Is atheism convenient?

[HabemusFrancis]

I often wonder if perhaps many atheists or irreligious people are so not for any deep reasons (unlike say Marx or Sartres) but they just feel they enjoy their lives as they are and it would be difficult to impossible to justify them if they had any religious framework whatsoever.

Any ideas?

 

[MaryT777]

You have an interesting theory and I look forward to answers from others. I know several atheists personally and they struggle with the problem of evil in the world. One was molested, one has a Mother suffering from MS and they don’t believe a benevolent God that loves us would allow such evil and sickness. One vehemently rejects all thoughts of original sin and believes it would be ridiculous to punish all men and allow evil because of the fall.

They are all good people though and in my opinion are just as kind as the people I know who do believe in a God.

I have spoken to atheists online and have found them hostile, make fun of those who believe in God as fools, point out what they deem Biblical inconsistencies, and have actually bragged they do drugs and drink and no God exists that can do anything about that, what a joke type of thinking. I take that with a grain of salt though because as we know anyone can post anything online and a few I feel are just a havin’ fun messing with Christians.

Great question.

Mary.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

I have spoken to atheists online and have found them hostile, make fun of those who believe in God as fools, point out what they deem Biblical inconsistencies, and have actually bragged they do drugs and drink and no God exists that can do anything about that, what a joke type of thinking. I take that with a grain of salt though because as we know anyone can post anything online and a few I feel are just a havin’ fun messing with Christians.

I wish this behavior was limited to the internet, but sadly it is not. I recall one person I knew who actively worshiped the Viking pantheon because he liked it, and proudly proclaimed that he was a hedonist in all aspects of life because life was meaningless, so why not.

I have known several other people who turn to atheism to excuse their sinful behavior. “If there is not God, then there’s nothing wrong with doing whatever I want.” Most often this was related to sexual sins.

I know some atheists who arrived at that conclusion because they can’t comprehend a good and just God given the world in its current state. I know many, many, more who became atheists because it made their lives easier and allowed them to ignore the blatant immorality of their lifestyles.

I was never an atheist, but when I was not practicing the faith, it was mainly because I didn’t want to give up my particular sinful addictions…

 

[Bradski]

I think you are confusing a lack of belief in gods with an active decision to ignore religious based morality.

 

[rinnie]

I think you are confusing a lack of belief in gods with an active decision to ignore religious based morality.

But how could you possibly believe in God without religious based morality?

 

[dshix]

I think you are confusing a lack of belief in gods with an active decision to ignore religious based morality.

It seems to me those are the same thing.

Instead of using a morality system as defined by a religion which claims to get it from God, the creator of those morals, you instead use a moral system which you have either made up or learned from someone else.

 

[Bradski]

But how could you possibly believe in God without religious based morality?

I guess you would find it difficult. But if you had been brought up in a society that based it’s morality on religious beliefs and you preferred a lifestyle that conflicted with those beliefs, then you could actively choose not to involve yourself in that particular religious society.

That is, you wouldn’t become a member of the particular religious group, you wouldn’t go to church, you’d ignore claims for a specific morality based on the particular beliefs of the group. You would distance yourself from that particular religion.

But although some of those criteria are also specific to what an atheist might do, it’s not the definition of an atheist. Which is simply someone who finds the evidence for gods less than compelling.

In the first case, the person is actively ignoring claims of a god for personal reasons and in the second, he or she has considered them and found them lacking.

 

[rinnie]

I guess you would find it difficult. But if you had been brought up in a society that based it’s morality on religious beliefs and you preferred a lifestyle that conflicted with those beliefs, then you could actively choose not to involve yourself in that particular religious society.

That is, you wouldn’t become a member of the particular religious group, you wouldn’t go to church, you’d ignore claims for a specific morality based on the particular beliefs of the group. You would distance yourself from that particular religion.

But although some of those criteria are also specific to what an atheist might do, it’s not the definition of an atheist. Which is simply someone who finds the evidence for gods less than compelling.

In the first case, the person is actively ignoring claims of a god for personal reasons and in the second, he or she has considered them and found them lacking.

Yes I can see how you would want to separate yourself from religion, so you can deny you sin, but you do not have to deny God to do that by the way.

But I still do not know how you can separate God from his commandments. Because in order to believe in God you must accept his truth. I guess what I am asking how can you separate Truth from God.

You can as you stated deny truth and deny God, but how can you separate God from truth?

