S
space_ghost
Guest
a god given conscience, and i bet he won’t admit it either… 
- Status
W
wolpertinger
Guest
Absolute morals provide a frame of reference; it is more or less straightforward to determine compliance. What remains to be shown is whether or not a system of absolute morals actually results in the “right” choices. Another problem is that it is extremely difficult to internally question the validity of such absolute morals.
I don’t know if my personal morals are absolute or relative; they are certainly not absolute in the sense that I submit to any external authority. However, if my morals are relative, then your concern can be readily falsified - I know to have been wrong and I do admit to it.
You may want to read Steven Pinker’s “The Blank Slate”.
W
wolpertinger
Guest
space ghost:
Nor would they deny it, of course.a god given conscience, and i bet he won’t admit it either…
P
Pug
Guest
All people desire to be whole and without division within themselves. An adult atheist will have formed an impression of who they wish to be and will try to stick with it, just as a theist will have done. You might wonder if that impression of themselves is arbitrary or reasoned. I say reasoned, based on the natural law, as best as they have understood it, minus whatever lies or rationalizations they have told themselves (theists do this as least as often).
I think we often forget that the laws we know as a theist about how to behave are Not some arbitrary list that God dreamt up to bother us with, that are only knowable if he tells us, because they have nothing to do with anything. True, some of the rules are by revelation, but only some. Lots of it is just plain natural law.
An atheist can tell that friendship, truth, community, life, etc. are all good. Furthermore, he will pursue these things because no one does anything unless they see some good in it somewhere.
The difference might come when the various goods are in conflict, like you seem to have to give one up to get another. Then I think it will matter if you believe all things are summed up in Christ, or that all the world will be restored on the last day, etc. Giving up your life would hypothetically be more palatable, knowing that it will be made right in heaven. An atheist might have to settle for giving up their life, believing it is irretrievably lost, but at least they will have kept their true self. Or an atheist possibly might be more likely to judge the best course of action involves using bad means to get to the good that cannot seem to be gotten any other way. Whereas, if there is a Christ, then you don’t have to rely on yourself to get that good by those bad means.
I think we often forget that the laws we know as a theist about how to behave are Not some arbitrary list that God dreamt up to bother us with, that are only knowable if he tells us, because they have nothing to do with anything. True, some of the rules are by revelation, but only some. Lots of it is just plain natural law.
An atheist can tell that friendship, truth, community, life, etc. are all good. Furthermore, he will pursue these things because no one does anything unless they see some good in it somewhere.
The difference might come when the various goods are in conflict, like you seem to have to give one up to get another. Then I think it will matter if you believe all things are summed up in Christ, or that all the world will be restored on the last day, etc. Giving up your life would hypothetically be more palatable, knowing that it will be made right in heaven. An atheist might have to settle for giving up their life, believing it is irretrievably lost, but at least they will have kept their true self. Or an atheist possibly might be more likely to judge the best course of action involves using bad means to get to the good that cannot seem to be gotten any other way. Whereas, if there is a Christ, then you don’t have to rely on yourself to get that good by those bad means.
J
Jay74
Guest
This is an excellent question. In theory, people are only accountable to other people. Laws are passed and enforced, however laws are amoral–there are good ones and bad ones. Sadly, just because a majority supports a law doesn’t make it right–like 2 wolf and 1 sheep voting on what’s for dinner. Worse, people look to their hearts to determine what is right instead of values from a Higher power. The problem is “the heart is deceitful above all things.” (Jeremiah 17:9).
Just more evidence that we need God. People who don’t believe in God, and sadly many who claim to believe in God, decide what is right and wrong based on their hearts rather than their values. I can think of a few examples of where this happens:
Therein, based on my years of biblical study, listening to pastors and priests give sermons, and reading their writings, I think this is the underlying problem with atheism. You are only accountable to two things: 1) your heart, and 2) others who only listen to their hearts. As I said before, “the heart is deceitful above all things.” (Jeremiah 17:9)
So, this was too long.
lol. but the short answer to “what is to stop an atheist from stealing?” If no one is looking, nothing–if he feels like it.
