The advantages and disadvantages of atheism

[Vera_Ljuba]

One is that there are fewer “rules” to observe. Atheists must only deal with the laws of society. And then there is a non-zero chance that they can get away with violating some of them, especially the most irrelevant ones, which are not enforced anyway. There are no rules about consensual sex, no restrictions about HOW one can express their love toward one’s partner. (Except of course doing it in public, where some laws create nonsensical limitations.)

Consequently, fewer sexual hang-ups (if any), no guilt for doing “forbidden” acts. Observing the Moral Theology forums one can see the plethora of frustrations, displayed by some people (mostly teenagers) because they engage in perfectly normal acts. No fear of hell for any reason, especially for touching one’s genitals in a forbidden fashion. It is scary to count the number of teenagers who suffer serious psychological damage due to their innocent activities.

Moreover, there is no fear of eternal suffering, imposed by a “loving” Deity. The psychological relief from these fears is incalculable. On the other side there is no expectation of some undefined eternal “bliss”. You might find this a disadvantage.

What say you?

 

[ClearWater]

Without God, it’s true that everything becomes permissible. That’s not necessarily a good thing.

 

[Irishmom2]

I’d say you need to ask some atheists for their answers.

 

[Cathoholic]

Vera_Ljuba… You said (concerning atheism belief systems):

Moreover, there is no fear of eternal suffering, imposed by a “loving” Deity.

Vera_Ljuba.

In Christianity there is no fear of eternal suffering, imposed by a “loving” Deity either.

But there IS a concern about eternal suffering, imposed by your own choice to be definitively excluded from Eternal happiness.

(There were other built-in false presuppositions to your arguments too. But I’ll just deal with the one I did).

God bless.

Cathoholic

 

[Perplexity]

The Gods are the final end of all things, so their non-existence entails that there is no purpose or point to anything, life itself included. Moreover, relationship with the Gods is a human excellence. The telos of atheism is an unfulfilled life.

 

[drac16]

I don’t believe that atheists are free from feeling guilt and can sin as they please without a care in the world. There is still a gnawing feeling that they can’t get rid of and that is their conscience. They may try to suppress it, but it’s still there. God gave them one and once in a while it speaks to them.

On the subject of Hell, I will say this: God’s loving nature does not negate His justice. He is glorified in punishing an evil-doer; after all, shouldn’t evil be punished? if we crave justice for evil acts, how much more thorough should God be? His sense of justice is far more advanced than ours.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Without God, it’s true that everything becomes permissible. That’s not necessarily a good thing.

Not true. A whole lot of behaviors are not permitted by the society. On the other hand, God does not enforce whatever his rules might be. So who is more permissive? And please don’t say that the punishment will come after death. That kind of punishment is sheer vengeance, and not an effort to educate - which is the only legitimate aim of punishment.

I’d say you need to ask some atheists for their answers.

Sure. They agreed. I am interested in your opinion.

In Christianity there is no fear of eternal suffering, imposed by a “loving” Deity either.

When I read the Moral Theology forum, I see a lot of people who are scared of being sent to hell, due to the alleged “mortal sins” they committed.

But there IS a concern about eternal suffering, imposed by your own choice to be definitively excluded from Eternal happiness.

Is God not the judge any more? Who is the one who condemns the sinners to eternal suffering? Do you really think that the damned will bang on the door of hell, demanding admittance?

The Gods are the final end of all things, so their non-existence entails that there is no purpose or point to anything, life itself included. Moreover, relationship with the Gods is a human excellence. The telos of atheism is an unfulfilled life.

I disagree. My life is filled with lots of love and happiness. On the other hand my upcoming DEATH has no “purpose”.

I don’t believe that atheists are free from feeling guilt and can sin as they please without a care in the world. There is still a gnawing feeling that they can’t get rid of and that is their conscience. They may try to suppress it, but it’s still there. God gave them one and once in a while it speaks to them.

My conscience is clear. I would not do anything against it. The believers, however, perform all sorts of “mortal sins”, even though they are convinced that they cannot get away with them. Therefore they are scared of the eternal damnation, especially if they are not in the position to confess.

Of course atheists are not excluded from feeling guilt for some action, but those actions are proscribed by the written laws or the unwritten rules of good behavior.

On the subject of Hell, I will say this: God’s loving nature does not negate His justice. He is glorified in punishing an evil-doer; after all, shouldn’t evil be punished? if we crave justice for evil acts, how much more thorough should God be? His sense of justice is far more advanced than ours.

I don’t crave to punish anyone, I would prefer to prevent evil acts - and I don’t give a “damn” about the free will of the evil-doers. An ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure - according to the very wise and applicable adage.

And if God is “glorified” if he sends a teenager to hell for a perfectly natural act of masturbation, then there is something seriously wrong with this whole “glorification” process.

 

[Vonsalza]

Not true. A whole lot of behaviors are not permitted by the society.

Only a fifth or so of Germans in the late 1930s were Nazis - and many of those for purely pragmatic (not ideological) reasons. The Holocaust still happened…
“Society” is a vague concept readily defied as a point of virtue by many groups.

