Marketing Atheism to Christians

[Hreh]

One of the biggest flaws in the anti-atheist debate I’ve seen thus far is the idea that if something isn’t your (the religious) way, it’s automatically evil or without restraint. You believe people can only positively function under the rule of a divine being, and without one a person will be a cold-hearted robot with rocket launchers and what have you.

Of course, you base this on nothing and can’t prove you base it on anything thus you’d have to admit you speak from your rear when you say those things, which makes one curious why you’d try it in the first place, but let’s assume you actually did believe all that jargon you spout.

I, being someone who doesn’t care for religion as I don’t need to live in fear of fiery hell-based consequence to do nice things, have moral values painted purely on my own life experience, and the reasons range from common sense that majorities of people lack to just plain sense of decency and not infringing on other people. Morals are not exclusive to religion, and being religious does not mean you’re moral (since as I hope I don’t need to explain, more wars have been fought and more blood has been shed over religion, even Christianity, than for any political reason or gain; though deep politics is something else I don’t care much for, but that’s for another time).

In essence, by using myself as an example I can crush your entire argument that atheism = immorality, since I’m willing to wager I’m far more “moral” than you, though perhaps not in the exact same ways.

And with that argument crushed, your entire spiel about how we’d all have to be human constructs living in a gray world where things are made up as we go along puffs away into a fresh burst of logic and example as well.

Where does that leave your argument? Somewhere between here and limbo.

And so I tip my comically-oversized top hat at you.

 

[perladow]

One of the biggest flaws in the anti-atheist debate I’ve seen thus far is the idea that if something isn’t your (the religious) way, it’s automatically evil or without restraint. You believe people can only positively function under the rule of a divine being, and without one a person will be a cold-hearted robot with rocket launchers and what have you.

Of course, you base this on nothing and can’t prove you base it on anything thus you’d have to admit you speak from your rear when you say those things, which makes one curious why you’d try it in the first place, but let’s assume you actually did believe all that jargon you spout.

I, being someone who doesn’t care for religion as I don’t need to live in fear of fiery hell-based consequence to do nice things, have moral values painted purely on my own life experience, and the reasons range from common sense that majorities of people lack to just plain sense of decency and not infringing on other people. Morals are not exclusive to religion, and being religious does not mean you’re moral (since as I hope I don’t need to explain, more wars have been fought and more blood has been shed over religion, even Christianity, than for any political reason or gain; though deep politics is something else I don’t care much for, but that’s for another time).

In essence, by using myself as an example I can crush your entire argument that atheism = immorality, since I’m willing to wager I’m far more “moral” than you, though perhaps not in the exact same ways.

And with that argument crushed, your entire spiel about how we’d all have to be human constructs living in a gray world where things are made up as we go along puffs away into a fresh burst of logic and example as well.

Where does that leave your argument? Somewhere between here and limbo.

And so I tip my comically-oversized top hat at you.

I freakin’ you, babe.

 

[Hastrman]

I need to clear something up right now. I never said morality was a religious thing–clearly it can’t be, since I’m an Aristotelian, and I believe the Good to be an absolute. But unfortunately, so are natures/forms, and those are “spiritual” things (in asmuch as they’re real, but not material).

What I said was, morality is not intellectually, philosophically compatible with materialism. Which, sorry, it’s not. If these principles make you feel good, well, great, but that’s just endorphins in the brain of a primate, nothing more, nothing less. Why should it have any weight on anyone else’s life? Logically, now: no invocation of imaginary ethics, or irrelevant feelings. I want logical consistent proofs, no authorities cited.

Nepenthe, I’m not talking down to you because you’re not of my faith–I’m talking down to you because you don’t know thing one about philosophy. Earlier, you said you found the Categorical Imperative of benefit…which proves beyond question you haven’t the faintest clue what it is. The whole point of categorical imperatives is that they are absolute, applying even when they are not of benefit.

I have a suspicion that when you say “categorical imperative,” what you mean is “natural law”: which is what I base my morality on too. You seemed to think I’m one of the monkeys who says morality is impossible without religion. I never said that: I said it’s impossible for materialist atheists, if they give a fig about logic. Every other nonreligious person can, conceivably, perceive the natural law: that’s been the defined dogma of the Church for some fifteen hundred years. It’s what Aristotle teaches. It’s what Aquinas teaches. It’s what Laozi, Confucius, Seimei, Kukai, and Shakyamuni Siddhartha Gautama Buddha teach. Only one of those is really a religious leader.

