The righteous Atheist

[East_and_West]

Do-gooders outside the Church = righteous

Do-gooders within the Church = hypocrites

Don’tcha love double standards?

 

[dorothy_smith]

Don’tcha love double standards?

There are those who are righteous and there are those who are hypocrites. I don’t know where your ‘double standards’ comment is coming from

 

[dorothy_smith]

Do-gooders outside the Church = righteous

Do-gooders within the Church = hypocrites

Do-gooders within the church hypocrites The righteous are righteous - fullstop.

 

[rpp]

Which is more “worthy”?

That is like asking which is worse, drowning or burning to death. You are dead either way.

Neither can plead ignorance.

The atheist will be damned because he deliberately rejects God altogether.

The “unrighteous Church-goer” will be damned because he knowingly rejects Church teachings.

Good works cannot gain entry to Heaven. Faith without works is dead.

As I am a former atheist, I would like to add that the phrase “righteous atheist” is an **extreme **oxymoron. “Honest” perhaps, but never “righteous”.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Oh dear, I think it is the case of getting your priorities right, especially in certain cases where some of **you church goers **fall into the category of being piously sure of one’s own righteousness.

I’d think that we ought to **forget the politics of Catholic dogma **in this instance and **adhere to the doctrine of Jesus **and praise those who are righteous and pray for those who **like to be seen to be righteous in the temples i.e. the hypocrites./**QUOTE]

You church goers. This is rather a loaded phrase, isn’t it? You church goers. Especially when followed by “piously sure of one’s own righteousness”.

It appears to me that those phrases show a very marked ‘jumping to conclusions’, an implied condemnation of people who, because they ‘go to church’ are assumed to be ‘piously sure of own righteousness’.

To to make such blanket generalizations could be seen as an egregious example of ‘baiting’ IMO. (This is, of course, my opinion of the TACTIC and not a condemnation or ‘mind reading’ of the PERSON making the statement).

Politics? Who is speaking of politics, and who equates “the politics of Church dogma” with hypocritical behavior? Certainly not “church going Catholics”. This appears to be another assumption of the poster, and I cannot really tell why she feels this way. Certainly hypocrites exist but the other part of the story is "to remove the beam from our eye before we attempt to take out the speck in our brothers’ eye’.

The poster may have medical or emotional reasons to be ‘uncomfortable’ in church or to perceive the behavior of others the way she does–so I cannot judge her nor would I attempt to. But I can, I hope, point out that for the majority of the cases, not just in ‘her’ city but worldwide, she is quite wrong in her assumptions regarding all the above. And I pray that she receives God’s love, peace and joy.

 

[dorothy_smith]

Which is more “worthy”?

That is like asking which is worse, drowning or burning to death. You are dead either way.

Neither can plead ignorance.

The atheist will be damned because he deliberately rejects God altogether.

The “unrighteous Church-goer” will be damned because he knowingly rejects Church teachings.

Good works cannot gain entry to Heaven. Faith without works is dead.

As I am a former atheist, I would like to add that the phrase “righteous atheist” is an **extreme **oxymoron. “Honest” perhaps, but never “righteous”.

The atheist does not believe in God. He cannot help the way that his mind works. The atheist’s reasoning tells him that God does not exist. Just like my reasoning tells me that a higher power does exists. ‘Rejecting God’ though is something completely different altogether. You cannot reject something that you do not believe in. Only a believer can reject God.

Saying that the atheist will be damned is a very spiteful and unchristian thing to say. You don’t know who will be damned. You are not God.

And why would you also say that an atheist cannot be righteous? How ridiculous! There are millions of righteous atheists. There’s nothing contradictory about it.

To make my point once again: I’d say that the righteous atheist is more worthy of God’s grace than the non-righteous church goer ‘i.e. hypocrite. (Note I said ‘is more worthy of God’s grace’ and not ‘is worthy of God’s grace.’ None of us are that.)

 

[IanBoyd57]

Which is more “worthy”?

That is like asking which is worse, drowning or burning to death. You are dead either way.

Neither can plead ignorance.

The atheist will be damned because he deliberately rejects God altogether.

The “unrighteous Church-goer” will be damned because he knowingly rejects Church teachings.

Good works cannot gain entry to Heaven. Faith without works is dead.

As I am a former atheist, I would like to add that the phrase “righteous atheist” is an **extreme **oxymoron. “Honest” perhaps, but never “righteous”.

