T
- Status
L
larkin31
Guest
Indeed! That is the beauty of existence!
“Odd”? What does “odd” matter?
Maybe. So?
Speak for yourself. You are simply projecting onto others how YOU respond to the idea of a universe empty of God. Others do not share your despair, and certainly not by definition.
“absurd” for Camus was not what “everything” was. The “absurd” for Camus was the condition one finds oneself in when one seeks meaning externally in a universe that does not provide it. It is the feeling of angst from a fruitless search for external meaning. Existence was not, ultimately, despairing for them, nor meaningless. Indeed, for the Existentialists, one had the responsibility and courage to face the universe honestly AND to construct meaning oneself.
Indeed. That is why cultures do so, through myth, through culture, through tradition, through law.
Speak for yourself. Even Camus and Sartre argued very compelling reasons for man to be moral. You falsely ascribe no morality to atheists simply because you can’t imagine morality without God.
. Man has ALWAYS been this.
Indeed. Religious wars have only made this all the clearer: the burden of consciousness without God is both wonderful and terrible, a double-edged sword, which we must wield carefully.
You are of course right. I don’t dispute this at all. I simply add our various religious faiths and traditions to these imperfect and faulty attempts to make meaning from/for our existence even though we also screw them up and end up hurting each other terribly with these same tools.Death and permanent annihilation are wake make our lives so wonderfully exuberant and poignant and precious. We should all be dancing and doing good while we can. It will end all too soon, and then nothing.
As Hamlet says in his last words, “The rest is silence.”
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
larkin
*Speak for yourself. Even Camus and Sartre argued very compelling reasons for man to be moral. You falsely ascribe no morality to atheists simply because you can’t imagine morality without God. *
There can be morality without believing in God for the simple reason that God planted the natural law in all of us, even atheists. But Sartre’s problem was still that he could not find a foundation other than Reason that would justify moral acts. As has been pointed out so many times in this thread, not all people can reason well according to moral principles, and those who can are still able to reason according to their passions rather than according to the truth.
But it’s interesting that in the last year of his life Sartre evidently ceased to be an atheist. So whether he would have held to his earlier views on morality can be seriously doubted.
*Speak for yourself. Even Camus and Sartre argued very compelling reasons for man to be moral. You falsely ascribe no morality to atheists simply because you can’t imagine morality without God. *
There can be morality without believing in God for the simple reason that God planted the natural law in all of us, even atheists. But Sartre’s problem was still that he could not find a foundation other than Reason that would justify moral acts. As has been pointed out so many times in this thread, not all people can reason well according to moral principles, and those who can are still able to reason according to their passions rather than according to the truth.
But it’s interesting that in the last year of his life Sartre evidently ceased to be an atheist. So whether he would have held to his earlier views on morality can be seriously doubted.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Rocinante
according to lifenews reporting on a gallup poll, only 52% of catholics are pro-life. sorry, charlie. there just is no broad consensus on the issues you raise here within the group all catholics let alone all theists. if agreement is an issue for the objectivity of morals (which it is not) then there is no more agreement among theists than there is among non religious people.
What does the poll tell us about where atheists stand on pro-life?
As the marvelous Mark Twain said:
“There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.”
according to lifenews reporting on a gallup poll, only 52% of catholics are pro-life. sorry, charlie. there just is no broad consensus on the issues you raise here within the group all catholics let alone all theists. if agreement is an issue for the objectivity of morals (which it is not) then there is no more agreement among theists than there is among non religious people.
What does the poll tell us about where atheists stand on pro-life?
As the marvelous Mark Twain said:
“There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.”
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Rocinante
agreement on morals is important, but it is not the topic of this thread. you should know of all people.
Oh? And you’ve never digressed slightly from the topic of a thread?
Then let’s get back to the main topic?
Is killing someone who is guilty of no crime a subjective or objective evil?
agreement on morals is important, but it is not the topic of this thread. you should know of all people.
Oh? And you’ve never digressed slightly from the topic of a thread?
Then let’s get back to the main topic?
Is killing someone who is guilty of no crime a subjective or objective evil?
