Moral atheists

[ribozyme]

All right. I stand corrected Ash Ketchum is an atheist and a very moral one.

Thank you, but are you being sarcastic? Well, there is no evidence in the anime that he even practices Shintoism.

As for the second guy, I wonder how he feels about being put on the same moral level as Ash Ketchum?

Well, you could e-mail him. I wouldn’t give his e-mail here for privacy reasons, but a quick google search will reveal his e-mail.

I bet he’ll will not be offended, but I think he will laugh that he is being compared to a cartoon character on the issue of morality. He might be confused, though, as I doubt he knows about Ash Ketchum.

On second thought, I think e-mailing him about this would be a waste of his time. Well, he is a busy man though.

 

[stillwater]

Atheists doesn’t exist.

They have to disprove God to be an atheist and they can’t.

Believers can’t prove God either but they still have hope that a God exist.

If God exist, the atheists are the losers, but if God doesn’t exist, the believers lose nothing.

To answer the question, some atheists are more moral than some believers.

you are talking bout pascal’s wager, i believe.

you’re sayin that if god exists = gain to believers
but what if a god does exist but not necessarily the christian god…who gains?

afterall you’ve said believers can’t prove god’s existence.

so what’s the point of believin? to go to heaven? isn’t that hypocrisy?

of course, i can leave all these questions unanswered since i can smell someone would tell me…read this blah blah or start another thread.

 

[Atreyu]

you are talking bout pascal’s wager, i believe.

you’re sayin that if god exists = gain to believers
but what if a god does exist but not necessarily the christian god…who gains?

Patience Stillwater, ask and you shall receive.

Pascall’s wager is designed to provide motivation for a person to look into the existence of God. Not the Christian God, just God.

afterall you’ve said believers can’t prove god’s existence.

We cannot prove it in the same manner that we can prove a trigonometric identity, but we can prove it in a “court room” sense; that is, beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence for the existence of God is overwhelming. If you don’t believe me, try looking into the Cosmological argument to begin with (sorry for asking you to read something). Similarly, the evidence for the divinity of Jesus is overwhelming. To name just a few examples, we have the hundreds (maybe even thousands) of prefigures of Christ in the Old Testament, the prophecy of the Old Testament fulfilled by Christ, the amazing consistency with which the Catholic Church has taught in the past 2000 years, and the amazing moral teachings of Christ - that fulfilled the teachings of the Old Testament in a simply astounding way. Hmm, lots of reading to do here…

so what’s the point of believin? to go to heaven? isn’t that hypocrisy?

Well yes you are on to a good point here, you also mentioned something somewhere else about people doing things out of a fear of hell. To answer this, I will look at the Sacrament of Confession. Now when the penitent makes a Confession, the Confession is only valid if the penitent is truly contrite. But there are two types of contrition: perfect and imperfect. If the penitent is confessing out of fear of hell (and possibly out of some kind of greedy desire for heaven) then this would qualify as imperfect contrition. But if the penitent confesses out of a love for God and a desire to do His will, this would qualify as perfect contrition. When asked how should we love God, Jesus replied “follow His commandments”. The imperfect contrition still qualifies as a valid Confession, but it just isn’t ideal.

of course, i can leave all these questions unanswered since i can smell someone would tell me…read this blah blah or start another thread.

Well the problem is that your questions are quite complex, and so it can be difficult to adequately answer them in this format. But are you not interested in learning about the Catholic faith - isn’t that why you’re here? If so, wouldn’t you be willing to read a couple of books in order to better understand the Catholic faith?

 

[deb1]

Thank you, but are you being sarcastic? Well, there is no evidence in the anime that he even practices Shintoism.

.

I’m not being sarcastic, perhaps a bit bemused in a kindly way, but I promise I took you seriously.

I have a son who is the same age as is listed on your profile.

.

 

[stillwater]

Patience Stillwater, ask and you shall receive.

Pascall’s wager is designed to provide motivation for a person to look into the existence of God. Not the Christian God, just God.

well the person i quoted i believe was talkin bout the christian god and he was sayin that if god exists then atheists are losers. so for example we say a god really exists. however he is not the christian god, let’s say muslim god (for example’s sake)…then who gains?

my point…he cannot use pascal’s wager as a reason for believing. and i’ve already said the reason earlier…the point of believing is not based on fear or because we want to go to heaven.