I think he’s right.

Certainly, an all loving all merciful God would create many brains with reasoning mechanisms in place which decide that there is no evidence for God, and specifically for the christian God, and then send them all to eternal infinite absolute torture.

Rightyo mate.

And, great news for me. It turns out I am exceedingly more loving then an all loving being, and so are all of you. Thank you sir, you made my day.

 

[dorothy_smith]

You church goers. This is rather a loaded phrase, isn’t it? You church goers. Especially when followed by “piously sure of one’s own righteousness”.

You are trying to make something out of nothing. That is sneaky.

It appears to me that those phrases show a very marked ‘jumping to conclusions’, an implied condemnation of people who, because they ‘go to church’ are assumed to be ‘piously sure of own righteousness’.

You are putting your words in my mouth. I am not condemning anyone. Tantum ergo - shame on you.

To to make such blanket generalizations could be seen as an egregious example of ‘baiting’ IMO. (This is, of course, my opinion of the TACTIC and not a condemnation or ‘mind reading’ of the PERSON making the statement).

Yes, it is your opinion and a very wrong one at that.

I forgive you for trying to stir up trouble against me. I hope that you forgive yourself.

 

[rpp]

Let me start by saying, once again, that I am convert from atheism. I know what I am talking about.

The atheist does not believe in God. He cannot help the way that his mind works. The atheist’s reasoning tells him that God does not exist. Just like my reasoning tells me that a higher power does exists. ‘Rejecting God’ though is something completely different altogether. You cannot reject something that you do not believe in. Only a believer can reject God.

Even atheists have free will. It is false to say that an atheist cannot help beiong an atheist. If it were, that would remove their fre will.

And the second contention is demonstrably false. An atheist makes a deliberate choice to reject God. That is the definition of atheism. Anytime we make a choice we are, in that same instant, rejecting all other possibilities. When you choose to have wear a blue shirt to work, you reject the red shirt in your closet. But an atheist makes a negative choice, they reject God. I know because that is what I did for more than 20 years; rejected and denied the existance of God.

Saying that the atheist will be damned is a very spiteful and unchristian thing to say. You don’t know who will be damned. You are not God.

True, I am not God. But I do know what the Church teaches. There is no salvation outside the Church, except for those who, through no fault of their own, sought the truth of God and attempted to live to what they believed to be Divninly ordained morality. Atheists do not do this. Atheists reject the divine and deny the supernatural.

And it is not spiteful and unchristian to say this. It is in fact our Chritian duty to warn sinners. If we fail to warn others, their blood is on our hands (Ezekiel 3:12-17).

And why would you also say that an atheist cannot be righteous? How ridiculous! There are millions of righteous atheists. There’s nothing contradictory about it.

“Righteousness” is to make the best effort to live up to morality defined by God as revealed in the deposit of faith given to the Church. Since atheists reject objective morality and embrace reletive morality, there is no basis for righteousness. Therefore an atheist cannot possibly be righteous.

To make my point once again: I’d say that the righteous atheist is more worthy of God’s grace than the non-righteous church goer ‘i.e. hypocrite. (Note I said ‘is more worthy of God’s grace’ and not ‘is worthy of God’s grace.’ None of us are that.)

No one is worthy of God’s grace. Period. Hitler is no more worthy of God’s grace than St. Francis of Assisi. However, St. Francis was open to the gift of God’s grace throought most of his life while it appears that Hitler was not. (We do not know what passed through Hitler’s mind in his last moments, so we cannot judge the state of his soul.)

As a former atheist, I will close with this. Are atheists nice people? Some are some are not, like most groups of people. Are they honest? Perhaps. Are they peaceful? Maybe. Are they violent? Sometimes.

Are they moral? No because they reject objective morality.

Are they humble? No because they elevate themselves to be the highest living creature. They have contempt for those who believe in God thinking them to be weak-minded and need the “crutch” of religion to give meaningless lives meaning. How do I know this? I was an atheist. I know what I am talking about.

Atheism is one of the most intrinsicly evil and dangeous influences in the world today.

 

[dorothy_smith]

They have contempt for those who believe in God thinking them to be weak-minded and need the “crutch” of religion to give meaningless lives meaning. How do I know this? I was an atheist.

