Moral atheists

[porkscratchings]

Gilbert Keith,

porkscratchings

ur intolerance towards atheists is better addressed by ur shrink.

Please cite the specific sentences where my so-called intolerance was expressed. Criticism and disagreement would not by themselves indicate intolerance. If that were so, you would certainly be among the most intolerant members of this board.
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon10.gif
Right?

Ur intolerance is not ‘so-called’. It is a fact. A fact not missed by others on this forum. Even R McGeddon noticed the frequency of ur rants against atheists, as well as how often it is repeated ad nauseum. Only someone blind would fail to notice that ur attacks are specifically targetted at atheists - hence my charge of intolerance.

Criticism and disagreement - no problem. As for me being one of the most intolerant members of this board, this is unsupported by fact or other folks on the board. Run a search and u’ll easily find me disagreeing with hindus, muslims and everyone else. I slag off anything and anyone - equally.

Atheists exist - get over it.

 

[porkscratchings]

porkscratchings

What bounds the atheist is the same thing that bounds the Christian - personal choices.

No, what bounds the Christian is the Gospels. What bounds the atheist is personal choice … in other words, whatever he can get away with.

I am starting to get impatient with the regularity with which almost everything you say flies in the face of common sense.

That wee button called the ‘ignore button’. please use it.

by ‘what he can get away with’ - applies just as well to Christians as well as atheists. By applying it just to atheists, this demonstrates ur intolerance.

What bounds a christian is his choice to be bound by the Gospels. He can just as easily choose to disgard his faith and choose Islam or even atheism. The atheist has the same choice to choose to remain as he is, or even to be a Christian. This is common sense. What u r saying is what flies in the face of common sense - the concept of morality being dependent on a person’s belief, not what he does. it’s like saying someone can only be moral if they’re white.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

That would be the same thing as 10 countries with different moral systems coming up with an agreement that all of them can sign. This is happening all the time - examples the UN declaration of human rights, the kyoto agreement,etc. They just have to negotiate until they come up with something workable. Same goes for 10 atheists.

10 Christians can also disagree on what is moral even if they were in the same denomination of Christianity, more so if they were in different denominations. And a christian is just as capable of using force to make the others go along. That christian might feel force is necessary to ‘save’ the unbeliever/christian who disagree with him. That’s just human nature.

What bounds the atheist is the same thing that bounds the Christian - personal choices. We may justify these choices by using God or reason, but they remain our choices.

The U.S. is currently accused of breaking the Geneva Convention but the U.S. claims not to have done it. The U.S. refuses to follow the Kyoto agreement. The U.S. chooses to kill Iraqis for 9/11(crime by Saudi Arabians) or WMD’s? Are these morally acceptable man made agreements to you? Several nations wish to wipe Israel off the map is that morally acceptable if a group of atheist agree?

Christians have the moral obligation to treat your neighbor as your self, but Christians are not allowed to vote out certain neighbors are atheist allowed to work out agreements that separate certain neighbors?

 

[porkscratchings]

Texas Roofer,

The U.S. is currently accused of breaking the Geneva Convention but the U.S. claims not to have done it. The U.S. refuses to follow the Kyoto agreement. The U.S. chooses to kill Iraqis for 9/11(crime by Saudi Arabians) or WMD’s? Are these morally acceptable man made agreements to you? Several nations wish to wipe Israel off the map is that morally acceptable if a group of atheist agree?

Things r not moral because one group of atheists agree, anymore than a group of Christians agree to wipe muslims off the map. Believe me, i have heard of christians who believe this rubbish. neither God nor reason can justify the examples u’ve given.

Christians have the moral obligation to treat your neighbor as your self, but Christians are not allowed to vote out certain neighbors are atheist allowed to work out agreements that separate certain neighbors?

if a group of pple choose to separate certain neighbours - the faith or non-faith of the group is irrelevant. I know of atheists who have lost their jobs after declaring their beliefs to their christian employers. I also know of atheists who want all religions to be banned. How does this square with any rules on moral obligation when individuals and groups can choose to ignore it?

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

porkscratchings

*by ‘what he can get away with’ - applies just as well to Christians as well as atheists. By applying it just to atheists, this demonstrates ur intolerance. *

No Christian I know gets up in the morning asking himself what he can get away with today. A Christian gets up in the morning asking himself how he can serve the Lord today.

