The advantages and disadvantages of atheism

[Gorgias]

One is that there are fewer “rules” to observe.

And that’s good because…?

there is a non-zero chance that they can get away with violating some of them, especially the most irrelevant ones

It’s a good thing that members of society break that society’s laws?

It’s a good thing that individual members of society get to decide unilaterally which laws are ‘relevant’?

You’re not making a good case here… :nope:

There are no rules about consensual sex, no restrictions about HOW one can express their love toward one’s partner.

LOL! In this century, and in the Western world, sure. But in previous centuries? In places other than here? You’ve got a rather limited perspective.

Consequently, fewer sexual hang-ups (if any), no guilt for doing “forbidden” acts.

Not true. Read up on the fallout from the ‘hook-up’ culture. Yes, there is an aspect of it that comes from one’s (religious) background… but part of it is based on cultural expectations being rejected.

It is scary to count the number of teenagers who suffer serious psychological damage due to their innocent activities.

I agree! Psychologists are beginning to see that teens who have surrounded themselves with porn and are addicted to masturbation are unable to form loving relationships with others! “Serious psychological damage”, indeed!

Oh… you meant it the other way, didn’t ya? Well, sorry – your “alternative facts” don’t hold up to scrutiny…

What say you?

I say that it sounds like your take on atheism is that it’s an enabler for a rather puerile attitude toward life that one gets to do what he wants, when he wants, how he wants. That’s not the definition of “liberty”. (And, when one lives a life of pure license, he eventually finds that it isn’t the definition of “happiness”, either…)

 

[Bradski]

An advantage? Well, the Pope gives us a pat on the back now and then:

“There are many Catholics who are like this and they cause scandal,” he said. “How many times have we all heard people say ‘if that person is a Catholic, it is better to be an atheist’.” smh.com.au/world/pope-suggests-better-to-be-atheist-than-hypocritical-catholic-20170223-guk61c.html

 

[Gorgias]

An advantage? Well, the Pope gives us a pat on the back now and then:

“There are many Catholics who are like this and they cause scandal,” he said. “How many times have we all heard people say ‘if that person is a Catholic, it is better to be an atheist’.”

LOL! You know what it means to “cause scandal”, don’t you? It only means that a person, by his actions, misleads someone to think that their behavior is appropriate and virtuous for a Catholic.

The pope’s statement only means that “when an atheist acts in a certain way that transgresses Catholic morality, at least no one is misled into thinking that that action is good.” I mean… if you think that’s an “advantage”… then you have an interesting standard of behavior… :sad_yes:

 

[Cathoholic]

Only a Christian can “willfully turn away from God”. The rest of us simply do not believe in the Christian God.

You can go ahead and think that if you want Vera_Ljuba.

There are other ways to “reject God” other than via ONLY Christianity Vera_Ljuba.

JOHN 12:32 and I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself.”

Nonsense. No sane person chooses to be tortured.

They CHOOSE to be separated from God (in some definitive sense).

We ALL feel ashamed when we sin (Atheistic religions do too. They just don’t admit it).

There is a proverbial running away from the Holy one.

When Adam and Eve sinned they realized they were naked and covered themselves up.

Prior to that they were naked and NOT ashamed.

Something happened there. A mystery to be sure, but something happened associated with their sin.

And YOU and I have that shame of sin too. I’m not going to be able to convince you of that with a “pep-talk”. You are just going to have to meditate on it.

You may not admit this shame, that’s fine.

You can go ahead and think that if you want too Vera_Ljuba.

But the shame of sin is part of WHY people run from God and WANT to be excluded from His presence. (That’s WHY you NEED the Holy Spirit to dwell withing you when you go to judgment. To help overcome yourself. But some are to arrogant or despairing to want that help offered them. The Holy Spirit you receive FREELY at Baptism.)

NOT because they WANT “to be tortured”.