 

[I_Leatherman]

Oh dear, I think it is the case of getting your priorities right, especially in certain cases where some of you church goers fall into the category of being piously sure of one’s own righteousness.

I’d think that we ought to forget the politics of Catholic dogma in this instance and adhere to the doctrine of Jesus and praise those who are righteous and pray for those who like to be seen to be righteous in the temples i.e. the hypocrites.

‘…piously sure of one’s own righteousness’

Who the heck do you think you are, Dot.

‘…some of you church goers…’

Please start naming names, who here is piously sure of their own righteouness?

‘…and pray for those who like to be seen to be righteous in the temples i.e. the hypocrites.’

And don’t forget the athiests who like to be seen righteous outside the temples. Yes?

**But maybe righteous athiests cannot be hypocrites if righteousness is whatever they deem it to be.

 

[jam070406]

The atheist does not believe in God. He cannot help the way that his mind works. The atheist’s reasoning tells him that God does not exist. Just like my reasoning tells me that a higher power does exists. ‘Rejecting God’ though is something completely different altogether. You cannot reject something that you do not believe in. Only a believer can reject God.

Saying that the atheist will be damned is a very spiteful and unchristian thing to say. You don’t know who will be damned. You are not God.

And why would you also say that an atheist cannot be righteous? How ridiculous! There are millions of righteous atheists. There’s nothing contradictory about it.

To make my point once again: I’d say that the righteous atheist is more worthy of God’s grace than the non-righteous church goer ‘i.e. hypocrite. (Note I said ‘is more worthy of God’s grace’ and not ‘is worthy of God’s grace.’ None of us are that.)

how can an atheist be righteous?? righteous in his own eyes maybe. you don’t know peoples hearts. you don’t what motivates people to do good deeds. it could be completely self serving. if a person refuses to believe in God then they certainly are not doing good to further the Kingdom or to give glory to God. the people that were righteous in God’s eyes in scripture kept His commandments. the first being, to love God!! an atheist cannot be righteous in the eyes of God. an atheist rejects the first and most important commandment. an atheist also rejects the grace of the Holy Spirit. isn’t that the unforgiveable sin mentioned by Jesus??
also, who are you to judge which Church goers are “non-righteous”? everyone’s growth towards the Lord moves at a different pace. it is impossible for you to know where someone is in their walk. do you follow the actions of everyone that goes to Church?

 

[IanBoyd57]

Atheism is one of the most intrinsicly evil and dangeous influences in the world today.

Religion % have been divorced
Jews… 30%
Born-again Christians… 27%
Other Christians… 24%
Atheists, Agnostics… 21%

(These are not my words, but quoted from an article)

STUDIES: ATHEISTS SUPPLY LESS THAN 1% OF PRISON POPULATIONS
by Wayne Aiken, North Carolina Director
AMERICAN ATHEISTS

It’s surprising how many people remark to me, “You’re an Atheist? You must have no conscience about committing crime then.” Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, if we examine the population of our prisons, we see a very different picture.

In “The New Criminology,” Max D. Schlapp and Edward E. Smith say that two generations of statisticians found that the ratio of convicts without religious training is about 1/10th of 1%. W.T. Root, Professor of Psychology at the University of Pittsburgh, examined 1,916 prisoners and said, “Indifference to religion, due to thought, strengthens character,” adding that Unitarians, Agnostics, Atheists and Free-Thinkers were absent from penitentiaries, or nearly so.

During 10 years in Sing-Sing, of those executed for murder 65% were Catholics, 26% Protestants, 6% Hebrew, 2% Pagan, and less than 1/3 of 1% non-religious.

Steiner and Swancara surveyed Canadian prisons and found 1,294 Catholics, 435 Anglicans, 241 Methodists, 135 Baptists, and 1 Unitarian.

Dr. Christian, Superintendent of the N.Y. State Reformatories, checked records of 22,000 prison inmates and found only 4 college graduates. In “Who’s Who,” 91% were college graduates; Christian commented that “intelligence and knowledge produce right living,” and, “crime is the offspring of superstition and ignorance.”

Surveyed Massachusetts reformatories found every inmate to be religious.

In Joliet Prison, there were 2,888 Catholics, 1,020 Baptists, 617 Methodists and no prisoners identified as non-religious.