Just more evidence that we need God. People who don’t believe in God, and sadly many who claim to believe in God, decide what is right and wrong based on their hearts rather than their values. I can think of a few examples of where this happens:
- Gay marriage - Someone sees loving gay couples wanting to commit their lives to one another, and their heart is moved for them. However, they don’t see the damage done to children, family, and ultimately society–values are what prevents the damage.
- Premarital sex - two people falling in love desire a bond with one another, and their hearts are for this. This causes countless personal and societal problems that values can prevent. " Do not follow after your own heart and your own eyes, which you are inclined to whore after." (Numbers 15:39)
- Abortion - the heart is moved by a person who has made a terrible mistaken and is distraught and terrified. Values guide us to protect the most innocent that the heart does not see.
Therein, based on my years of biblical study, listening to pastors and priests give sermons, and reading their writings, I think this is the underlying problem with atheism. You are only accountable to two things: 1) your heart, and 2) others who only listen to their hearts. As I said before, “the heart is deceitful above all things.” (Jeremiah 17:9)
So, this was too long.
lol. but the short answer to “what is to stop an atheist from stealing?” If no one is looking, nothing–if he feels like it.
W
wolpertinger
Guest
That is exactly how atheists feel about Christian values. Some of these values an individual atheist can agree with, others (s)he will abhor.
Consider this – for an atheist, their hearts and their values may be one and the same. It is a profound admission that Christians wage an internal conflict between their hearts and the values imposed by their faith.
I won’t comment on the examples that you picked, they have too much inflammatory potential. However, I’d like to point out that it is by no means certain which position an individual non-Christian (or Christian, for that matter) will take on each count.
I don’t believe that Christian values are under active attack and you yourself make a case why they could be considered as heartless. In many European countries at least, the moral authority of Christian churches is steadily eroding; what happens over there is not so much an attack, but a dismissal. In the US, I don’t know that the populistic fundamentalists do Christian values (whatever they are) a service. If the fundamentalists prevail, atheists and Catholics alike will be besieged; if they fail, the other Christian denominations may pay a price.
“and kept us from hurting each other”… European history belies this account.
No, the underlying problem is that atheists refuse to accept the Christian churches claim of absolute moral authority. You demand that authority, but you have yet to show the validity of that claim.
W
wolpertinger
Guest
Let’s take a step back from the atheist/Christian false dichotomy (and tit-for-tat) and have a look at the more general question and work backwards from there. So, what keeps anyone from stealing?
For some people, the answer is “Nothing at all”, they can and do steal.
Others will refrain from stealing because of fear of secular or divine punishment. If this is their primary motivation, I would question such a person’s ethical standards, because once these fears are assuaged, what’s left to stand in the way?
Yet others will not, because they perceive such an act as wrong. There are many influences that can induce this belief; it doesn’t necessarily matter which it is.
None of these categories are restricted to any particular system of morals, creed, or culture. There are atheists and Christians alike that steal, don’t steal for fear of punishment, or simply will not steal.
To answer the question of what keeps atheists from stealing, look no further than to a Christian that will not steal for reasons other than fear of punishment. The issue of moral superiority needn’t even enter the discussion.
For some people, the answer is “Nothing at all”, they can and do steal.
Others will refrain from stealing because of fear of secular or divine punishment. If this is their primary motivation, I would question such a person’s ethical standards, because once these fears are assuaged, what’s left to stand in the way?
Yet others will not, because they perceive such an act as wrong. There are many influences that can induce this belief; it doesn’t necessarily matter which it is.
None of these categories are restricted to any particular system of morals, creed, or culture. There are atheists and Christians alike that steal, don’t steal for fear of punishment, or simply will not steal.
To answer the question of what keeps atheists from stealing, look no further than to a Christian that will not steal for reasons other than fear of punishment. The issue of moral superiority needn’t even enter the discussion.
P
Pug
Guest
Most likely because they think it is wrong to steal. You don’t have to believe in God to figure out that it is wrong to steal (cf natural law above). No Brainer. We are all human. We all are moral beings. Atheists can and will have fully sophisticated moral systems. So can theists. Why would anyone think otherwise??