 

[Nepenthe]

And I never did say morality was compatible with simple materialism, Hatrman. Indeed, I think it can be only internal and whether it’s material or not is not especially important…it’s the only way to be sure/absolute, after all.

Slow down there, tiger…I do know quite a bit about philosophy. I didn’t major in it but it was a necessary part of my minors and I was well-taught. I am older though and forgetful of sources (yay for google ), and none too patient with pedagoguery, on the whole. * Please do watch it with the ad hominems though, okay?

But every iteration of ‘natural law’ that I have seen is so much self-loving (in every sense) horsepuckey.

*erk, okay, I’m not sure whether I’m being overly humble or deceptive here. I tend to come up with well-backed sources from the back 40 sometimes, yet miss obvious references occasionally (though I assure you, Aristotle isn’t one I’d miss ). Ah, the declining years…you kids don’t know how good you have it, and git off my lawn!

 

[Hastrman]

And I never did say morality was compatible with simple materialism, Hatrman. Indeed, I think it can be only internal and whether it’s material or not is not especially important…it’s the only way to be sure/absolute, after all.

Slow down there, tiger…I do know quite a bit about philosophy. I didn’t major in it but it was a necessary part of my minors and I was well-taught. I am older though and forgetful of sources (yay for google ), and none too patient with pedagoguery, on the whole. * Please do watch it with the ad hominems though, okay?

But every iteration of ‘natural law’ that I have seen is so much self-loving (in every sense) horsepuckey.

*erk, okay, I’m not sure whether I’m being overly humble or deceptive here. I tend to come up with well-backed sources from the back 40 sometimes, yet miss obvious references occasionally (though I assure you, Aristotle isn’t one I’d miss ). Ah, the declining years…you kids don’t know how good you have it, and git off my lawn!

I’ve never taken a philosophy class in my life: because they don’t teach philosophy, or logic: they teach the history of philosophy. Generally, wrong.

Any “internal” standard of morality is utterly, utterly worthless, since what’s internal to you is unknowable and irrelevant to anyone else. What’s internal to you, in a philosophy that denies Formal or Final causes, is also utterly meaningless, since whatever’s experiencing it is actually an illusion (that’s, as Tweedledee says, logic). That’s the great breakthrough of Vajrayana over Theravada Buddhism: if there’s no Forms, there’s no matter either, since there would have to be forms to the matter. All there is is Being. I maintain that to be a fallacy–it reconciles the One and the Many by denying the Many–but at least the One pretty much has to be there, before you can do any more thinking.

Natural law states that the Good of things, people, actions, is in terms of what the things are (their natures), and what they’re for. Now for People, as for natural objects, they’re for what they are: their purpose is to be what they are. That, at least, gives morality a place to start: acts are good or bad according as they help things be what they are, or help the things that people make to serve the ends they’re designed for.

 

[Nepenthe]

A priori overdose.

The comparison of apples to kumquats to plutonian steam-lemurs was a nice touch too.

Never took a philosophy course? You don’t say! Doesn’t matter, at this level, you really shouldn’t need to. Tch.

 

[edwest2]

Unless people are walking around wearing badges that say “Atheist,” “Presbyterian,” etc. I’m not looking for that. When I worked in health care, there was no sign on the door:

“No Belief in a Deity”

“No Treatment”

But back to my OP. Atheism is being heavily marketed right now. A recent letter in a local paper contained a comment that said if the President was an atheist then everything would be fair in this country. Oh really? Living, as one person put it, in a marketplace of ideas, means I have just as much right to express my religious views as anyone.

But just to get to the point, people can be kind, loving and moral (by their own definition) and be great humanitarians, all Catholics are saying is: “Please. Jesus Christ died for you and me. Avoid hell, and live with Him in eternity.” The Atheism-Science Alliance is currently at this point:

Everything is derived from your genes. They predispose you to do or react in a certain way. You are a bag of chemicals. Your neural network acts and reacts according to outside stimuli modified by genetic programming. You’re a bit more complex than an amoeba but not much.