 

[Bradski]

It seems to me those are the same thing.

Instead of using a morality system as defined by a religion which claims to get it from God, the creator of those morals, you instead use a moral system which you have either made up or learned from someone else.

I have developed my morality from many sources. As opposed to some people who use only the one. But yours and mine are almost identical in any case. There would be some points on which we might disagree. And not surprisingly (as far as I am concerned), they would probably involve sex.

Those differences can be discussed and arguments put forward backed up with evidence to see which one of us may be correct if you like. But bear in mind that if you demand that you are right simply because you ‘get it from God’, then the discussion won’t go very far.

 

[Bradski]

Yes I can see how you would want to separate yourself from religion, so you can deny you sin, but you do not have to deny God to do that by the way

.

I presume that is tongue in cheek…

But I still do not know how you can separate God from his commandments. Because in order to believe in God you must accept his truth. I guess what I am asking how can you separate Truth from God.

You can as you stated deny truth and deny God, but how can you separate God from truth?

It’s quite easy. I don’t believe He exists, so He cannot be truth.

 

[rinnie]

It seems to me those are the same thing.

Instead of using a morality system as defined by a religion which claims to get it from God, the creator of those morals, you instead use a moral system which you have either made up or learned from someone else.

correct which would basically you deny God and become your own god.

 

[rinnie]

It’s quite easy. I don’t believe He exists, so He cannot be truth.

but just because you believe he does not exist in no way changes the truth, That he does exist and is truth.

Anotherwards you can believe or disbelieve but it is no way changes truth. And with God there is complete truth. So you can still deny God, but your belief does not change his truth. Do you see what I mean.

Like you can believe all you want that if you run out in front of a car at 50 miles a hour that you will not get hit, but just because you believe this, truth is you are going to get hit.

The same as God is truth. It cannot be separated.

 

[dshix]

I have developed my morality from many sources. As opposed to some people who use only the one.

I think this is the issue you have to face. How can you know that your morality is just or good? What is the measure of “goodness”? Do you determine whether something is moral based on your intuition, or based on some lawful authority?

This is really the fundamental question which led to the existence of religion in the first place. The oldest philosophers soon realized that it is not reasonable or logically consistent to base moral beliefs on “self”, that is, on our own individual intuition. Moral beliefs MUST come from an outside source.

So the million dollar question is: what is that source? What is the lawful authority from which we can know the true moral code?

This is the difference between me and you, even if we make the assumption that we have identical moral beliefs: I use God as the foundation upon which I base my beliefs, and you use the opinion of other men and yourself.

 

[rinnie]

I think this is the issue you have to face. How can you know that your morality is just or good? What is the measure of “goodness”? Do you determine whether something is moral based on your intuition, or based on some lawful authority?

This is really the fundamental question which led to the existence of religion in the first place. The oldest philosophers soon realized that it is not reasonable or logically consistent to base moral beliefs on “self”, that is, on our own individual intuition. Moral beliefs MUST come from an outside source.

So the million dollar question is: what is that source? What is the lawful authority from which we can know the true moral code?

This is the difference between me and you, even if we make the assumption that we have identical moral beliefs: I use God as the foundation upon which I base my beliefs, and you use the opinion of other men and yourself.

True, and you can choose to do good or evil. Like religion there is a game plan. Like evil its still a game plan. There is a code to follow.

Even an atheist cannot be an atheist if they do not choose to deny God. You cannot say you are an atheist and then say you believe in God. And as you said what is the lawful authority or indeed the unlawful authority. There is either a moral code or immoral code, but there is still a source, a plan.

 

[rinnie]

I have developed my morality from many sources. As opposed to some people who use only the one. But yours and mine are almost identical in any case. There would be some points on which we might disagree. And not surprisingly (as far as I am concerned), they would probably involve sex.

Those differences can be discussed and arguments put forward backed up with evidence to see which one of us may be correct if you like. But bear in mind that if you demand that you are right simply because you ‘get it from God’, then the discussion won’t go very far.

And I believe this also has much truth in it, simply because we do get our teaching from God, and choose to follow his game plan you could say.

Then we get into the discussion of arguing of someone who you deny, and as you said this is pretty useless.

My belief is no way going to convince you any better then your disbelief would convince me. And somehow what I have learned no matter how sincere we both try to be, it always becomes ugly!