W
wolpertinger
Guest
Please let me know when you find out.
And thank you for the concise summary.
U
uncleauberon
Guest
Hi all,
It seems that we are finally getting back to the point.
The question about about Why does a person steal or not steal ?
wolpertinger:
There may be no “quantitaive” difference.
Both the atheist and Christian steal.
Both of them refrain from stealling.
There is a “qualitative” difference.
Both of them form their consicence from a variety of sources.
The Christian uses the Church heavily to do this.
– It is one of the Church’s most important role to aid a person in the formation of conscience.
Even atheists may use the Church teachings to help form their conscience.
Conscience is the “Primary Vicar” for everyone.
The Qualitative difference is this.
When a Christian Sins he says, “It is Me.”
When a Christian acts morally he says, “It is God through me”
Christians don’t need to prove that Church teachings will make us act better than anyone else.
Church’s primary role is to bring Christ to the world for our eternal salvation.
In fact, the Church teaches that we are sinnful (nobody’s perfect) and we need a savior.
It always seems to me that many atheist say that nobody’s perfect and “oh well”.
I wouldn’t want an atheist to become a Christian only so that they can act like good citizens. They don’t need the Church for this.
I would want an aetheist to become a Christian so they can meet God and fulfill their primary purpose of Being - to Know, Love and Serve God.
The difference, as we all know this conversation will eventually lead to, is Faith - (a topic for another thread I won’t start).
Great day in the Morning.
Uncle Auberon.
It seems that we are finally getting back to the point.
The question about about Why does a person steal or not steal ?
The answer is again “conscience”.
There may be no “quantitaive” difference.
Both the atheist and Christian steal.
Both of them refrain from stealling.
There is a “qualitative” difference.
Both of them form their consicence from a variety of sources.
The Christian uses the Church heavily to do this.
– It is one of the Church’s most important role to aid a person in the formation of conscience.
Even atheists may use the Church teachings to help form their conscience.
Conscience is the “Primary Vicar” for everyone.
The Qualitative difference is this.
When a Christian Sins he says, “It is Me.”
When a Christian acts morally he says, “It is God through me”
Christians don’t need to prove that Church teachings will make us act better than anyone else.
Church’s primary role is to bring Christ to the world for our eternal salvation.
In fact, the Church teaches that we are sinnful (nobody’s perfect) and we need a savior.
It always seems to me that many atheist say that nobody’s perfect and “oh well”.
I wouldn’t want an atheist to become a Christian only so that they can act like good citizens. They don’t need the Church for this.
I would want an aetheist to become a Christian so they can meet God and fulfill their primary purpose of Being - to Know, Love and Serve God.
The difference, as we all know this conversation will eventually lead to, is Faith - (a topic for another thread I won’t start).
Great day in the Morning.
Uncle Auberon.
W
wolpertinger
Guest
Please note that you are sneaking the false dichotomy between Christians and atheists as the only choices back into the discussion. Are Christian morals superior to, say, Jewish, Islamic, Buddhist morals? If you answer in the affirmative, what is your justification?
The gist of this argument is that you deny the validity of a non-Christian’s conscience, for no other reason that they do not share your particular theistic belief. I consider this an untenable position.
Here you evade accountability. You are free to believe your moral standard to be superior to anybody else’s, after all it’s your prerogative to hold whatever opinions you like. However, the second you tell non-Christians, sight unseen, that their moral beliefs are inferior or worse, try to impose your moral standards on them, you assume the full burden of proof. No amount of belief with make that proposition true and you necessarily have to demonstrate that your moral beliefs are both justified and true.
Ah, the fallacies of anecdotal evidence and hasty generalizations.
Be that all as it may, the consensus appears to be that conscience is a general motivating force. We will not likely be able to settle claims of moral superiority, because it is not a position that you could yield without abandoning your faith.
S
SCTA-1
Guest
How do we know if something is morally wrong and who has the authority to say the behavior is deviant or acceptable? When do we draw the line and who has the right to draw that line?