Meanwhile, the United States has its first Atheist Lobbyist, who by definition, is doing what every other lobbyist is doing.

If you were my next door neighbor, my first question would not be, “Are you an atheist?” I might ask you to go to Church with me, but if you said no, I wouldn’t give you a hard time about it. I might ask you to help me fix something on my car and I would do the same for you.

God bless,
Ed

 

[perladow]

the reason I’ve been posting is to try to clear up misconceptions that you and other theists have about nontheists (yay, I used the right terms!); I’m not questioning the way you behave toward nontheist neighbors or coworkers or whatever. I’d like it if you theists all took the time to understand nontheism or atheism from a nontheist’s/atheist’s standpoint before making judgments and assumptions like some of the posters here have been (like the idea that an atheist cannot have both morality and intelligence). I disagree very strongly with many aspects of religion, but I don’t just go and say right off the bat that if someone’s beliefs oppose mine, they’re a fool.

I guess what I mean to say, in short, is that you can think whatever you want about atheists and nontheists, but if you’re going to speak publicly about them in a critical or argumentative manner, you should first know what you’re talking about.

 

[Mirdath]

But back to my OP. Atheism is being heavily marketed right now. A recent letter in a local paper contained a comment that said if the President was an atheist then everything would be fair in this country. Oh really? Living, as one person put it, in a marketplace of ideas, means I have just as much right to express my religious views as anyone.

…

Meanwhile, the United States has its first Atheist Lobbyist, who by definition, is doing what every other lobbyist is doing.

First off, ed, I agree with the rest of your post.

But (there’s always a but ) the Secular Coalition for America has a lobbyist now? About time the secular humanists got a slice of that wonderful ‘marketplace of ideas’, isn’t it?

 

[Hellisreal]

The very responses of some here is marketing atheism to christians but its not the atheists doing all the work.
We do it all ourselves.

 

[edwest2]

Nonsense. It is not helpful to point to something going on, like crime, and not break it down into specifics. If you look at other posts here, people are still debating evolution, there’s one about Richard Dawkin’s Out Program.

There are national and international atheist groups. Some of them, like Richard Dawkins and his Foundation, want to do a little more than sit back, live and let live. Go to any any atheist web site, and see what what they are talking about yourself.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Hellisreal]

Faith is not something that can be taken away by another it can only be taken away by the self.
I have no problem with any of this. Atheists can not be blamed if a self professed Christian tosses their faith no matter what the atheist does or says.
However, some people do adopt a faith in God from what a christian does or says.
Okay, maybe that is insane on my part to think this way, but honestly its how I feel. I have never heard of a christian that decided to toss it all based on appeals by atheists. Is it happening?
I find it simply ridiculous to say that an athiest has this kind of power. They cant take something away that was not there to begin with.

The whole idea they could makes christians look stupid and weak, if atheists get “converts” I say thank you atheists! Take as many of them as you want.
If the christian gives up their faith, they did not feel it worth much to them in the first place to do it.

Then they really ought to be atheists. I would much rather see them be official and honest about it than for them to be at Mass every Sunday just going through the motions not believing a single thing that is happening there. Or wherever they worship. And if they are really intent on getting people to stop believing in God, why just the Chrisitians? Why not the Jewish people, the Muslims, ect.?

I could be very wrong, but hey.

 

[perladow]

I have quite a few atheist friends who look down on theists, and others who can get along with theists just fine, but none that would ever be interested in converting anyone.

as to what Hellisreal was saying, maybe it’s more common for nontheists to be converted to theism because some people think that the number of theists compared to the number of nontheists reflects on which is “right” or “wrong”? which I hope isn’t true, because it’s ridiculous. that’s like the question, “if everyone else was jumping off a cliff, would you?”

 

[latin_rite]

You all can squack about science all you want, but if it weren’t for science and the technology that flows therefrom your Mamas would still be washing clothes by beating them on the rocks.