Michigan had 82,000 Baptists and 83,000 Jews in the state population; but in the prisons, there were 22 times as many Baptists as Jews, and 18 times as many Methodists as Jews. In Sing-Sing, there were 1,553 inmates, 855 of them (over half) Catholics, 518 Protestants, 117 Jews, and 8 non-religious.

Steiner first surveyed 27 states and found 19,400 Christians, 5,000 with no preference and only 3 Agnostics (one each in Connecticut, New Hampshire, and Illinois). A later, more exhaustive survey found 60,605 Christians, 5,000 Jews, 131 Pagans, 4,000 “no preference,” and only 3 Agnostics.

In one 19-state survey, Steiner found 15 non-believers, Spiritualists, Theosophists, Deists, Pantheists and 1 Agnostic among nearly 83,000 inmates. He labeled all 15 as “anti-christians.” The Elmira, N.Y. reformatory system overshadowed all others, with nearly 31,000 inmates, including 15,694 Catholics (half) and 10,968 Protestants, 4,000 Jews, 325 refusing to answer, and 0 unbelievers.

In the East, over 64% of inmates are Roman Catholic. Throughout the national prison population, they average 50%. A national census of the general population found Catholics to be about 15% (and they count from the diaper up). Hardly 12% are old enough to commit a crime, and half of these are women. That leaves an adult Catholic population of 6% supplying 50% of the prison population.

(Unquote; these are my words)

As a rational person who believes in following the truth wherever it leads, please realize that if you make something up, I will in fact check it out, and if it is uninformed, ignorant, and incorrect, yes, indeed, I will find that out as well. I don’t particularly feel the need to apologize for calling someone out on their bigotry, but I will nevertheless. Sorry.

 

[1ke]

As a rational person who believes in following the truth wherever it leads, please realize that if you make something up, I will in fact check it out, and if it is uninformed, ignorant, and incorrect, yes, indeed, I will find that out as well. I don’t particularly feel the need to apologize for calling someone out on their bigotry, but I will nevertheless. Sorry.

You seem to misunderstand *what *about Atheism is intrinsically evil and dangerous and why it would be deemed so.

 

[buffalo]

I think he’s right.

Certainly, an all loving all merciful God would create many brains with reasoning mechanisms in place which decide that there is no evidence for God, and specifically for the christian God, and then send them all to eternal infinite absolute torture.

Rightyo mate.

And, great news for me. It turns out I am exceedingly more loving then an all loving being, and so are all of you. Thank you sir, you made my day.

God is all loving, merciful and JUST.

 

[IanBoyd57]

You seem to misunderstand *what *about Atheism is intrinsically evil and dangerous and why it would be deemed so.

(Space for rent: Perfect home for an explanation supporting the above statement)

I’ll fill in the blanks for you though.

If you are saying that disbelieving in your particular God is evil and dangerous, then 9/11 was completely justified and you have no moral grounds for saying otherwise.

(As you can see here, I will now explain the above statement, and I didn’t even have to get a mortgage)

Islam fanatics can say that according to their religion, anyone who disbelieves in God is evil and dangerous, and they have a social responsibility to attempt to destroy evil and dangerous individuals. They claim, as do you, that God is the ultimate and only source of morals.

It is only, then, in objectively, rationally, honestly looking at our species, and the fact that we desire to live, and we desire to avoid pain, that we can construct morals based on that. The avoidance of unnecessary harm is in fact the only true morality that is not dangerous.

Think about it. Throughout history, god has been used to justify the crusades, the inquisition, the witch trials, and now, all kinds of terrorist attacks, including 9/11.

The perpetrators of these attacks said that there god mandated it. If “God says” is our only basis for morality, we have no argument against them. We can only say that they are wrong about their god, but then again, god supposedly only speaks to us in our minds. You can’t prove to them that the real god isn’t speaking to them in their minds, just like they can’t prove the same of you.

Our only ground for objecting to such evil brutality, and the one that atheists take, is the one of looking at our species and coming to understand our nature as life forms. We desire to survive, and we, by nature, avoid harm and pain. By these standards, which come from an objective, introspective study of ourselves, we can conclude that those acts were wrong.

But God says? That can justify anything.

 

[dorothy_smith]

Sadly it ceases to surprise me at the vitriolic abuse cast upon the righteous atheist by a minority of the faithful. I have even seen a timid, quietly spoken and very likeable gentleman who always has a good word to say about everyone being punched in the face by a parishioner from my local chapel. The attacker claimed that he was standing up for his faith. I told the attacker that he was nothing but a bully and a coward and that the gentleman that he assaulted was far more of a Christian than he could ever be.