But an atheist has no curb on his morality … no “Thou shalt not” besides the ones he is naturally endowed with from God … the natural law “thou shalt nots” (human conscience). Being an atheist allows him to explain those “Thou shalt nots” away more easily since he does not believe he is accountable to any almighty lawgiver.

We have been over this ground too many times before … but you just don’t seem to get it and keep coming back for more of the same old proof that never sinks in. Go to any prison. Look at how many of the prisoners refuse to go to chapel. The vast majority, that’s how many. They are without God (a “without” + theos “god”). How do you think they got into jail … by going to Mass every Sunday or by breaking into somebody’s house every Saturday night? And do you honestly think the same people who break into somebody’s house every Saturday night are at Mass the next morning?

The atheist position is simply nonsensical when it says that there is no substantive difference between the morals of atheists and Christians.

Moreover, you have not supplied me with a list of charitable atheist organizations comparable to the ones I gave you for Christianity in post # 75. Until you do, (and you never will) there is no merit to the view that atheism is as “moral” as Christianity.

This is not “intolerance,” as you like to put it. This is simple the way it is.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

That wee button called the ‘ignore button’. please use it.

by ‘what he can get away with’ - applies just as well to Christians as well as atheists. By applying it just to atheists, this demonstrates ur intolerance.

What bounds a christian is his choice to be bound by the Gospels. He can just as easily choose to disgard his faith and choose Islam or even atheism. The atheist has the same choice to choose to remain as he is, or even to be a Christian. This is common sense. What u r saying is what flies in the face of common sense - the concept of morality being dependent on a person’s belief, not what he does. it’s like saying someone can only be moral if they’re white.

On the subject of natural law there are various theories one of which is “Natural Law = the self interest agreements of man” This is not the Catholic teaching, and not conflicting with the idea each man is out for himself. This version relies on the idea of I will agree to not kill you if you agree to not kill me. But this differs from the Catholic teaching in that the killing is not and innate evil but a violation of contract law. This has other serious implications which involve the enforcement ( and cheating) of the Natural Law when defined by contract. Example if I violate the agreement and kill you then who has the right to punish me, especially as I did not agree to any third party superiority to me ever. See in that view of Natural Law I would never agree to submit to third party rule, how could I? And I would not trust anybody who did agree to third party rulings would you? See such agreements would require us to believe preservation of our life is not a highest priority, and that makes no sense.

 

[porkscratchings]

On the subject of natural law there are various theories one of which is “Natural Law = the self interest agreements of man” This is not the Catholic teaching, and not conflicting with the idea each man is out for himself. This version relies on the idea of I will agree to not kill you if you agree to not kill me. But this differs from the Catholic teaching in that the killing is not and innate evil but a violation of contract law. This has other serious implications which involve the enforcement ( and cheating) of the Natural Law when defined by contract. Example if I violate the agreement and kill you then who has the right to punish me, especially as I did not agree to any third party superiority to me ever. See in that view of Natural Law I would never agree to submit to third party rule, how could I? And I would not trust anybody who did agree to third party rulings would you? See such agreements would require us to believe preservation of our life is not a highest priority, and that makes no sense.

No agreement worth its salt would avoid addressing the issue of non-compliance. So an individual not agreeing to submit to a 3rd party would nevertheless be bound the agreement not to kill his neighbour. Society is the 3rd party who enforces the contract and deals with folks who violate the agreement. Whenever man has gone to form societies, this has been the case.

But this is a separate discussion to the one on atheists and morality.

 

[R_McGeddon]

Where are the atheists hospitals?

Hospitals, in the UK at least, are built for the health and welfare of the citizens. Religion plays no part in it.

There are plenty of Catholic, Protestant, and Jewish hospitals.

Does this mean they are for use only by the relevant faiths?

Where are the atheists who go into the prison ministry and try to recover all those lost souls to a truly moral life?

There are plenty of people in UK prisons that follow some kind of faith.

Where are the atheist missionaries who teach backward children in backward nations how to read and bring the food and clothing to them to stay alive?

Who says they’re backwards? I’ll bet they were quite happy until white man came along interfering in their way of life.

Where are the atheists who fought against slavery the way the Christian abolitionists did before the Civil War? Who led the march for modern Civil Rights for black people … the atheist Madalyn Murray O’Hare or Reverend Martin Luther King? Who led the pro-life movement to stop the slaughter of the unborn, the Catholic Church or the largely atheist ACLU?