 

[Bradski]

This is the difference between me and you, even if we make the assumption that we have identical moral beliefs: I use God as the foundation upon which I base my beliefs, and you use the opinion of other men and yourself.

So you accept what you are told without any thought? That because it is from the church is must be right? Or do you actually consider all moral problems internally as well as getting guidance from your denomination?

Is it always the case that what your church teaches aligns exactly with what you consider to be right? Because if that is not the case, then you are, in some cases, following moral teachings with which you disagree.

But if that is the case, then it is quite a coincidence that you personally accept literally all of what the Catholic Church teaches.

In any case, where you get your sense of morality from doesn’t concern me in the slightest. If you think that murder is wrong because reading tea leaves, studying the entrails of goats, listening to voices in your head or reading scripture gives you an insight into what is right and wrong, and you can back up your decisions with reasonable arguments and evidence (rather than just pointing to the tea leaves, entrails, voices or scripture) then I could care less where you get you source of truth.

 

[Bradski]

My belief is no way going to convince you any better then your disbelief would convince me. And somehow what I have learned no matter how sincere we both try to be, it always becomes ugly!

That’s not necessarily correct. If you have a moral position that disagrees with mine, then why not a reasonable debate as to who is right and who is wrong? But again, if your argument is that you are right simply because ‘God has decreed it’, then we’re not even going to be able to start.

 

[rinnie]

That’s not necessarily correct. If you have a moral position that disagrees with mine, then why not a reasonable debate as to who is right and who is wrong? But again, if your argument is that you are right simply because ‘God has decreed it’, then we’re not even going to be able to start.

Exactly. But how is it possible to debate something when much of my moral teachings come from God? And who is to judge who is right and who is wrong? Back to the God is our Judge, pretty much slips back to what you said about my argument. Do you see what I am saying?

It is hard for a Catholic and Atheist to disagree, because God is our teacher, the Church is led by the Holy Spirit. So when I speak my authority would be God, your authority would have no authority in my eyes, because no one trumps God. See what I am saying?

When your faith and morals come from God it would be impossible to leave him out of the argument. Thats why it usually gets ugly.:

 

[dshix]

So you accept what you are told without any thought? That because it is from the church is must be right? Or do you actually consider all moral problems internally as well as getting guidance from your denomination?

If you really think that’s what I said, I don’t think you read what I said:

“I use God as the foundation upon which I base my beliefs…”

This doesn’t mean I cease to apply my reason to know what is good and what is evil. But there are some things that cannot be determined accurately using the natural law alone, and in those things Revelation is required.

The majority of Catholic doctrine can actually be derived using the Natural Law alone. Read St. Thomas Aquinas for a thorough crash course on that.

Is it always the case that what your church teaches aligns exactly with what you consider to be right? Because if that is not the case, then you are, in some cases, following moral teachings with which you disagree.

There have been times in my past that I thought, at first glance, that a teaching of the Church was at odds with common sense or reason. Upon further examination, however, and reading the writings of the theologians and philosophers who have examined these questions over the centuries, I have always found a satisfactory answer to my query.

Every time this happens, it is a confirmation of my faith. “Faith” is not a mandate to ignore the questions that pop into your mind when something doesn’t make sense. It is a call to trust in God, and for some souls, that means they don’t really need to go chasing after a thorough understanding of every doctrine. For other souls, such as myself, my personality does require that “digging”, and so I dig when questions arise.

However, I have been Catholic long enough that I’m willing to trust what the Church teaches, and so I don’t examine every doctrine. If someone such as yourself were to challenge me on a particular belief, then I would do my research to identify where my own understanding is lacking, and every time I find a satisfactory answer. Interesting how that works, isn’t it? Almost like the Catholic Church really does have access to the whole truth of Eternal Law.

 

[Bradski]

If someone such as yourself were to challenge me on a particular belief, then I would do my research to identify where my own understanding is lacking, and every time I find a satisfactory answer. Interesting how that works, isn’t it? Almost like the Catholic Church really does have access to the whole truth of Eternal Law.

What you are saying is that the Church appears to teach everything which you seem believe in any case. If I question one aspect of you moral beliefs, then after your research you discover that when you find a satisfactory answer, it aligns EXACTLY with Catholic teaching.

So if you claim that the Catholic church has access to the whole truth, then it appears that you do as well.

Strangely enough, far from this being an extraordinary situation, it appears that every single Catholic claims exactly the same.