B
bobcat
Guest
I ca’t decide whether you are arguing for or against atheism or just writing your views which have some serious flaws in them.
- Status
R
reggieM
Guest
The poster who started this thread claimed that atheists do not assert any positive doctrines and therefore atheism is not a religious view.
I just pointed out that atheists do assert many points beyond just that they don’t believe in God.
Yes, I believe that every one of those points I presented has very serious and obvious flaws.
Regarding the topic of the thread, there’s no reason to observe moral norms in an atheist belief system. The only reason atheists do observe moral norms is because they don’t want to think deeply enough about the meaning of them or the meaning of life, or the illogic of observing moral norms also.
It’s certainly illogical for atheists to claim that the highest possible value is one’s life on earth. Clearly, non-existence has a higher value than would many lives which are lived in suffering, poverty and deprivation. In the Christian view, that suffering has redemptive value for the afterlife. For the atheist, the suffering is a deprivation of the pleasures of this life, and when death comes there is nothing more.
Why make a person suffer through pain and poverty for an entire life, just to end by dying in that condition?
Christianity teaches that the last shall be first. Blessed are the poor or those deprived on earth – they will gain glory in the afterlife.
Atheism teaches that the first shall be first. Blessed are those who have much and who get more. Blessed are those who have pleasures and wealth and who experience everything they can here on earth because this is the only chance you have. Cursed are the poor because their life is painful and meaningless.
With that scenario, it’s more logical and “moral” for atheists to simply kill people and put them out of their misery (if they’re poor or in pain). Non-existence is something better than life in those cases.
But atheists actually adopt Christian morality as if that makes sense in an atheistic view. It’s obvious that they really don’t think about the consequences of atheism.
They don’t believe atheism enough to say that suicide or murder are the best options for some people or against some people.
Some atheistic dictators have believed such things. That is certainly the logic of atheism.
The idea of restraining oneself and avoiding some pleasures is a Christian norm that pseudo-atheists adopt.
The idea of following “common moral norms” is also a concession to Christianity that makes no sense in atheistic terms.
Slavery, for example, would be perfectly “moral” in an atheistic environment since it would enable the powerful people to become rich. It would make no difference that it is “cruel” to other people since they’re not worth anything anyway. They can serve as slaves to enrich the powerful and have some semblance of meaning that way.
We call it “slave labor” in China – so it’s perfectly compatible with atheism.
What authoritative doctrine states that atheists cannot support slavery?
Atheists don’t support slavery because they don’t want to be out of touch with the majority view. But in China, the atheistic leaders support slave labor conditions and they don’t violate any atheistic principles in doing it.
I just pointed out that atheists do assert many points beyond just that they don’t believe in God.
Yes, I believe that every one of those points I presented has very serious and obvious flaws.
Regarding the topic of the thread, there’s no reason to observe moral norms in an atheist belief system. The only reason atheists do observe moral norms is because they don’t want to think deeply enough about the meaning of them or the meaning of life, or the illogic of observing moral norms also.
It’s certainly illogical for atheists to claim that the highest possible value is one’s life on earth. Clearly, non-existence has a higher value than would many lives which are lived in suffering, poverty and deprivation. In the Christian view, that suffering has redemptive value for the afterlife. For the atheist, the suffering is a deprivation of the pleasures of this life, and when death comes there is nothing more.
Why make a person suffer through pain and poverty for an entire life, just to end by dying in that condition?
Christianity teaches that the last shall be first. Blessed are the poor or those deprived on earth – they will gain glory in the afterlife.
Atheism teaches that the first shall be first. Blessed are those who have much and who get more. Blessed are those who have pleasures and wealth and who experience everything they can here on earth because this is the only chance you have. Cursed are the poor because their life is painful and meaningless.
With that scenario, it’s more logical and “moral” for atheists to simply kill people and put them out of their misery (if they’re poor or in pain). Non-existence is something better than life in those cases.