Can you verify that absolutely everyone that fought for these causes, weren’t atheists?

I didn’t think so.

 

[porkscratchings]

Gilbert Keith,

No Christian I know gets up in the morning asking himself what he can get away with today. A Christian gets up in the morning asking himself how he can serve the Lord today.

No atheist gets up in the morning thinking what he can get away with today. But ur prejudice won’t allow atheists any humanity, does it? The rest of ur rant just proves it.

The atheist position is simply nonsensical when it says that there is no substantive difference between the morals of atheists and Christians.

The only thing nonsensical here is ur belief that only ur brand of believers have morality. Like assigning morality to men based on colour.

Moreover, you have not supplied me with a list of charitable atheist organizations comparable to the ones I gave you for Christianity in post # 75. Until you do, (and you never will) there is no merit to the view that atheism is as “moral” as Christianity.

If Christians do good to show off to non-christians, what does that say about Christianity? U can found a million charities, but if all of them r just for show - does that not confirm the NT’s definition of merely doing good to impress others (matt 6:1-34). i’m not playing ur game - believe what u like. Likewise, i’ll take the NT quote as evidence that if Jesus founded a church, that church ain’t u.

This is not “intolerance,” as you like to put it. This is simple the way it is.

A spade is a spade because it looks like a spade and performs the function of a spade. An intolerant person likewise.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

R McGeddon

Porkscratchings

I’ll leave it to others to decide whether you have scored the points you think you have scored. As for me, both your arguments are too juvenile to merit further attention. If you had something really interesting to say instead of the same old one-line rants, I’d be tempted to stay in the game.

So long … the peace of Christ be with you instead of your constant slamming of religion and Christ.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

In reading these posts

Moral=Agreement among men (post # 78 -" all of them can sign")

In Post 82 (& #78) the claim is “his choice” which binds both Christian and atheist

In post # 84 the claim seems to rebuke earlier posts saying " Things r not moral because one group of atheists agree"

In post #87 we are clearly told society not individuals decide what is moral? “So an individual not agreeing to submit to a 3rd party would nevertheless be bound the agreement”

This is actually common among atheist it is simply subjective morality, or actually no morality. If an atheist can tell us what is the moral root of atheism that would help. Similarly if an atheist can decide the rights of the individual in their atheist scheme and tell us that would help also. Let me assist by telling the correct base for the Christian. First the individual must choose Christianity, which has a moral base directed by God. FYI when Christians error which is very common they do not change the moral base they either fail to see the moral base correctly, or choose to violated the moral base but they never can move the moral base

 

[tdgesq]

If an atheist can tell us what is the moral root of atheism that would help. Similarly if an atheist can decide the rights of the individual in their atheist scheme and tell us that would help also.

A legitimate point. What system of morality are we operating under here? In post #4 by the op, it was Utilitarianism. I gave an answer. If it’s something else, let us all know - and be specific please.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

It is possible for anyone to be moral, but not without God.

This is a great write-up:
The Indispensability of Theological Meta-Ethical Foundations for Morality, by William Lane Craig.

**Craig’s comment doesn’t add up - one can perfectly well be a far more moral person if one one is an atheist, without bothering about God. There is of course no guarantee that God will not help the atheist to live a moral life - even if the atheist has no awareness of this. **​

**But it’s absurd (to put it politely) to suggest that atheists need to bother with God to live moral & admirable & praiseworthy lives. There is no reason to suppose they cannot be far more moral people than Christians. Many undoubtedly are - and would put many Christians (to speak of no other persons with religions) to shame by their humility, kindness, compassion, devotion to duty, self-restraint, and many other virtues. It’s probably safe to say that most good people in the world are atheists, & that most scoundrels have a religion. **

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Ah, so that’s Peter Singer who says that. Yes I’ve heard of that before. At least he recognises the truth that abortion and infanticide are the same thing. Now if we can establish that infanticide is murder, ipso facto that means that abortion is murder! Establishing the fact that infanticide is murder is easy, don’t you agree?

Killing a one-year old baby is infanticide - it is not abortion. Ergo, they are not identical - though they do overlap: all abortion = infanticide; but the converse is not true.​

 

[tdgesq]

Craig’s comment doesn’t add up - one can perfectly well be a far more moral person if one one is an atheist, without bothering about God. There is of course no guarantee that God will not help the atheist to live a moral life - even if the atheist has no awareness of this.

