrifice etc to be negative concepts.

In order to refute a claim, you would have to first understand the claim, and clearly you haven’t yet.

Nowhere did I claim that atheists CANNOT, as a matter of fact, live according to concepts or virtues such as self-discipline, temperance, altruism, self-sacrifice, etc.

My claim was – and please read this carefully, several times if you have to – atheists have no grounds or rationale in their world view to compel or warrant their living according to those virtues or notions. Atheists could just as readily live undisciplined, intemperate, egoistic and hedonistic lives with just as much warrant from their atheism.

Get it?

As for happy pigs…

…if atheism means simply lacking a belief in God, then pigs are atheists, as are rocks and trees.

You could have human “pigs” quite content in wallowing in hedonism and that lifestyle would be quite compatible with atheism. There is nothing in atheism that would dissuade them from doing so.

Get the point now?

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

For an atheist, feelings and pleasure are the benchmarks for morality, ergo any deprivation of those is evil. Self-discipline, temperance, altruism, self-sacrifice, are all causes of suffering and displeasure, which is why atheists think that “Catholic dogma is immoral.”

Do you really believe this of me, my wife, children and friends?

I have no idea what to believe about you, your wife, or your children and friends.

If you read the post to which I was responding, my reply was a tongue-in-cheek reflection of her post back to her.

Whatever @jan10000 claimed about Catholics from the eyes of an indiscriminate atheist could be responded to in roughly the same terms by an equally disingenuous “Catholic” speaking about atheists.

Her sentiments about Catholics…

An Atheist would say the opposite. An atheist could say Catholicism increases suffering. As a percentage, atheists are the most law-abiding class of citizens by far. Why be a good person if what you think is good is irrelevant, and God will judge you by his rules not yours? Many people think Catholic dogma is immoral.

…reflected back to her with equal disingenuity…

For an atheist, feelings and pleasure are the benchmarks for morality, ergo any deprivation of those is evil. Self-discipline, temperance, altruism, self-sacrifice, are all causes of suffering and displeasure, which is why atheists think that “Catholic dogma is immoral.”

 

[catholic03]

“Increase of atheists around the world, increase of crime any coincidence”. I’m new to this thread, but I’d say yes and no. I think that the decline in religious practice has lead to the acceptance of moral evils and the legalisation of them.

Perhaps we could say that it is easier for an atheist to steal a car, as an example, because they feel if they can get away with it they will have no higher consequences. But I’d say that often, atheists do uphold the law.

 

[catholic03]

I think I could trust that you do uphold basic human morality. I am sure that you’ve taught your children to be kind, humble, and to accept what is good.

I guess our definitions of what is ‘good’ may be different, but I am sure that you are an intelligent, moral person in many ways.

 

[Rasoleil]

The Middle Ages were pretty rough. I’d rather live in the present age then when 1/3 of the European population was decimated by the Plague, constant wars, crime was universal, etc.

 

[MiserereMeiDei]

My claim was – and please read this carefully, several times if you have to – atheists have no grounds or rationale in their world view to compel or warrant their living according to those virtues or notions. Atheists could just as readily live undisciplined, intemperate, egoistic and hedonistic lives with just as much warrant from their atheism.

I feel like I’ve been here before…

Ask an atheist anything! (seriously, anything) Philosophy

Which cannot of themselves become moral obligations in the mind of the honest atheist because he is not beholden to anything but his own will. Stop trying to conflate sensible/useful with moral…unless you’re having second thoughts about there not being a God. It sounds ridiculous. Atheism on the scale you have today is unheard of and today’s atheists are fish born in the sea of religiosity that preceded them. Thousands of years ago they were obeying God (Israel, when they weren’t chasing i…

 

[FiveLinden]

Perhaps we could say that it is easier for an atheist to steal a car, as an example, because they feel if they can get away with it they will have no higher consequences. But I’d say that often, atheists do uphold the law

Thanks for your comments in the later post. Most of us atheists get through life without stealing cars even though we fear no afterlife consequences. In fact mostly we don’t do anything people fearful of afterlife consequences don’t do. We don’t do them because we think it is wrong to hurt other people. Not because of consequences we might face. I often have opportunities to steal and defraud. I don’t because I think it is wrong to harm others, even though I would face no consequences in this world, or any other.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

However…the point still stands. … but was a refutation of your claim.