…

I don’t think they were “Quacking” about science itself. What they are talking about is how some try and USE science to try and dissprove something they believe in. Which ironicly if they knew anything about science (the dissbelievers) would know that it can’t be done. Interesting though i like to argue with athiest on yahoo… Its a bit of pointless fun i like to have. And they always with out fail start useing the old line. If it weren’t for science why do you use the computer blah blah etc…They seem to think that just because i think science is wrong on this matter, i’m totaly against all science. It’s all part of their narrow minded seige mentality.

 

[diosa25]

I don’t have a direct reply to any particular post, but just have a few thoughts that I’m going to throw out there. Please forgive me if I am not as intelligent or theologically educated or even as scientifically educated as most of the people who are in this forum.

I’m curious to know when people keep saying “natural law” and “common sense” and “moral codes”, where exactly it is you think we get these ideas from? Isn’t it logical or rational to think that we get these terms from somewhere? We have a human nature because someone (a higher being, or something other than ourselves) made us that way? We have morals for a reason. We did not just make them up. Right and wrong is a part of a moral code that we got from something/someone other than ourselves, otherwise how is it explained that we ALL have some sense of right and wrong that are generally very similar (i.e. it is wrong to murder and we should be neighborly). And if you just think that we all know murdering is wrong just becaue it is rational…what is rational? How did we even know how to define what rational is in the first place? This isn’t just one big coincidence. It is our nature because it is how our creator made us or programmed (for lack of a better word) us.

Also it seems like people keep refering to “science” as if it is something that we are making up as we go. As if humans are using better technology because we are inventing these things. Isn’t what is really happening is that we are just FIGURING out how to put these things that already exist to use for our benefit (and in some cases to our own destruction). We have to figure them out because we don’t know. The laws of the universe are already existent and put into place and we are trying to learn them. We OBVIOUSLY are not in charge of them. Something/someone had to set them into motion, give them their power, get them started…know what I mean? Does that make sense? I mean it seems so obvious that something greater than us exists that is should lie on the non-believers to have to prove that it does not. I mean how much more does God have to prove? We are not in charge of anything. We are still trying to figure our how our own body works, since biology isn’t “finished” and neither is any other “ology”. We are just the students figuring out what the master has already created.

I just don’t understand how anyone can NOT believe or NOT KNOW that something more than us is in charge and has made us the way we are.

I hope this didn’t sound mean or rude. I am not intending to insult anyone. I hope this was respectful, but am just curious as to what the real foundation of atheism is? What do you think is behind all of this life?

 

[perladow]

Atheism!

 

[perladow]

We have morals for a reason. We did not just make them up. Right and wrong is a part of a moral code that we got from something/someone other than ourselves, otherwise how is it explained that we ALL have some sense of right and wrong that are generally very similar (i.e. it is wrong to murder and we should be neighborly). And if you just think that we all know murdering is wrong just becaue it is rational…what is rational? How did we even know how to define what rational is in the first place? This isn’t just one big coincidence. It is our nature because it is how our creator made us or programmed (for lack of a better word) us.

…

I just don’t understand how anyone can NOT believe or NOT KNOW that something more than us is in charge and has made us the way we are.

that first part makes no sense to me. if humans are capable of “figuring out” things that God had already thought up, then why is the notion that humans could think of it all on their own so mind-boggling? it would seem pretty depressing to me if I couldn’t ever take credit in any new realization or creative idea because it wasn’t even mine to begin with.

and the second part - I CAN’T imagine there being something else in charge of my life, the world, the universe. I am the only one that controls me (unless of course I’m being held at gunpoint, then I’ll do what they want. ) and I will always have the right to give myself credit for my accomplishments. same should go for everyone else.

 

[diosa25]

it would seem pretty depressing to me if I couldn’t ever take credit in any new realization or creative idea because it wasn’t even mine to begin with.

and the second part - I CAN’T imagine there being something else in charge of my life, the world, the universe. I am the only one that controls me (unless of course I’m being held at gunpoint, then I’ll do what they want. ) and I will always have the right to give myself credit for my accomplishments. same should go for everyone else.

Thanks for your reply.