R
Rocinante
Guest
sure, but when i do it i have the good graces not to accuse someone else of being off topic.agreement on morals is important, but it is not the topic of this thread. you should know of all people.
Oh? And you’ve never digressed slightly from the topic of a thread?
i’d love to get back on topic, but first i’d like you to admit that there is no broad agreement among theists on morals that does not exist among atheists. you said that theists agree on abortion. i provided evidence from a pro-life website that demonstrates that catholics are pretty much evenly split even on that matter. if you can demonstrate that you are capable of admitting when you are wrong, it might be worth my time conversing with you. if you can’t, then it certainly worth my time because you are just playing games.
rocinante
R
Rocinante
Guest
this is an important point, larkin. nietzche pointed this out too. nihilism begins when one accepts the religious idea that the world is insufficient to sustain its own value–that for the world to have value it must be given this value from something outside the world. if so, nihilism is best avoided not by assenting to the existence of such an external power (trying to affirm meaning by denying meaning) but by never assenting to the notion that the universe is insufficient unto itself (affirming meaning by affirming meaning).
the same sort of thing happens with the notion that human rights are meaningless unless they are god-given rights. this notion hopes to affirm the value of human life by claiming that human life is not worthy unless something nonhuman deems it so. it is far more respectful of human life if humanity is thought to be sufficient to sustain its own value than to think that humanity is worthless unless an external super power thinks it is valuable. how it it respecting humanity if it is thought that only something nonhuman could grant it respect?
rocinante
L
larkin31
Guest
well put
the only folks here who ascribe meaninglessness of a Godless existence are theists. I find that really peculiar, and intellectually intriguing. I don’t for a second think to call human life meaningless simply because a theist believes that a God gives it meaning. A false belief in God does not make life meaningless. Existence can have its own meaning. And humans have the full right and responsibility to make meaning from the fact of our existence. If a theist can only imagine nihilism and despair from a Godless existence then that reveals the limitations of their imagination and fortitude.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Rocinante
i provided evidence from a pro-life website that demonstrates that catholics are pretty much evenly split even on that matter. if you can demonstrate that you are capable of admitting when you are wrong, it might be worth my time conversing with you. if you can’t, then it certainly worth my time because you are just playing games.
The Catholic Church universally teaches that abortion is evil. It is because it universally teaches this that so many Catholics agree with each other that abortion is evil. Yes, many Catholics do not accept the teaching of the Church. However, this is more than likely because they have not been properly catechized on the subject, and have been influenced by the dominant liberal media and political correctness, not to mention the corrupting influence of academic authorities who bully students into parroting their views on their essay exams (I know this for a fact because I spent thirty three years in the academic scene).
The Church even now is in the process of turning that around. It will be accomplished mainly by replacing a very liberal to radical generation of bishops with more moderate and conservative ones who are more interested in preaching the Gospels than compromising with the devil. You may have noticed there is much dissension within the Church. This is because the many Church leaders have been corrupted by the spirit of compromise and accommodation with the secular powers that be. Look at the recent fiasco at Notre Dame, for example, when the president of the institution, a Catholic priest, decided to present the most pro-abortion president in the history of the country with honors. Granted, that was a failure of agreement between the priest and the American bishops, and a disgraceful moment in the history of the Church in North America. However, it is not necessarily a permanent phenomenon. The Church has suffered many wounds to her unity, not the least being the Reformation itself, which has paved the way for the rise of agnosticism and atheism in the modern world.
By the way, did you answer my question? What percent of atheists oppose legalized abortion?
i provided evidence from a pro-life website that demonstrates that catholics are pretty much evenly split even on that matter. if you can demonstrate that you are capable of admitting when you are wrong, it might be worth my time conversing with you. if you can’t, then it certainly worth my time because you are just playing games.
The Catholic Church universally teaches that abortion is evil. It is because it universally teaches this that so many Catholics agree with each other that abortion is evil. Yes, many Catholics do not accept the teaching of the Church. However, this is more than likely because they have not been properly catechized on the subject, and have been influenced by the dominant liberal media and political correctness, not to mention the corrupting influence of academic authorities who bully students into parroting their views on their essay exams (I know this for a fact because I spent thirty three years in the academic scene).