U
uncleauberon
Guest
This is a Catholic board.
I’m am not sneaking in a false dichotomy. I’m staying close to point by only comparing/contrasting these two choices.
We are not currently discussing superior or inferior.
BTW : The The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men. Nostra Aetate,The Second Vatican Council
October 28, 1965]
I’m sorry that misunderstood me.
I do recognize the validity of conscience in all people.
I was trying to show that we all use our conscience.
I meant to give everyone credit for having a conscience.
Our conscience is something we have in common.
We all must choose how our conscience is formed. Then apply it to our lives.
The Catholic has chosen to form the conscience in the light of revelation as brought to us by through the Church.
This is a quick explanation
usccb.org/prolife/issues/nfp/roleoftheconscience.pdf
The Church need only show Divine Revelation.
Not moral superiority.
Yes, it was. I was hoping to find out what hope an atheist has in ever attaining perfection.
You are correct. I would not be a Catholic if I did not believe that the teachings are revealed by divine revelation - Thus, any morality that is not based on this foundation may have virture but not be considered ‘superior’. That is my Faith - a discussion for another time.
thanks for the debate.
Uncle Auberon
K
Ken
Guest
I’ve heard this question often. I also have a question. Do Christians feel that they personally want to murder and steal, and are only constrained by religion? So, why do Christians need religion to keep them from being murderers? Athiests don’t need it.
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
Atheism is not necessarily selfish, any more than Christianity is invariably kind or merciful. Neither kind of behaviour is required or entailed by the lack of theism, or by its presence. And atheism does not entail a specific shared POV on life - whereas Christianity does, to some extent. The answer to the question is probably an ethical-philosophical one 
Some - many - atheists are profoundly moral people: that does not make them theists. Rather as Christians are quite capable of being very cruel - that is lamentable, but does not make them atheists. (Unless one is going to argue that a Christian who behaves in an unChristian manner, “is not really a Christian” - but that suggestion almost deserves a thread of its own.) One could always make an argument that an upright atheist “is not really an atheist” - but this is also very problematic.If someone rejects a false idea of God - such as the notion of “Jesus the capitalist’s God”, oppressing the proletariat - then it could be, that it is not God Who is being rejected, but a woefully misleading picture of God.
And then, the meaning of “atheism” has varied - Socrates was accused of “atheism”; so were quite a few of the early martyrs. But rejecting the gods of the state, is not necessarily rejection of all gods… ##
W
wolpertinger
Guest
There is another active thread, Cultural Relativism that is perhaps a more appropriate venue for this topic.
Nevertheless, here’s an attempt at a short answer. Please correct me if I’m wrong, but I was under the impression that if you are a Christian, whoever speaks authoritatively for your denomination is supposed to be final moral authority. My apologies if that constitutes a theological faux pax - my knowledge of Christian theology is superficial at best.
In practice, I am not sure if the questions can be answered at all. If there is a system of absolute morals in the philosophical sense (morals that are true, have been true, and will be true across all cultures), it is likely similar to a system of formal logic and it there is the possibility that it is then subject to Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorems, as well - i.e. there may be moral propositions that cannot be shown to be true or false from within that moral system.
Questions of absolute moral truth aside, to me it comes down to personal judgement - even if this judgement is exhausted by deferring to some external authority.
I would like to extensively rephrase this answer, but for now it will have to stand.
W
wolpertinger
Guest
I have indeed misunderstood your position. We have reached agreement (more or less) on this topic’s question, but with regards to some overarching questions your quote above demonstrates why we will remain at an impasse because of conflicting and mutually disagreeable premises.
Perfection in what sense? Not that we’re likely to get past our conflicting premises…
F
Flounder
Guest
Man, I wish I had been here the last two months…
Good food for thought.
Good food for thought.
H
hermit
Guest
It all depends on whether or not you accept Natural Law. Even the most primitive tribes obey a natural law of some sort. They may believe that it is okay to steal from an enemy but not from a fellow tribesman. However, they do accept that stealing is wrong.
- Status