Is atheism convenient?

[HerCrazierHalf]

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?

Perhaps they were previously exposed to religion but at some point it became unbelievable and they didn’t feel a need for it. Their lives are fine as is and religious frameworks do not offer any additional value from their pov.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

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?

People can hold onto their religious beliefs while still acting as they please. I’ve encountered people that by their own declaration is a violation of their religious upbringing and when I’ve asked about that behaviour I was given a response that could be summarized as “nobody is perfect, I’ll ask for forgiveness.”

There are also those that may become less convinced of some part of their religious teaching and simply ignore it. I most often see this happen with sex. When one lives among a community of people that engage in similar behaviours there may also be little to no pressure to justify those behaviours.

 

[dshix]

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.

I’m not sure what your point is. Please explain.

 

[Vonsalza]

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.

(emphasis mine)

I must have asked for this from you a 100 times…

Where is this objective evidence for morality? I thought we agreed there was none.

Which way is it?

 

[rinnie]

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.

This is true, because as we stated the CC has the fullness of the truth. But we only have the truth Jesus revealed to us.

 

[o_mlly]

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?

A tough minded atheist, like Sartre, would not enjoy life rather life would nauseate him. By denying Being, Knowing and Willing the true atheist denies human nature as there is no Designer, denies any objective goodness for there is no Goodness and denies any meaning to life as there is no Being Willing any meaning.

 

[HabemusFrancis]

I do notice that deep and unrepentent sin is incompatable with Catholocism.

Oftentimes one turns to atheism because one does not want to bind oneself within the laws of God or the Church.

It is awfully convenient for people to justifiy their lifestyles by claiming god doesn’t exist .

Who could it be that prompts them to do that? Who could it be? Who could it be?

1.bp.blogspot.com/-P-63KvPk-UA/VPBMlDas98I/AAAAAAAAAgA/A7hrHuikC54/s1600/church_lady_could_it_be_satan-1.jpg

 

[HelenRose]

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?

Perhaps for some but certainly not for all of them. I personally think it would be harder to justify ones existence without a belief in a creator or at very least a purpose and cause. For me, blind chance is just a dead beginning and a dead end.

 

[Bradski]

I’m not sure what your point is. Please explain.

B: How do you know you have the truth when it comes to any moral problem?
D: Because I follow what the Church says.
B: But how do you know if the Church has the right answer?
D: Because the Church says it’s true.

Now I’m sure that you recognise that as a circular answer. It is therefore and consequently invalid.

So to discover if the Church is correct on any matter, you must investigate the evidence that applies in that particular case and listen to any and all arguments that are put forward for and against before making a decision.

Don’t you find it odd that all Catholics, on all moral matters, using all available evidence and listening to all available arguments, always agree with what the church says?

Now you could argue that it is not surprising because the Church is always right. Which , for the purpose of the next point we will accept. But it seems that any Catholic investigating any moral problem, using all evidence and listening to all arguments other than those given by the church (see the previous point about circular arguments) will always get the correct answer.

So you are either right in all cases when determining moral actions, in which case all I need do is ask you when I need advice, or you are not, in which case you are in opposition to your church.

Which is it?

 

[Bradski]

Where is this objective evidence for morality? I thought we agreed there was none.

Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

If you hold a belief or make a proposition regarding morality, then YOU need to supply the facts or information evidence relative to that belief or proposition so that we can determine if the belief or proposition is true or valid.

Obviously, the evidence must not be biased, prejudiced or simply personal opinion. That it, it has to be…objective.

 

[dshix]

B: How do you know you have the truth when it comes to any moral problem?
D: Because I follow what the Church says.
B: But how do you know if the Church has the right answer?
D: Because the Church says it’s true.

You said it, not me. I’m not sure what textbook you are reading from, but this is NOT what I said or what the Church teaches.

 

[Bradski]

You said it, not me. I’m not sure what textbook you are reading from, but this is NOT what I said or what the Church teaches.

So how do you find out if what the church says is true?

 

[rinnie]

B: How do you know you have the truth when it comes to any moral problem?
D: Because I follow what the Church says.
B: But how do you know if the Church has the right answer?
D: Because the Church says it’s true.

Now I’m sure that you recognise that as a circular answer. It is therefore and consequently invalid.

So to discover if the Church is correct on any matter, you must investigate the evidence that applies in that particular case and listen to any and all arguments that are put forward for and against before making a decision.

Don’t you find it odd that all Catholics, on all moral matters, using all available evidence and listening to all available arguments, always agree with what the church says?

Now you could argue that it is not surprising because the Church is always right. Which , for the purpose of the next point we will accept. But it seems that any Catholic investigating any moral problem, using all evidence and listening to all arguments other than those given by the church (see the previous point about circular arguments) will always get the correct answer.