And please don’t say that the punishment will come after death. That kind of punishment is sheer vengeance, and not an effort to educate - which is the only legitimate aim of punishment.

One of the aims of justice can absolutely be punishment. Like when the US justice system executed serial killer Ted Bundy.

When I read the Moral Theology forum, I see a lot of people who are scared of being sent to hell, due to the alleged “mortal sins” they committed.

Likely a result of the nature of a moral theology forum. You don’t ask questions when you don’t have a problem.

For the record, I see a lot of posts completely untinged with any form of fear.

Is God not the judge any more? Who is the one who condemns the sinners to eternal suffering? Do you really think that the damned will bang on the door of hell, demanding admittance?

So when a convict is convicted of a crime, it’s the judge’s fault and not the convict’s?

…Of course atheists are not excluded from feeling guilt for some action, but those actions are proscribed by the written laws or the unwritten rules of good behavior.

I’m not sure an atheist can have “unwritten rules of good behavior”. How would an atheist know when they’re in violation-of or concordance-with these rules in a way that can be evidenced?

I don’t crave to punish anyone, I would prefer to prevent evil acts - and I don’t give a “damn” about the free will of the evil-doers. An ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure - according to the very wise and applicable adage.

So you’d restrain a person from committing possible “evil”? How does that work, Comrade Stalin?
“Evil” is a religious concept, unfortunately. An atheist needs to find another word.

And if God is “glorified” if he sends a teenager to hell for a perfectly natural act of masturbation, then there is something seriously wrong with this whole “glorification” process.

No one knows for certain who goes hell. “Above my pay-grade” is the common reply as no one here “sits in the seat”.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

One of the aims of justice can absolutely be punishment. Like when the US justice system executed serial killer Ted Bundy.

Still a barbaric custom. Most civilized countries abandoned it.

So you’d restrain a person from committing possible “evil”? How does that work, Comrade Stalin?

No, Senhor Torquemada, I don’t have the knowledge and power to do it. But allegedly God does.

“Evil” is a religious concept, unfortunately. An atheist needs to find another word.

No, it is not. And I am using it in the secular sense: “to cause or allow unnecessary harm to someone”.

No one knows for certain who goes hell. “Above my pay-grade” is the common reply as no one here “sits in the seat”.

But you guys keep on asserting that anyone who dies in the state of unrepented mortal sin will go directly to hell. Can’t have both ways.

 

[drac16]

My conscience is clear. I would not do anything against it. The believers, however, perform all sorts of “mortal sins”, even though they are convinced that they cannot get away with them. Therefore they are scared of the eternal damnation, especially if they are not in the position to confess.

Of course atheists are not excluded from feeling guilt for some action, but those actions are proscribed by the written laws or the unwritten rules of good behavior.

I don’t crave to punish anyone, I would prefer to prevent evil acts - and I don’t give a “damn” about the free will of the evil-doers. An ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure - according to the very wise and applicable adage.

And if God is “glorified” if he sends a teenager to hell for a perfectly natural act of masturbation, then there is something seriously wrong with this whole “glorification” process.

You’re arguing against a straw man when you bring up mortal sins. I don’t believe in the Catholic concept of venial and mortal sins. I’m a muslim. Masturbation may or may not send people to Hell; it’s debatable. The Sharia does not say anything about masturbation. It does talk about lust, though, and typically when someone is masturbating, they’re doing it with lustful thoughts.

We muslims believe that intentional lust is sinful. The Qur’an says to “lower your gaze” and to “guard your private parts”. Masturbation with lust is widening the gaze and it misuses the private parts. It’s a violation of both of those commands. Do you think anyone would want to stand before God on Judgment Day and try to justify that masturbation is perfectly natural?

 

[Bradski]

Would anyone want to stand before God on Judgment Day and try to justify that masturbation is perfectly natural? I have a hard time imagining anyone that would justify it at that point.

If God existed, I’d blame Him. Sex doesn’t have to feel good. Him making it so has caused more problems in the world than any other single fact.

But it actually does feel good because evolution would like us to indulge. To make as many little copies of ourselves as possible.

 

[drac16]

If God existed, I’d blame Him. Sex doesn’t have to feel good. Him making it so has caused more problems in the world than any other single fact.

But it actually does feel good because evolution would like us to indulge. To make as many little copies of ourselves as possible.

So if it feels good, it must be OK? that kind of thought process, if followed consistently, would only lead to moral chaos. If cracking someone’s skull with a hammer feels good, that would make it OK because God made my hand the perfect shape to fit a hammer into. That’s the logical outcome of the “if it feels good, do it” philosophy. We must reject it.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Do you think anyone would want to stand before God on Judgment Day and try to justify that masturbation is perfectly natural?

You bet I would. Not just humans, but many animals, especially the hominids indulge in this activity. If God would have deemed this practice inappropriate, he could have created all of us without the urge to have a little innocent fun OUTSIDE the estrus.

So if it feels good, it must be OK?

That is NOT what we say. If it feels good, AND it does not hurt anyone else, then it is OK. I am not surprised any more, but I an still amazed that the “it does not hurt others” is so conveniently “forgotten”. Where does this selective memory come from?