That was only one instance of abuse that I have seen aimed at atheists (even the word atheist sounds insulting to me). I am not an atheist myself but I would never ever condone such abuse at people just because they are unable to perceive the notion of God.

Without faith my life would seem empty. I am thankful to God for giving me hope in returning home. I don’t quite understand the faithless but I certainly don’t loathe them. I love them as fellow brothers and sisters.

 

[Contarini]

Sadly it ceases to surprise me at the vitriolic abuse cast upon the righteous atheist by a minority of the faithful. I have even seen a timid, quietly spoken and very likeable gentleman who always has a good word to say about everyone being punched in the face by a parishioner from my local chapel. The attacker claimed that he was standing up for his faith. I told the attacker that he was nothing but a bully and a coward and that the gentleman that he assaulted was far more of a Christian than he could ever be.

What was the context for this? Did the parishioner just walk up to the poor atheist and punch him, or was there something that he could have construed (however unjustly) as provocation? I don’t say this to excuse the punching, but out of curiosity.

I should not like to offend you, I think. God bless you!

Edwin

 

[rpp]

Dorthy, the vitriol is on the other side. Atheism is responsible for more than 100 million murders in World War II. The Soviet Union, Nazi Germany and Japan were all officially atheist and lead by atheists who suppressed and persecuted all religions.

Atheism is evil because it declares all morality as figments of immagination, something that comes and goes like fashion trends or the weather.

As for atheists holding non-atheists in comtempt that is part of the belief system. Have you ever read any of the writings of atheists? If you had, you would not defend them. Beginning with Voltaire and right up to today with Dawkins. Contempt drips from their published works. Here are somwe quotes from Richard Dawkins, an evolutionary biologist and author of numerous books promoting atheism and belittleing those who believe in God, and kind of god.

Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence.
– Richard Dawkins (attributed: source unknown)

Religion teaches the dangerous nonsense that death is not the end. – Richard Dawkins, “Religion’s Misguided Missiles” (September 15, 2001)

Faith is powerful enough to immunize people against all appeals to pity, to forgiveness, to decent human feelings. It even immunizes them against fear, if they honestly believe that a martyr’s death will send them straight to heaven.
– Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene

It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, “mad cow” disease, and many others, but I think a case can be made that faith is one of the world’s great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate.
– Richard Dawkins, The Humanist, Vol. 57, No. 1

To an honest judge, the alleged convergence between religion and science is a shallow, empty, hollow, spin-doctored sham.
– Richard Dawkins, The Devil’s Chaplain (2004)

To fill a world with … religions of the Abrahamic kind, is like littering the streets with loaded guns. Do not be surprised if they are used.
– Richard Dawkins, “Religion’s Misguided Missiles” (September 15, 2001)

And look at Dr. Dawkins admission here.

To describe religions as mind viruses is sometimes interpreted as contemptuous or even hostile. It is both. I am often asked why I am so hostile to organized religion.
– Richard Dawkins, The Devil’s Chaplain (2004)

Now, to Dr. Dawkins credit, among popular atheist writers, he is the most tactful and least acidic. If you compare what he write with Madelene Murry-O’Hare, there you will see true vitriol.

 

[dorothy_smith]

What was the context for this? Did the parishioner just walk up to the poor atheist and punch him, or was there something that he could have construed (however unjustly) as provocation? I don’t say this to excuse the punching, but out of curiosity.

I should not like to offend you, I think. God bless you!

Edwin

It was after our Friday meditation group meeting (where we invite everyone to the church hall – all faiths – believers -non-believers - run by my dear friend Sr B (LCM).

Our regular member of the meditation group is our loving friend (the atheist). We were all discussing different aspects of belief and so on when the parishioner came in and starting talking loudly above everyone else and basically intimidating everyone with his views on faith and Catholicism.

The atheist (I don’t like calling him that) was quietly standing with a couple of us drinking tea when the other chap just strolled over and punched him really hard in the face saying that is what he thinks about atheism. Sr B immediately went and fetched Fr M who in turn gave the parishioner a talking to. Fr M came back and said that some people get heated up over their religious beliefs but added that doesn’t excuse the behaviour of the bully.

(The bully didn’t even have the decency to come back and apologise.)