Their torture or suffering will stem from themselves and their separation from God that they have CHOSEN. It will be from their sin, (and when they get their bodies back at the end of time, from their own bodies) and also from their . . . . “neighbors” who despise one another.

 

[Bradski]

LOL! You know what it means to “cause scandal”, don’t you? It only means that a person, by his actions, misleads someone to think that their behavior is appropriate and virtuous for a Catholic.

The pope’s statement only means that “when an atheist acts in a certain way that transgresses Catholic morality, at least no one is misled into thinking that that action is good.” I mean… if you think that’s an “advantage”… then you have an interesting standard of behavior… :sad_yes:

Well I guess you should have read the article and then you would have known what your pope meant by scandalous.

To save you looking it up (but you should check), he was referring to those who “say one thing and do another. That is a double life.”

Like, I don’t know, call themselves Catholic and use contraception. Or have an abortion. Or don’t go to mass. Or who have sex outside marriage. Or support gay marriage. Et cetera. Et cetera.

The pope thinks it would be better to be an honest atheist than a dishonest Catholic.

I like your pope. I would have a beer with him. We’d have a lot to talk about. We’d get on well.

 

[inocente]

LOL! You know what it means to “cause scandal”, don’t you? It only means that a person, by his actions, misleads someone to think that their behavior is appropriate and virtuous for a Catholic.

The pope’s statement only means that “when an atheist acts in a certain way that transgresses Catholic morality, at least no one is misled into thinking that that action is good.” I mean… if you think that’s an “advantage”… then you have an interesting standard of behavior… :sad_yes:

Part of the Pope’s sermon:

“Jesus talks, in the Gospel, about those who commit scandal, without saying the world ‘scandal,’ but it’s understood: But you will arrive in heaven and you will knock at the gate: ‘Here I am, Lord!’ – ‘But don’t you remember? I went to Church, I was close to you, I belong to this association, I did this… Don’t you remember all the offerings I made?’ ‘Yes, I remember. The offerings, I remember them: All dirty. All stolen from the poor. I don’t know you.’ That will be Jesus’ response to these scandalous people who live a double life.” - en.radiovaticana.va/news/2017/02/23/pope_dont_put_off_conversion,_give_up_a_double_life/1294470

In another sermon he said:

“The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ: all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone! ‘Father, the atheists?’ Even the atheists. Everyone! And this Blood makes us children of God of the first class! We are created children in the likeness of God and the Blood of Christ has redeemed us all! And we all have a duty to do good.” - en.radiovaticana.va/storico/2013/05/22/pope_at_mass_culture_of_encounter_is_the_foundation_of_peace/en1-694445

In both cases he may be referring to the parable of the sheep and goats, Matt 25, where the righteous are not necessarily Christians (“Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink?”) but instead all who do good (“The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.”).

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

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.

Well said!

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

And that’s good because…?

If you like to be tied up with regulations, that is your business. I prefer freedom.

It’s a good thing that members of society break that society’s laws?

It’s a good thing that individual members of society get to decide unilaterally which laws are ‘relevant’?

Such generic questions can only be answered by: “It depends”.

I agree! Psychologists are beginning to see that teens who have surrounded themselves with porn and are addicted to masturbation are unable to form loving relationships with others! “Serious psychological damage”, indeed!

Why do you speak about “addiction”? Why change the goalposts?

Oh… you meant it the other way, didn’t ya? Well, sorry – your “alternative facts” don’t hold up to scrutiny…

I suggest you read the forum of Moral Theology. The number of people who are scared of hell for a little masturbation is simply frightening.

I say that it sounds like your take on atheism is that it’s an enabler for a rather puerile attitude toward life that one gets to do what he wants, when he wants, how he wants. That’s not the definition of “liberty”. (And, when one lives a life of pure license, he eventually finds that it isn’t the definition of “happiness”, either…)

I expected something much better from you than: “one gets to do what he wants, when he wants, how he wants”. This is NOT what I ever advocated. It is interesting that you guys always forget the all-important part: “as long as it does not hurt others”. What is the reason for this short attention span?