 

[Atreyu]

well the person i quoted i believe was talkin bout the christian god and he was sayin that if god exists then atheists are losers. so for example we say a god really exists. however he is not the christian god, let’s say muslim god (for example’s sake)…then who gains?

my point…he cannot use pascal’s wager as a reason for believing. and i’ve already said the reason earlier…the point of believing is not based on fear or because we want to go to heaven.

Saint Augustin was arguing against atheism, if you read his post. Therefore he was using Pascal’s wager as a reason to reject atheism. The only assumption he makes is that there is something to benefit from believing in God, if God exists.

 

[stillwater]

Saint Augustin was arguing against atheism, if you read his post. Therefore he was using Pascal’s wager as a reason to reject atheism. The only assumption he makes is that there is something to benefit from believing in God, if God exists.

don’t you think i know that? it’s very clear he was arguing against atheism cuz he called them losers.

it’s a weak argument i’ve reiterated the point a lot of times.

 

[Atreyu]

don’t you think i know that? it’s very clear he was arguing against atheism cuz he called them losers.

it’s a weak argument i’ve reiterated the point a lot of times.

I’m a bit confused as to what we’ve been talking about! Suffice to say, I think we are in accord at the moment? Except that Saint Augustin didn’t exactly say that atheists are “losers”. He said that if God exists, then they are the losers. This is reasonable, don’t you think?

 

[stillwater]

I’m a bit confused as to what we’ve been talking about! Suffice to say, I think we are in accord at the moment?

don’t confuse yourself

Except that Saint Augustin didn’t exactly say that atheists are “losers”. He said that if God exists, then they are the losers. This is reasonable, don’t you think?

yes i think it is. but then from his statement he is disregarding other religion. it’s like christians vs. atheists. goin back to my example if the christian god does not exist…but another god of another religion, then don’t you think christians and atheists are both losers? don’t worry you can leave this question unanswered…i will wait for saint augustin’s reply.

 

[Atreyu]

don’t confuse yourself

yes i think it is. but then from his statement he is disregarding other religion. it’s like christians vs. atheists. goin back to my example if the christian god does not exist…but another god of another religion, then don’t you think christians and atheists are both losers? don’t worry you can leave this question unanswered…i will wait for saint augustin’s reply.

OK I’ll let him reply to that specific question too. However I will just say that I personally don’t think Pascal’s wager really does much. Sure it shows that it probably isn’t good to be atheist, but that’s about it. It doesn’t show anything about the existence of God. A much better piece of evidence for the existence of God comes from the Cosmological Argument. But that’s a different story…

 

[Pug]

I don’t find Pascal’s wager to be compelling for atheists. They can look at it that if it turns out that God didn’t exist and there is no afterlife, then they have wasted their only time doing things that don’t appeal to them, such as sitting in church. Anyway, I’ve had that said to me.

I think for someone who starts out believing this is all there is, wasting it can seem pretty big. Also, spending several years investigating the God question can seem like it is not worth the risk, given their initial assessment that investigating God is unlikely to pan out. It can seem especially not worth the risk if they have things right now that seem clearly worth doing, say public service.

If you are an atheist who is really into justice, however, you could change the Wager a bit. Then the way to win is to find yourself in the position of there being a Good God who deserves honor, and, in true justice, you give it to him. It doesn’t have to be a wager about heaven, if you like.

The Wager is no proof. It is a motivator only, perhaps.

 

[Saint_Augustin]

you are talking bout pascal’s wager, i believe…

Yes, I am gambling,… but as a chess player. .

you’re sayin that if god exists = gain to believers
but what if a god does exist but not necessarily the christian god…who gains?.

God existed before the Christendom and the Judaism. I am Catholic because I am comfortable with the paradigm.

afterall you’ve said believers can’t prove god’s existence.

True. However, and together, we both believe that a ***“Big Bang” ***happened. and we can’t explain rationally how everything came to exist from nothing (ex nihilo). We are both silent in face of this ***“beginning”. ***

Furthermore, it’s in our genes to believe and 99.999% of the humankind are programmed to believe. Not only any faith is a spiritual matter but it’s a genetic matter also. It’s an important factor in the evolution of the humankind.

And if the nature is considering any faith like an important key for advancing in life, well, it should be a very important key.

so what’s the point of believin? to go to heaven? isn’t that hypocrisy?.

No.

I started my pilgrimage with the Tibetan monks and I arrived to Catholicism. I moved from the mysticism to the Faith in a personal and historical God.

I am not waiting to be in heaven for the bliss, ***by intuition, ***I know that He is alive.

 

[VociMike]

Is it possible for an atheist to be moral. I think that atheists can be moral.