Did you actually read the article? That was a fantastic analysis. He didn’t say anything about an atheist being unable to act morally. He just said that they don’t have a system that makes sense of morality.

But it’s absurd (to put it politely) to suggest that atheists need to bother with God to live moral & admirable & praiseworthy lives. There is no reason to suppose they cannot be far more moral people than Christians.

Craig never said that atheists don’t act morally. Where are you getting this?

Many undoubtedly are - and would put many Christians (to speak of no other persons with religions) to shame by their humility, kindness, compassion, devotion to duty, self-restraint, and many other virtues. It’s probably safe to say that most good people in the world are atheists, & that most scoundrels have a religion.

That last sentence is silly. I challenge you to justify it, even in the context of all the false religions that have existed from the beginning of human existence ( and I assume that’s what you meant). I hope this is a joke Gottle.

 

[R_McGeddon]

R McGeddon

Porkscratchings

I’ll leave it to others to decide whether you have scored the points you think you have scored.

I’m not in a point scoring exercise, I didn’t know it was that kind of thing.

As for me, both your arguments are too juvenile to merit further attention.

Oh I get it, when I bring up perfectly valid points and counter arguments, I’m being juvenile. But when you tar all atheists with the same brush, that is a different story.

If you had something really interesting to say instead of the same old one-line rants, I’d be tempted to stay in the game.

There’s an English saying that suits you perfectly:

Pot, Kettle, Black.

So long … the peace of Christ be with you instead of your constant slamming of religion and Christ.

What makes you think that you can unjustly slam atheism and go unchallenged??

 

[porkscratchings]

In reading these posts

Moral=Agreement among men (post # 78 -" all of them can sign")

In Post 82 (& #78) the claim is “his choice” which binds both Christian and atheist

In post # 84 the claim seems to rebuke earlier posts saying " Things r not moral because one group of atheists agree"

In post #87 we are clearly told society not individuals decide what is moral? “So an individual not agreeing to submit to a 3rd party would nevertheless be bound the agreement”

post #78 = atheists can have a get together to agree on something, like Christians can. As I posted: Things r not moral because one group of atheists agree. Ergo, this agreement is not proof of morality, or lack of morality. It is answering how different viewpoints can reach a consensus on aspects of morality.

Post#82 = what binds atheist and Christian is the choice to be bound by something. Whether this makes the Christian more moral or the atheist less moral is debatable.

Post#87 = is merely an answer to a q in a legal context, individual being bound by a social contract involving 3rd parties. And as i posted at the bottom of my post*…but this is a separate discussion to the one on atheists and morality*

3 q’s on 3 separate matters do not a contradiction make, unless s o takes the answers out of the context where they were given.
Texas Roofer:

This is actually common among atheist it is simply subjective morality, or actually no morality. If an atheist can tell us what is the moral root of atheism that would help. Similarly if an atheist can decide the rights of the individual in their atheist scheme and tell us that would help also. Let me assist by telling the correct base for the Christian. First the individual must choose Christianity, which has a moral base directed by God. FYI when Christians error which is very common they do not change the moral base they either fail to see the moral base correctly, or choose to violated the moral base but they never can move the moral base

It is common among Christians to assume only they have morality and no-one else gets a look in. It is common for one group of pple with religious conviction to take it upon themselves to decide not only for themselves the rules of morality but to impose this on everyone else. This ‘objective morality’ is not objective at all in that it is merely one group attempt to impose their subjective morality on the rest of society.

As for the moral root of atheism, atheism is not religion and does not come with ready made ‘what to do/what not to do’s’. Atheism is neither moral or amoral, since it is not concerned with man’s relationship with others (the basis of morality) but on the non-existence of God - a different debate altogether.

The q raised is whether an atheist can be moral. The answer is yes because all human beings (whatever their personal beliefs) are capable of moral behaviour.

For me personally, morality is what u do, not what u believe.

 

[porkscratchings]

**But it’s absurd (to put it politely) to suggest that atheists need to bother with God to live moral & admirable & praiseworthy lives. There is no reason to suppose they cannot be far more moral people than Christians. Many undoubtedly are - and would put many Christians (to speak of no other persons with religions) to shame by their humility, kindness, compassion, devotion to duty, self-restraint, and many other virtues. It’s probably safe to say that most good people in the world are atheists, & that most scoundrels have a religion. **

Hear! Hear!