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

We ALL feel ashamed when we sin (Atheistic religions do too. They just don’t admit it).

If one speaks of “atheistic religions” it is an automatic disqualifier for rational consideration.

 

[goout]

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?

In atheism,* per se*, there are no advantages. If my life is not oriented to some independently durable (objective) good then all is nothing. Nihilism. Chaos. Oppression. Basically you have what atheist Russia became. And which collapsed of it’s own untenability.
This is not to say that atheists personally are not oriented to the good. We are talking about atheism the belief.

 

[goout]

If one speaks of “atheistic religions” it is an automatic disqualifier for rational consideration.

Nonsense.
Atheism is a proposed belief like any other.
Your assertion is irrational on the face of it.

Elsewise, why are you here? If not to propose your belief about the non-existence of something you cannot prove. You are all about evidence right? Where is your evidence for your proposal that God does not exist.
You will say evidence is not required for non-proof. Ok, then what are we doing here? Just dancing together cause we have no grass to mow?

We have been down this street so many times, and you will take a quick exit by not admitting this obvious point.

 

[Gorgias]

If you like to be tied up with regulations, that is your business. I prefer freedom.

Again, you’re describing ‘license’ and mislabeling it ‘freedom’.

Such generic questions can only be answered by: “It depends”.

Ahh, the beauty of relativism. All evils can be shrugged of with a blithe “it depends.”

In a society in which the rule of law prevails, you’re really gonna advocate for “each does what’s right in his own mind”?

Why do you speak about “addiction”? Why change the goalposts?

No ‘goal-post change’. Masturbation – especially in the context of porn – leads to addiction to the chemicals released during orgasm. Psychologists have asserted that it also leads to a lack of ability to form deep interpersonal relationships.

I expected something much better from you than: “one gets to do what he wants, when he wants, how he wants”. This is NOT what I ever advocated. It is interesting that you guys always forget the all-important part: “as long as it does not hurt others”. What is the reason for this short attention span?

No “short attention span.” Catholics believe that all sin hurts everyone. There’s no sin that doesn’t hurt others. When one advocates for hedonism, one is advocating for “me first”, regardless of the consequences to others. The “short attention span” you refer to is more accurately described as a certain myopia – it’s not that it doesn’t hurt others, it’s that the short-sightedness that’s part of that perspective causes one to not see how it hurts others.

 

[goout]

I expected something much better from you than: “one gets to do what he wants, when he wants, how he wants”. This is NOT what I ever advocated. It is interesting that you guys always forget the all-important part: “as long as it does not hurt others”. What is the reason for this short attention span?

This is the philosophy that allows people to sit comfortably on the couch, undisturbed, while small children die from starvation all over the world.

Your sitting on the couch harms no one, right? That’s what you claim. We are all a bunch of disconnected accidents of nature.

 

[Gorgias]

Well I guess you should have read the article and then you would have known what your pope meant by scandalous.

To save you looking it up (but you should check), he was referring to those who “say one thing and do another. That is a double life.”

I think I understand what the sin of scandal is, but thanks.

Like, I don’t know, call themselves Catholic and use contraception. Or have an abortion. Or don’t go to mass. Or who have sex outside marriage. Or support gay marriage. Et cetera. Et cetera.

The pope thinks it would be better to be an honest atheist than a dishonest Catholic.

Now it’s time for you to re-read the article, I’m afraid. What the pope said was a demonstration of what the sin of scandal is all about – that is, it provides a bad example and it leads people toward sin:

“There are many Catholics who are like this and they cause scandal,” he said. “How many times have we all heard people say ‘if that person is a Catholic, it is better to be an atheist’.”

The pope is giving an example of the sin of scandal: those who are Catholic and hypocritical lead others to say “better atheist than [this kind of] Catholic.” That’s scandal – leading people to want to avoid the Church.