The point being that any atheist who adheres to that which Mill proposed (i.e. the dreaded materialistic utilitarianism - thunder rolls, a scream and maniacal laughter offstage) does not consider self-discipline, temperance, altruism, self-sacrifice etc to be negative concepts.

In order to refute a claim, you would have to first understand the claim, and clearly you haven’t yet.

Nowhere did I claim that atheists CANNOT, as a matter of fact, live according to concepts or virtues such as self-discipline, temperance, altruism, self-sacrifice, etc.

My claim was – and please read this carefully, several times if you have to – atheists have no grounds or rationale in their world view to compel or warrant their living according to those virtues or notions. Atheists could just as readily live undisciplined, intemperate, egoistic and hedonistic lives with just as much warrant from their atheism.

Get it?

As for happy pigs…

…if atheism means simply lacking a belief in God, then pigs are atheists, as are rocks and trees.

You could have human “pigs” quite content in wallowing in hedonism and that lifestyle would be quite compatible with atheism. There is nothing in atheism that would dissuade them from doing so.

Get the point now?

Freddy:

However…the point still stands. … but was a refutation of your claim.

The point being that any atheist who adheres to that which Mill proposed (i.e. the dreaded materialistic utilitarianism - thunder rolls, a scream and maniacal laughter offstage) does not consider self-discipline, temperance, altruism, self-sacrifice etc to be negative concepts.

Nowhere did I claim that atheists CANNOT, as a matter of fact, live according to concepts or virtues such as self-discipline, temperance, altruism, self-sacrifice, etc.

That’s great. I’m really glad you’ve come to that conclusion. It seems that we both agree that if you use your Catholic teaching as a basis for morality (ulimately from God) and I adhere to Mill’s utilitarianism then we can both ‘live according to concepts or virtues such as self-discipline, temperance, altruism, self-sacrifice, etc.’

Whether you think that atheists have no grounds to follow a concept such as utilitarianism doesn’t really concern me. Actions speak louder than any faux commitment to a moral code. Be it Catholicism, Budhism, Utilitarianism or what have you. Cherry pick which aspects of any given code you would rather follow at any given time (as so many do) and the verbal commitment to said moral code is not worth the paper it’s written on.

I assume that you are sufficiently adept at dot joining to follow the argument.

 

[Freddy]

HarryStotle:

My claim was – and please read this carefully, several times if you have to – atheists have no grounds or rationale in their world view to compel or warrant their living according to those virtues or notions. Atheists could just as readily live undisciplined, intemperate, egoistic and hedonistic lives with just as much warrant from their atheism.

I feel like I’ve been here before…
Ask an atheist anything! (seriously, anything) - #181 by MiserereMeiDei

You should read the last paragraph of the preceeding post.

I mean, all I have to do is ask you if you are a sinner. If you are then the ‘grounds that compel you’ to live a virtuous life obviously aren’t sufficient to prevent you from doing what I might do if I claim allegiance to any other moral code.

If yours doesn’t work any better than mine, how can you claim mine is worse?

As I said, we are judged by our actions. By our comittment to what we have declared is important to us.

 

[HarryStotle]

If yours doesn’t work any better than mine, how can you claim mine is worse?

Why are we to suppose that a moral code is supposed to “work better?”

Perhaps the best moral code is the hardest to follow?

Perhaps a moral code that anyone, including his dog, can live by isn’t much of a moral code?

Dogs, when properly trained, appear to be quite well behaved and follow the “code” or guidelines of their training very well.

Are we to suppose that a morality that is easier to follow or that nothing really substantive about you – the way you are now – prevents you from carrying out that morality must mean the moral code is better?

That would imply the current state of the individual is what the moral code ought to be fitted to rather than the individual fitting him/herself to the moral code for moral betterment. That kind of assumes morality is simply what the individual is currently willing to live up to is what determines the “better” moral code.

Is that true, though?

Perhaps morality should be a struggle. Perhaps morality is difficult and we will continually fall short, but the important thing is the struggle.

Why should morality be different from other endeavours in life that demand practice, commitment, expertise, self-control, constant betterment and a continual falling short?

Why should a morality “work better,” whatever that means? Does it mean easy to attain given my current level of commitment or lack thereof?

When you say, “By our comittment to what we have declared is important to us,” how is that an adequate gauge for determining morality? If my only commitment is feeding and clothing myself each day, and I am successful day after day fulfilling those actions, does that mean I am living a good and complete moral life because my morality works better than someone whose standards are far higher but who fails to attain them some of the time?