I hope this doesn’t turn into a big thread of us going back and forth about our interpretations of each others words, but I don’t mean to say that you can’t have credit for what you create. But we can only create thing with what we are given. It is not us who decided the specific composition of things or the results of what happens when we put them together. I mean we didn’t make electricity, it was already there and we learned to use it and all the other materials that make up all these electronics and devices that help make life easier for us. We just figured out a way to use them together to do more things. Surely I agree that we should get credit for creating things from what we have already been given. Just as a child is excited when they take their first step or point to their nose for the first time. Of course it is exciting. It is not unimportant because we have already done it or already know how it works and walk ourselves. God is our Father and he knows what we are capable of and what he has given us as tools and we are slowly but surely figuring out what how to make all these things we have. My point is just that when it comes to foundation, how does an atheist explain it (the foundation that is)? For Christian, it starts wtih God. He is the foundation and everything sprouts from that. It seems atheists have no foundation. This is just my perception, not to insult to anyone intended.

Also about you controlling you. You may control your thoughts and actions but you don’t control your makeup. Can you change colors or do you make yourself breath? What makes your cells move or have life? You don’t. Otherwise you can just pour life into anything. But you can’t. You can only control a finite piece of “you”. When you get sick and go to the doctor, why do you go? Because you obviously don’t know what is wrong or why it happened. You don’t know that you had an infection and make yourself have a fever. Your body’s reactions are automatic. But automatic why, who made it that way. How does your body know that it needs to breath or pump blood through you. Our creator made it that way. We did not. It would be nice if I could think that I had control over me. I wish I knew when I was going to die and what I could do to prolong my life, or what illnesses may threaten me next year or the year after or when my hair was going to turn white or how small my waist was or how big my feet are. I mean I don’t control about 90% of the things about me. I only control what I use me for. That’s it. I’m just saying that we don’t control a lot, so how do you explain what is not controlled by us?

I tend to talk how I’m thinking so I’m sorry if I ramble or if I get off the point. I try to us tons of examples to explain my thoughts just so someone can understand where I’m going with it. Again, thanks for the response. I will read the other reply with the “Atheist” link in a bit.

 

[perladow]

well I don’t mean I control every single process that occurs within my body. what I was referring to was the idea that “God has a plan for us”. I hate that idea. I don’t want someone else to have decided previously what was going to become of me. and if that idea was true, then that means God decided that rapes and murders and terrorism should occur. it’s his plan! does that not sound really messed up to you?

and also, you can look up the “big bang” theory and the theory of evolution if you want to know where I think we came from. I can’t explain all of it to you because I’m not a scientist, and I can’t comprehend every aspect of it, but I believe that’s the best answer as to where and how life originated.

 

[diosa25]

well I don’t mean I control every single process that occurs within my body. what I was referring to was the idea that “God has a plan for us”. I hate that idea. I don’t want someone else to have decided previously what was going to become of me. and if that idea was true, then that means God decided that rapes and murders and terrorism should occur. it’s his plan! does that not sound really messed up to you?

Well then I guess what I’m asking is what do you think controls those things that you don’t control?

And God does have a plan for each of us, however, that doesn’t mean that WE will play it out. Hence the rapes and murders and the evil. Because people are doing what he DID NOT want. He gave us free will so we can do whatever we want, which is why much bad stuff happens. We don’t always chose the good. God does not control what we do. He never did. We have to pray and ask that he shows us what he WANTS (or WILLS) for us to do? Not everyone does. And I suspect for the very reason you give…that you hate the idea and don’t WANT someone else deciding for you. That is YOUR will. But I know we are not here to argue about doing God’s will and I thank you again for your response.

Also don’t you realize that, like I said before, you are only in control of some of your life. You can only control what you do, but based on what is given to you or around you, like your circumstances. I mean your whole life, as everyone else’s is not proactive, but more retroactive because it is only in reaction to what God has placed before you. You don’t know that you will pass a test or fail it or get into the school of your choice or get the job that you are applying for. You can’t control those things. This is my whole point about atheists that I don’t understand. I don’t know how you think there is no other supreme being that is controlling even the slightest bit of our lives by the circumstances around us. I hear atheists saying “It is not God” but they can’t say who or what it is…just that it is Not God. I can understand how people would have doubt in Jesus or any one else who claimed to be God incarnate becasue that takes faith, but I don’t see how plain and clear someone can reject a higher power and think in pure terms that we are as supreme as it gets.