A couple of questions spring to mind.

What does it mean to be moral (or to act morally)?

And, why does it matter? I notice we don’t have threads asking “can atheists be good barbers?” because we all sense that any relation between atheism and barbering just doesn’t matter. So why is the question “can atheists be/act moral?” important or revealing, if it is important or revealing?

 

[Pug]

I notice we don’t have threads asking “can atheists be good barbers?” because we all sense that any relation between atheism and barbering just doesn’t matter. So why is the question “can atheists be/act moral?” important or revealing, if it is important or revealing?

Also, what style atheist is in consideration here? People often mean a type of agnostic in a loose sense with the word. Are we being loose, or is a specific type of atheist in view here?

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

A couple of questions spring to mind.

What does it mean to be moral (or to act morally)?

And, why does it matter? I notice we don’t have threads asking “can atheists be good barbers?” because we all sense that any relation between atheism and barbering just doesn’t matter. So why is the question “can atheists be/act moral?” important or revealing, if it is important or revealing?

Can those who cut hair for money be good barbers?
The answer is obviously yes.

Can mercenaries be good soldiers?
Now the answer is a bit more interesting. There are certainly examples of successful military operations carried out by mercenaries. However the mercenary, ultimately, doesn’t believe in the cause he is fighting for. What reason has he to be a good soldier when it really matters, and the army is on the cusp between victory and defeat?

Similarly, when the chips are down, what reason has an atheist not to act selfishly?

 

[Pug]

Similarly, when the chips are down, what reason has an atheist not to act selfishly?

Self-respect. Integrity. Duty. Honor. Justice. Most men seem to respond to things like these.

Perhaps one might think that if an atheist were being consistent, he would not respond to these, but the fact remains that atheists do respond to these, and hence do have a reason not to act selfishly. Good appeals. The Good is a reason.

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

Self-respect. Integrity. Duty. Honor. Justice. Most men seem to respond to things like these.

Perhaps one might think that if an atheist were being consistent, he would not respond to these, but the fact remains that atheists do respond to these, and hence do have a reason not to act selfishly. Good appeals. The Good is a reason.

Not all atheists really accept the full implications of their position. In fact the “I’m a spiritual person really” type of non-Christian is a lot more common than the out and out “God is a delusion” person.

Also, men fear the contempt of others even more than they fear death. Psychology is not simple selfishness.

However, when it comes to the crunch, most people do find an excuse for acting in their own self-interest. How many rich, leftishly-inclined people, very committed to social equality and anti-racism, would send their children to experience the cultural richness of an inner-city school?

 

[Nullasalus]

Not all atheists really accept the full implications of their position. In fact the “I’m a spiritual person really” type of non-Christian is a lot more common than the out and out “God is a delusion” person.

I’ve noticed this time and again. Even among the latter type - where someone will repeatedly refer to anything theistically inspired as ‘fever-dream’, etc. There’s a lot of effort, conscious or not, that gets put into trying to avoid following the logic of the conclusion out to the end.

So absolutely, there can be and are moral atheists. But it’s important to pay attention to how the morality is arrived at.

 

[wcknight]

I think both atheists and agnostics can very easily be moral people. I believe God gives everyone an inner moral code, we inherrently have a feeling or sense of what is right and wrong. We are each brought up in an environment of our own culture and family and friends, but instintively we can sense what we should or should not do, and how we should or should not treat others.

Except for some individuals who are sociopaths or psychopaths (and it is debatable even for them) we all know what is inherrently right or wrong. I believe most folks absent heavy outside influence, follow what they believe is the right or proper thing to do.

Some folks who are brought up in a less than ideal social environment may have been taught more anti-social behavior by their parents, siblings or acquaintences (for example folks born into the mob or a family who thinks crime is a way of life). But most have a sense of what is proper behavior and what is not.

What the Christian/Catholic philosophy adds to this usual sense of right and wrong is how we treat our enemies. The natural response is to treat enemies or adversaries as competitors or with malice or contempt. To the extent that we treat enemies with love, respect and kindness, that is how God will treat us.

This concept is counter intuitive, and contrary to normal human instincts for self preservation and survival. This why Christianity is so radically different from other philosophies before it. That and the fact that we believe that Jesus Christ is in fact God Almighty, makes it unique.

 

[VociMike]

…when the chips are down, what reason has an atheist not to act selfishly?

Indeed. And I would even replace the potentially judgemental word “selfishly” with the more neutral “in his perceived self-interest”.