If my goal as a high jumper is 8 feet, but I only can successfully clear 7 feet with any regularity, then I am worse than someone whose standard is 2 feet? Apparently, the 2’ jumper has a standard that “works better” than my standard of 8’, so his is the superior achievement because of that success?

Who is the better jumper, though?

Whose morality is better? The easy or the more difficult? Is morality at all based upon how much “better” it works in terms of success in action?

 

[Freddy]

Whose morality is better? The easy or the more difficult? Is morality at all based upon how much “better” it works in terms of success in action?

We can agree on which aspects of our moralities are common. Don’t steal. Don’t murder. And those we disagree on - sex before marriage for example, we can discuss. You put forward arguments and I do the same.

If one of your arguments is ‘Because God says so’ then I will ignore it. If one of your arguments is ‘God says so because…X’ then we can discuss it.

If you say that you are committed to following your moral code (for whatever reason) so therefore yours is better then I will see if that is true by asking you if you always follow yours.

Quite simple really.

 

[upant]

We don’t do them because we think it is wrong to hurt other people. Not because of consequences we might face.

Can you speak for all atheists? Is there one code for all atheists? What do you base the “we” on

the atheist system has no rules and the individual is free to choose. there is no reason to pick one lifestyle over another. if you want to conform to man-made rules, conform. If you don’t, nothing stops you.

I mean, all I have to do is ask you if you are a sinner. If you are then the ‘grounds that compel you’ to live a virtuous life obviously aren’t sufficient to prevent you from doing what I might do if I claim allegiance to any other moral code.

We are all sinners, we have to repent. Do you?

If yours doesn’t work any better than mine, how can you claim mine is worse?

Isn’t it really about the authority of the code? Your code is an individual code, the church has a universal code with requirements. When a religious person breaks their code they must repent. Does being an atheist require any formal obligations under each individual code? You can repent or change the code to include the offense as some do with sex outside of marriage and abortion.

 

[FiveLinden]

Can you speak for all atheists? Is there one code for all atheists? What do you base the “we” on

the atheist system has no rules and the individual is free to choose. there is no reason to pick one lifestyle over another. if you want to conform to man-made rules, conform. If you don’t, nothing stops you

Of course there is no code for all atheists. Some have very elaborate codes. An example is Buddhists. No supreme being, but lots of rules! Leaving spiritual atheists side, the atheists you probably have in mind no more have a common code than people who do not believe in unicorns. And I do not speak for all atheists. However I an pretty sure virtually all of us, on reading your comment, would ask if there is any human behaviour that has not at one time been sanctioned by a religion in the name of a god. Can you think of one?

 

[catholic03]

who do not believe in unicorns.

Is this how you see religion?

 

[FiveLinden]

Is this how you see religion?

No. But lack of belief in a thing implies nothing else about the beliefs of people who share that lack of belief. The example of all of us, who might be correctly called aunicornists illustrates this very clearly. You and I each do not believe in unicorns. But you are a Catholic and I am not.

 

[Freddy]

Isn’t it really about the authority of the code? Your code is an individual code, the church has a universal code with requirements. When a religious person breaks their code they must repent. Does being an atheist require any formal obligations under each individual code? You can repent or change the code to include the offense as some do with sex outside of marriage and abortion.

That authority just nominates a punishment for breaking the rules post hoc. It doesn’t prevent one from breaking those rules.

And your church doesn’t have a universal code. It has a code that is applicable only to Catholics. And Catholics make a personal decision as to whether they accept that code in its entirety or not.

If we believe that there’s a right way to act, we shouldn’t need any authority to demand retribution if we don’t do what we think is right. As I said earlier, we are judged by our actions. Not by the acceptance of formal retribution. If you get caught drinking and driving and are punished, that punishment doesn’t absolve you of the crime.

You seem to gloss over the only relevant point, that doing the wrong thing is actually wrong, and skip straight to saying ‘Hey, our system is better because the punishments are formally accepted’.

Who is the more honourable person? The one that stands by her moral code and lives it, or the one that doesn’t? The one that doesn’t does not gain any brownie points for pointing out that he gets punished each time he does wrong.

As to the contents of the moral code, then if we differ in any aspect then give me your reasons why you think I am wrong and you are right and we can discuss them.