The Church even now is in the process of turning that around. It will be accomplished mainly by replacing a very liberal to radical generation of bishops with more moderate and conservative ones who are more interested in preaching the Gospels than compromising with the devil. You may have noticed there is much dissension within the Church. This is because the many Church leaders have been corrupted by the spirit of compromise and accommodation with the secular powers that be. Look at the recent fiasco at Notre Dame, for example, when the president of the institution, a Catholic priest, decided to present the most pro-abortion president in the history of the country with honors. Granted, that was a failure of agreement between the priest and the American bishops, and a disgraceful moment in the history of the Church in North America. However, it is not necessarily a permanent phenomenon. The Church has suffered many wounds to her unity, not the least being the Reformation itself, which has paved the way for the rise of agnosticism and atheism in the modern world.
By the way, did you answer my question? What percent of atheists oppose legalized abortion?
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Then let’s get back to the main topic?
Is killing someone who is guilty of no crime a subjective or objective evil?
Is killing someone who is guilty of no crime a subjective or objective evil?
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
larkin
*Existence can have its own meaning. And humans have the full right and responsibility to make meaning from the fact of our existence. If a theist can only imagine nihilism and despair from a Godless existence then that reveals the limitations of their imagination and fortitude. *
Good. Since you have both imagination and fortitude without God, tell us the meaning of existence. My impression is that evolution does not allow for any explanation of the meaning of our existence. That is, we are an accident of the universe rather than a purposeful creation. How do we get meaning out of an unintended accident? With atheism we merely exist for a time and finally perish forever. What happens in the meantime is no more than the struggle to exist. That is a fact without meaning. All animals struggle, and no other animal even considers the question of meaning or purpose for its existence. So when an atheist says he has imagination and fortitude enough to find meaning in the universe, he has to offer something better than what all the other animals can offer.
What is it?
By the way, this question is not asked to divert from the theme of this thread, but simply to answer a question that has already diverted from the thread.
*Existence can have its own meaning. And humans have the full right and responsibility to make meaning from the fact of our existence. If a theist can only imagine nihilism and despair from a Godless existence then that reveals the limitations of their imagination and fortitude. *
Good. Since you have both imagination and fortitude without God, tell us the meaning of existence. My impression is that evolution does not allow for any explanation of the meaning of our existence. That is, we are an accident of the universe rather than a purposeful creation. How do we get meaning out of an unintended accident? With atheism we merely exist for a time and finally perish forever. What happens in the meantime is no more than the struggle to exist. That is a fact without meaning. All animals struggle, and no other animal even considers the question of meaning or purpose for its existence. So when an atheist says he has imagination and fortitude enough to find meaning in the universe, he has to offer something better than what all the other animals can offer.
What is it?
By the way, this question is not asked to divert from the theme of this thread, but simply to answer a question that has already diverted from the thread.
M
Marc_Anthony
Guest
But is this really an objection? What if the universe really doesn’t have meaning? Sometimes things that are true aren’t wat we want them to be. We may want there to be meaning but that doesn’t make it so.larkin
*Existence can have its own meaning. And humans have the full right and responsibility to make meaning from the fact of our existence. If a theist can only imagine nihilism and despair from a Godless existence then that reveals the limitations of their imagination and fortitude. *
Good. Since you have both imagination and fortitude without God, tell us the meaning of existence. My impression is that evolution does not allow for any explanation of the meaning of our existence. That is, we are an accident of the universe rather than a purposeful creation. How do we get meaning out of an unintended accident? With atheism we merely exist for a time and finally perish forever. What happens in the meantime is no more than the struggle to exist. That is a fact without meaning. All animals struggle, and no other animal even considers the question of meaning or purpose for its existence. So when an atheist says he has imagination and fortitude enough to find meaning in the universe, he has to offer something better than what all the other animals can offer.
What is it?