Now, if the pope said, “it is better to be atheist”, rather than “we have heard people say, ‘…’”, then you’d have a point. But he didn’t. He gave an example of scandal. But hey… to both you and the Sydney Morning herald – nice try!

I like your pope. I would have a beer with him. We’d have a lot to talk about. We’d get on well.

I think you would. With luck, you’d come to a recognition of the way he’s mis-quoted and mis-interpreted by many.

 

[fhansen]

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?

The downside is that ultimate purpose and meaning and happiness can never be taken quite seriously as goals until justice and order and goodness and love are seen to be foundational to our universe. While utopia will never be located here on earth, we’re nonetheless geared to desire bliss-much of our activities are done in pursuit of it-and giving up on that pursuit only makes ourselves and our world that much more dull and colorless.

 

[goout]

Well I guess you should have read the article and then you would have known what your pope meant by scandalous.

To save you looking it up (but you should check), he was referring to those who “say one thing and do another. That is a double life.”

Like, I don’t know, call themselves Catholic and use contraception. Or have an abortion. Or don’t go to mass. Or who have sex outside marriage. Or support gay marriage. Et cetera. Et cetera.

The pope thinks it would be better to be an honest atheist than a dishonest Catholic.

I like your pope. I would have a beer with him. We’d have a lot to talk about. We’d get on well.

Fundamentalism takes quotes rigidly, out of full context. Whether it be scripture or catechism or whatever.

 

[Cathoholic]

If one speaks of “atheistic religions” it is an automatic disqualifier for rational consideration.

I’m OK with you thinking that too Vera_Ljuba. Whatever:shrug:.

 

[Bradski]

Psychologists have asserted that it also leads to a lack of ability to form deep interpersonal relationships.

They do? I wonder if you could direct me to something that back that statement up.

 

[Adeimantus4]

**Advantages: **

• No one telling you not to do something–if you want to do something, you just do it. Even if society frowns on a particular behavior, you are free to ignore their disapproval because it is ultimately just a matter of taste.
• (Potentially) no feelings of guilt for doing it (I say potentially because there is some disagreement whether guilt is innate or socially motivated–or some combination of these). This could potentially be very liberating–particularly for those who tend toward scrupulosity.
• No bounds to what you believe is true (to a degree) - if you think something is justified, you just believe it–there is no moral arbiter setting the boundaries.

**Disadvantages: **

• No real standard of objective morality–one can merely make descriptive, not prescriptive statements (i.e.: the fact that this behavior is not conducive to group survival doesn’t prove that group survival is a good–just that certain behaviors such as murder or robbery don’t tend to foster it)
• No ultimate basis for humanity–we are merely accidental combinations of atoms who think of ourselves as “individuals” and “humanity” because it is evolutionarily advantageous to do so.
• No ultimate purpose. You and I are cosmic accidents who will one day go away. Art, science, civilization have no ultimate reality and thus will go away like the rainbow colors on the surface of the soap bubble that is this universe when things change.
• No real future. Since “you” and “I” are pretty much just convenient holographic projections of genes who create these abstractions because those which do have an evolutionary advantage, when the machine which creates the illusion is broken, the illusion (the person) is no longer present–and thus anything striven for is ultimately futile.

 

[Bradski]

Now, if the pope said, “it is better to be atheist”, rather than “we have heard people say, ‘…’”, then you’d have a point. But he didn’t. He gave an example of scandal. But hey… to both you and the Sydney Morning herald – nice try!

Fair enough. Guilty as charged. How about I say this:

One of the advantages of being an atheist is that, as the Pope has said, some people believe it is better to be an atheist rather than a dishonest Catholic.

Which type of person do you think he’d hold up as the better example? Someone who calls herself a Catholic and has sex outside marriage, has an abortion and supports gay marriage or someone who calls herslef an atheist and does none of those things?

When I have that beer with him, I’ll ask him.