 

[drac16]

You bet I would. Not just humans, but many animals, especially the hominids indulge in this activity. If God would have deemed this practice inappropriate, he could have created all of us without the urge to have a little innocent fun OUTSIDE the estrus.

That is NOT what we say. If it feels good, AND it does not hurt anyone else, then it is OK. I am not surprised any more, but I an still amazed that the “it does not hurt others” is so conveniently “forgotten”. Where does this selective memory come from?

Yes, it is true that many animals masturbate, but that doesn’t make it OK for us to do it. We are more than the sum of our parts. We are commanded to aspire to something greater than what simply feels good. I don’t believe that masturbation fits into the category of that which does not hurt anyone. Lust affects the mind, even if you don’t readily perceive it. It leads you into coveting someone’s body in a way that’s outside the bounds of marriage. Opening the door to lust will lead to more lust and that’s not a good thing.

If someone feels guilty for masturbating, I don’t see that as a bad thing. I don’t think that should lead us into accepting masturbation. In the same way, if someone feels guilty for viewing pornography, that shouldn’t lead us into accepting that practice as permissible.

 

[STT]

…That is NOT what we say. If it feels good, AND it does not hurt anyone else, then it is OK…

What about drugs? It is pleasant, it doesn’t harm anybody. Is using drugs moral?

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

We are commanded to aspire to something greater than what simply feels good.

Who issued that “command”?

I don’t believe that masturbation fits into the category of that which does not hurt anyone. Lust affects the mind, even if you don’t readily perceive it. It leads you into coveting someone’s body in a way that’s outside the bounds of marriage. Opening the door to lust will lead to more lust and that’s not a good thing.

Again, why? Lust is perfectly normal and natural occurrence, a result of body chemistry. It is the first step on the road to a possible long-lasting relationship. As long as two people lust for one another, there is no problem. If it is one-sided, of course it should not be acted upon - by forcing the other person to act against his/her will.

If someone feels guilty for masturbating, I don’t see that as a bad thing. I don’t think that should lead us into accepting masturbation. In the same way, if someone feels guilty for viewing pornography, that shouldn’t lead us into accepting that practice as permissible.

If someone feels guilty for a perfectly normal and natural act, that is unhealthy.

---

What about drugs? It is pleasant, it doesn’t harm anybody. Is using drugs moral?

I have no idea what the word “moral” means to you. But I see nothing wrong with taking drugs, even the so-called hard drugs. Most drugs are dirt-cheap substances, only the idiotic laws against them cause problems.

 

[Cathoholic]

Do you really think that the damned will bang on the door of hell, demanding admittance?

It is irrelevant what I “really think” Vera_Ljuba.

What is relevant is what is true.

And its true that all who go to the Hell of Eternal Condemnation CHOOSE to go there.

CCC 1037 God predestines no one to go to hell; for this, a willful turning away from God (a mortal sin) is necessary, and persistence in it until the end. In the Eucharistic liturgy and in the daily prayers of her faithful, the Church implores the mercy of God, who does not want “any to perish, but all to come to repentance”:

Father, accept this offering
from your whole family.
Grant us your peace in this life,
save us from final damnation,
and count us among those you have chosen.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

It is irrelevant what I “really think” Vera_Ljuba.

Not to me, it is not. I am interested in what your ides is about the process of being condemned by God, and HOW does the person get into the place of eternal torment.

What is relevant is what is true. And its true that all who go to the Hell of Eternal Condemnation CHOOSE to go there.

Nonsense. No sane person chooses to be tortured.
CCC 1037:

God predestines no one to go to hell; for this, a willful turning away from God (a mortal sin) is necessary, and persistence in it until the end.

Only a Christian can “willfully turn away from God”. The rest of us simply do not believe in the Christian God. And to take the lack of belief to be “willfully turning away” is totally irrational (for lack of a much stronger phrase).

 

[Vonsalza]

If God existed, I’d blame Him. Sex doesn’t have to feel good. Him making it so has caused more problems in the world than any other single fact.

“If it feels good and doesn’t hurt anyone, it flies” is a moral philosophy that school children can identify problems with.

But it actually does feel good because evolution would like us to indulge. To make as many little copies of ourselves as possible.

Is this a naturalist’s argument against contraception?

Not to me, it is not. I am interested in what your ides is about the process of being condemned by God, and HOW does the person get into the place of eternal torment.

Nonsense. No sane person chooses to be tortured.

No criminal chooses jail. It is a consequence of their deeds as handed down by the judge(s) (in consideration of our pagan participants).

Only a Christian can “willfully turn away from God”. The rest of us simply do not believe in the Christian God. And to take the lack of belief to be “willfully turning away” is totally irrational (for lack of a much stronger phrase).

So only Christians bear “free moral agency”? Hooey.
We all do and we all overwhelmingly elect for belief in a higher power. There is no objective morality without it - the bane of atheism.

 

[inocente]

What say you?

Disadvantage: You don’t get to sing your heart out on Sundays.
Advantage: You don’t have to listen to other people sing their heart out on Sundays.