By the way, this question is not asked to divert from the theme of this thread, but simply to answer a question that has already diverted from the thread.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Marc Antony
*But is this really an objection? What if the universe really doesn’t have meaning? Sometimes things that are true aren’t wat we want them to be. We may want there to be meaning but that doesn’t make it so. *
It is an objection. He can’t produce a meaning without getting beyond a fact. But all he wants to talk about is facts. Still he insists there is meaning. Let him tell us what it is, but do not let him confuse facts with meaning.
*But is this really an objection? What if the universe really doesn’t have meaning? Sometimes things that are true aren’t wat we want them to be. We may want there to be meaning but that doesn’t make it so. *
It is an objection. He can’t produce a meaning without getting beyond a fact. But all he wants to talk about is facts. Still he insists there is meaning. Let him tell us what it is, but do not let him confuse facts with meaning.
R
Rocinante
Guest
maybe you can help him out by telling him the meaning of meaning and the purpose of purpose. then you ought to tell him the meaning of purpose and the purpose of meaning. at that point you’ll probably have convinced him that you know more about the topic than he does.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Rocinante
*maybe you can help him out by telling him the meaning of meaning and the purpose of purpose. then you ought to tell him the meaning of purpose and the purpose of meaning. at that point you’ll probably have convinced him that you know more about the topic than he does. *
This is what he said:
*Existence can have its own meaning. And humans have the full right and responsibility to make meaning from the fact of our existence. If a theist can only imagine nihilism and despair from a Godless existence then that reveals the limitations of their imagination and fortitude. *
He sounds very confident in his ability to define the meaning of his atheistic existence. Apparently he has already done so. I should let him first define what he means by “meaning” if he wants to. I’m not going to define his terms for him.
He already knows that facts and meaning are not the same.
Then let’s get back to the main topic?
Is killing someone who is guilty of no crime a subjective or objective evil?
*maybe you can help him out by telling him the meaning of meaning and the purpose of purpose. then you ought to tell him the meaning of purpose and the purpose of meaning. at that point you’ll probably have convinced him that you know more about the topic than he does. *
This is what he said:
*Existence can have its own meaning. And humans have the full right and responsibility to make meaning from the fact of our existence. If a theist can only imagine nihilism and despair from a Godless existence then that reveals the limitations of their imagination and fortitude. *
He sounds very confident in his ability to define the meaning of his atheistic existence. Apparently he has already done so. I should let him first define what he means by “meaning” if he wants to. I’m not going to define his terms for him.
He already knows that facts and meaning are not the same.
Then let’s get back to the main topic?
Is killing someone who is guilty of no crime a subjective or objective evil?
T
tonyrey
Guest
- which you regard as a blind, purposeless phenomenon which does not account for our insight and power to choose!
Perhaps the term “irrational” will explain why.
On your view not “maybe” but “undoubtedly”.
It is not **my **response but the logical consequence of a life which ultimately leads to nothing. If you live in hope it is certainly not hope of an afterlife when death wipes out everything. If you love others you are doomed to be separated from them forever. If you fight against injustice you know you will never succeed because there is no answer to the bomb or the bullet. Evil is bound to triumph in this world because those who are unscrupulous will do anything whereas those with principles prefer to die rather than degrade themselves.
It does not make sense to construct meaning from that which is meaningless. What you mean is “invent” meaning.
Cultures do so not because our rights are arbitrary but because we are entitled to them. If you believe rights are man-made you have the same outlook as a criminal! They are just rules that can be broken when it is our interest.
You falsely ascribe to me a view I do not share! I don’t have to imagine morality without God because I know it exists. What I am pointing out is that humanism is merely a matter of preference. Without God people are at liberty to devise any (a)moral system they think fit. They become gods in effect because they and they alone decide what is good, right and just. There is no objective standard by which they can determine whether their values are true or false.
In your opinion. You overlook the fact that most people don’t believe they are the authors of morality. They accept the fact that good and evil are objective realities.
Religious wars simply reveal how the truth can be distorted beyond recognition. Corruptio optima pessima. We are all free to choose what to believe and how to live because no one can see God. That is a necessary condition of our independence.
That is the price of our free will. It cannot be otherwise if we are to have control of our destiny.