But atheists actually adopt Christian morality as if that makes sense in an atheistic view. It’s obvious that they really don’t think about the consequences of atheism.
They don’t believe atheism enough to say that suicide or murder are the best options for some people or against some people.
Some atheistic dictators have believed such things. That is certainly the logic of atheism.
The idea of restraining oneself and avoiding some pleasures is a Christian norm that pseudo-atheists adopt.
The idea of following “common moral norms” is also a concession to Christianity that makes no sense in atheistic terms.
Slavery, for example, would be perfectly “moral” in an atheistic environment since it would enable the powerful people to become rich. It would make no difference that it is “cruel” to other people since they’re not worth anything anyway. They can serve as slaves to enrich the powerful and have some semblance of meaning that way.
We call it “slave labor” in China – so it’s perfectly compatible with atheism.
What authoritative doctrine states that atheists cannot support slavery?
Atheists don’t support slavery because they don’t want to be out of touch with the majority view. But in China, the atheistic leaders support slave labor conditions and they don’t violate any atheistic principles in doing it.
L
Leela
Guest
Hi Bobcat, Cats, all,
The issue I’m trying to raise is what is the true basis for morality? It’s not about how a person can believe themselves to be moral but rather what really is moral and what that even means.
If morality is really about angering gods, then belief would be necessary, but if morality is about human flourishing and concern for suffering, then we need not take anything on faith to learn about what is moral.
Best,
Leela
L
Leela
Guest
Hi Reggie,
I would agree except for “positively assert”? Some atheists positively assert such things, but not all. I for one do not claim to know whether or not there is a God or eternal judgment, but I am unconvinced by the arguments I’ve heard for such things.
Again, I wouldn’t say that an atheist necessarily “positively asserts” any of those things. I remain open to new arguments and evidence for the supernatural.
Atheists have to find their purpose like everyone else.
One need not need to be an atheist to think that their values and beliefs are better than other people’s values and beliefs? Anyone who thinks some other idea is better will make that idea her own.
Religious people judge all other religions and lack of religions as incorrect and judge all people who hold beliefs different from theirs as wrong.
I’d like to better understand other people and be better understood by other people. It that agenda unique to atheism?
Sewing isn’t a big issue for me, but I do think that the variety of religious beliefs in the world come at great cost.
Like most people, atheists tend to not want to be forced to say that they believe something that they don’t believe.
I disagree completely. I think that there are objective moral truths about how to live in such a way as to reduce suffering in the world and promote human happiness. I just don’t think that we are any more likely to find truths about morality that represent our best understanding in ancient books any more than the same ancient books contain our best understanding about mathematics, economics, agriculture, biology, etc.
Best,
Leela
B
buffalo
Guest
What about the first atheists? ( assuming there is no God, no infused knowledge and preternatural gifts)
Premise - the first two humans have no moral guidance as they do not know God. Since there is no morality the first can kill the second without justification. Just because it was fun, they were competition, or they were annoying.
Of course if the first kills the second then it is over. What stopped him from killing?
L
Leela
Guest
Hi Buffalo,
You’ve brought this up before, and I still can’t see why the first atheist should want to kill the second. You must have them confused with Cain and Abel? What stopped Cain from killing? …Oh, yeah,…nothing.
Your premise is that without a belief in God there would be no such thing as morality. Why does someone have to first believe in God before she can recognize that some things are good and others bad or that some things are true and others false?
Best,
Leela
C
crowonsnow
Guest
Hi Leela,
The “true basis” for morality is evolved behavior, specifically humanism. Indeed, if you strip any theology of its humanism it beomes morally bankrupt. All that’s left are the religious beliefs and rituals.
Morality goes by a lot of names: decorum, ethics, virtue, righteousness, propriety, principle, integrity, etc. Religions simply incorporate these behaviors into their belief systems, and then lay claim to them. People were practicing these behaviors which perhaps collectively we can call moral behaviors, long before they were practicing any religions. If they hadn’t been, none of us would be around to talk about them.