So you are either right in all cases when determining moral actions, in which case all I need do is ask you when I need advice, or you are not, in which case you are in opposition to your church.

Which is it?

Why would we have to investigate to see if the teaching’s of the Church are correct or incorrect when we know that its the word of God and is correct? What makes you think that we could trump the word of God?

See you are missing the whole point here. We believe God when he said he would not
leave us orphans and he would send the advocate the Holy Spirit to lead us to all truth.

And he promised us that the Holy Spirit will be here until the end of age, and the devil will never take over the CC.

So why would it surprise you that a Catholic would believe what the Holy Spirit teaches?

 

[rinnie]

So how do you find out if what the church says is true?

As I stated we have that promise from God. Sorry if I am speaking out of Place.

l tim 3;15 The Church is the Pillar of all truth. It is simply the word of God.

 

[Bradski]

Why would we have to investigate to see if the teaching’s of the Church are correct or incorrect when we know that its the word of God and is correct?

It seems an obvious course of action. Dshix says he does it.

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.

So he can reach what he discerns to be the correct moral answer without relying on the church. But maybe he just means that he considers it correct because it aligns with what the church teaches. In which case, if that is his criteria, then there’s no need to do any research.

I might ask dshix what he would do if his research convinced him that the church was wrong. But to be honest, I can’t see him saying that that has, or is ever likely to happen. In which case we would be back to a circular argument: The church teaches something and we know it’s true because…it’s what the church teaches.

 

[o_mlly]

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?
…

Tough minded Catholics know that the Church proposes her truths to the faithful. We then think through the teachings thoroughly and find that the Church is right.

 

[MaryT777]

Tough minded Catholics know that the Church proposes her truths to the faithful. We then think through the teachings thoroughly and find that the Church is right./QUOTE

Exactly.

 

[Vonsalza]

So he can reach what he discerns to be the correct moral answer without relying on the church. But maybe he just means that he considers it correct because it aligns with what the church teaches. In which case, if that is his criteria, then there’s no need to do any research.

He found it correct because it ultimately aligned with the Church. That was the more authoritative standard.
Otherwise he would have had every reason to just “go with his gut” on his initial impressions from his common sense and reasoning. He would not have sought his “theologians and philosophers”.
Atheism, as a movement, lacks anything remotely approaching an authoritative standard. We’ve discussed this.

In which case we would be back to a circular argument: The church teaches something and we know it’s true because…it’s what the church teaches.

Well, no. It’s true because of a posited belief in the Christian God, which founded the Church.

In the same way, “All men are created equal” from America’s Declaration of Independence is true. It’s true because we say it is and we say it is because it’s true.

What moral basis does an atheist have that escapes the inherent flaw of axiom? If you find one and can proof it in writing, you’ll be a wealthy man.

 

[Libertarian_FL]

Well I’m an Apatheist, and my intellectual take on this is simple.

1. Theists cannot prove a deity or deities exist. This is not for lack of trying but from my take these beings don’t clearly want to make affirmative contact with the human race because they apparently could.
2. Atheists cannot do the opposite and rule of deities exist either not for lack of trying.

So sensibly I take the middle road and don’t care one way or another.

I want to give this position say your right and there is a god and this god cares about us worshipping him then he should clearly make his existance known, his desires known, do so to every generation and do something for our worship. This could be harm us for not doing so or doing good things for doing so the fact he exists in and of itself not worth much. Its a cost benefit right now the human race spent and spends massive sums of money, resources and hours of time worshipping god and it seems to be a largely wasteful effort without proof of a god.

Morality to me isn’t hard we should do as individuals and as a species do whatever we can to better the species in small to large ways the imperative of any species is to better its existance. So murder is bad since killing an innocent human harms this and theft is bad since it reduces the means of a member of the species which harms the species. On the other side I find genetic modification of the human species perfectly moral once we can assure the technology is safe to use, since we can end genetic illnesses and make each human by design better and evolve ourselves.

 

[inocente]

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?

I’ve seen similar complaints aimed at so-called cafeteria Catholics. And for that matter at me. Thing is, we have a little thing we like to call a conscience. We reckon every human being has inherent dignity. Dignitatis humanae you might say, and so must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. So this navel gazing business that apparnetly worries some on the thread of how do we absolutely know that we know good from bad, is of little concern to us.

Are there no positive reasons to be a Catholic? I mean when people speak of religious frameworks, it brings to mind Jesus saying “my yoke is easy and my burden is light” as opposed to the Pharisees, who he said “tie up heavy, cumbersome loads and put them on other people’s shoulders”.

So what have you got by way of an easy yoke to attract us to yon religious framework?