Silence on earth. Hamlet also said “There are more things **in heaven **and earth…” Shakespeare was a Catholic whose beliefs pervade his drama and poetry.
L
larkin31
Guest
There is no need to “account” for it. I value it anyway.
No. You are simply speaking from fear and defeatism. Just because death ends all does not mean,* logically*, that one should not try to do good. That is preposterous logic, based on lack of imagination and lack of fortitude. Many many people try at things that they have no chance of succeeding in. Sure, some give up. But there is no RULE of logic that states, because I will die eventually and all will end, then nothing matters now. Only frightened theists and a few nihilists say this. The rest of the world does not.
Yes, ALL meaning is invented. That is what religion does, too, and turns the trick pretty well. But this invented meaning is respectable, and I value it, even though I think that it is a false faith. But the meaning is not false. What* is*, is valued, over what is not. Existence is the essence of meaning. Simply that.
Again, you are defeatist and negative! Even a common criminal has values and understands the meaning and logic of rules. Because one breaks the rules does not mean that one does not understand their value. Do you think that atheists are all beating their wives, raping their children, and robbing and murdering their neighbors? Are you claiming that all atheists are anarchist monsters?
Religion, too, is a matter of cultural preference. I don’t see your point, accept that in religion you want to deny the effect of human preference. Knowing what we know from comparative religious studies and history, I don’t see how you can claim anything accept that cultures, through human history, made up their own gods. Are do you wish to deny this?
True. It is a good thing that cultures tend to retain their wisdom, that cultures tend to enact laws, that families tend to enact rules, and that humans tend to be social animals that need each other to survive.
I couldn’t agree more. And existentialists depict us as freer than theists do. And I value freedom most highly. We are free, even, from the fetters of false faith and the gods we project onto the sky.
It is very likely that Shakespeare was not Catholic. But it can’t be ruled out. And hardly matters. No one who knows how little evidence there is about Shakespeare’s life makes the claim you just made without qualification. But I was not trying to suggest that Shakespeare was atheist. Clearly, he was not. More to the point, Hamlet was not (that textual evidence is clear). If you would like to add to Hamlet’s dying words, “except for all the words said in heaven” and ruin the beautiful poetry of his end, by all means go ahead.
P
PRmerger
Guest
But what kind of authority can a culture have over me to determine right and wrong? If my culture says that polygamy is good and monogamy is bad, who are they to impose their viewpoint on me?
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
larkin
Sure, some give up. But there is no RULE of logic that states, because I will die eventually and all will end, then nothing matters now.
Nor is there a rule of logic that says, because I will die and eventually all will end, then I should party straight through to the end. He can party all he wants, but in the back of his mind the atheist cannot rid himself of the “fact” that he is doomed to nothingness.
And that, Larkin, is precisely why you are looking for answers at Catholic Answers. You’re not so sure after all, are you? And you’re not at all happy about the doom that lies ahead.
By the way, Shakespeare’s parents were both Catholic. The odds that he was a Protestant are slim indeed. An Anglican bishop several decades after Shakespeare’s death referred to him as a “paypist.” Apparently his reputation with the Anglican bishops was not favorable.
Then let’s get back to the main topic?
Is killing someone who is guilty of no crime a subjective or objective evil?
Sure, some give up. But there is no RULE of logic that states, because I will die eventually and all will end, then nothing matters now.
Nor is there a rule of logic that says, because I will die and eventually all will end, then I should party straight through to the end. He can party all he wants, but in the back of his mind the atheist cannot rid himself of the “fact” that he is doomed to nothingness.
And that, Larkin, is precisely why you are looking for answers at Catholic Answers. You’re not so sure after all, are you? And you’re not at all happy about the doom that lies ahead.
By the way, Shakespeare’s parents were both Catholic. The odds that he was a Protestant are slim indeed. An Anglican bishop several decades after Shakespeare’s death referred to him as a “paypist.” Apparently his reputation with the Anglican bishops was not favorable.
Then let’s get back to the main topic?
Is killing someone who is guilty of no crime a subjective or objective evil?
T
tonyrey
Guest
- Status