But morality isn’t something strictly human. We see affection, care and protection being rendered between members of other species as well, many with lineages much older than our own. Humanity hardly invented it.
So the basis for morality is that certain behaviors have been selected for and then passed on because they conferred a survival advantage. Being “moral” simply has survival value.
I would add that a person believing he or she is moral is probably a moot point. Morality can only occur between people. Absolute morality is sometimes referred to as the control of one’s conduct so as to believe that said conduct never inflicts pain on another. As such, no human, or even alleged god, can lay claim to being absolutely moral.
B
buffalo
Guest
The reason you cannot is whether you want to believe this or not your sensibilities are put into your heart by God and you have experienced morality since you were born, since you were not born in a vacuum.
C
crowonsnow
Guest
If so, where then does a god get its morality? Clearly, religions incorporate these human behaviors into their gods and into their belief systems.
B
buffalo
Guest
God is omniscient. This is an attribute of God.
C
crowonsnow
Guest
Please explain how omniscience translates into moral behavior. The bible boasts of a god that is on record for having exterminated all humanity save for a single family. Was this a moral act? How was this a moral act?
M
mcs7474
Guest
Morality without God = our world, and the direction it’s headed.
B
buffalo
Guest
The Catholic Church teaches:
[1776](javascript
penWindow(‘cr/1776.htm’)
"Deep within his conscience man discovers a law which he has not laid upon himself but which he must obey. Its voice, ever calling him to love and to do what is good and to avoid evil, sounds in his heart at the right moment. . . . For man has in his heart a law inscribed by God. . . . His conscience is man’s most secret core and his sanctuary. There he is alone with God whose voice echoes in his depths."47
B
buffalo
Guest
God is perfectly loving as well as perfectly just. He can be no other way. Many do not include perfect justice in their thinking.
L
Leela
Guest
Hi Buffalo,
It’s not an issue of wanting to believe it or not. There is a big difference between what we’d like to believe and what we have good reason to believe. Do you have any evidence to support your claim that God put moral sensibilities into our hearts?
Best,
Leela
C
crowonsnow
Guest
Well then how was this a perfectly loving or perfectly just act?. Empathy and justice are considered moral principles. How exactly are piles of rotting human corpses evidence for love, justice and morality?
B
buffalo
Guest
Is your claim that they were innocent? Justice requires action. The fact God acted means he was justified.
B
buffalo
Guest
The Church further teaches:
Faith
2087 Our moral life has its source in faith in God who reveals his love to us. St. Paul speaks of the "obedience of faith"9 as our first obligation. He shows that “ignorance of God” is the principle and explanation of all moral deviations.10 Our duty toward God is to believe in him and to bear witness to him.
2088 The first commandment requires us to nourish and protect our faith with prudence and vigilance, and to reject everything that is opposed to it. There are various ways of sinning against faith:
Voluntary doubt about the faith disregards or refuses to hold as true what God has revealed and the Church proposes for belief. Involuntary doubt refers to hesitation in believing, difficulty in overcoming objections connected with the faith, or also anxiety aroused by its obscurity. If deliberately cultivated doubt can lead to spiritual blindness.
2089 *Incredulity *is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. "*Heresy *is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; *apostasy *is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; *schism *is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him."11
The bottom line is that ultimate truth exists. We call that ultimate truth God.
K
kathamm46
Guest
K
kathamm46
Guest
Leela,
I am intrigued by your comments. I find it interesting that someone who “might” call themselves an athesist is on this site at all. I can identify, but am curious about your reasons for joining the site.
Thanks:thumbsup:
I am intrigued by your comments. I find it interesting that someone who “might” call themselves an athesist is on this site at all. I can identify, but am curious about your reasons for joining the site.
Thanks:thumbsup:
- Status