What Moral Right Does An Atheist Have?

[guestseeking]

it is very sad and emotional thing to see the fires within lost souls burning in passion towards and in lies, it is a glorious thing to see so many God fearing and Jesus loving peoples trying to help the “one who doesnt know he has a GOD” to let go of his strong holds in his heart and mind, the fires of hell have no comfort, but the lost have hope in everyone that Jesus allows to fight against the unrighteousness and the rebellion of the Spirit and Nature of GOD as well as the bold courage they take to engadge ever so hopefully to help the “one who doesnt know that he has a god” as well to let down his war against God. the Gates of hell shall not prevail, it is uncomfortable to see this fight, it hurts to see the flames hold on tighter to one that Jesus is fighting for as well. I pray that this effort as painful as it is to witness and painful as it is to be aware of will be a increase in the Flock, that none should be missing and not regained, so that more of us can together cry out you were right God, the gates of Hell did not prevail against us because of You and Your Rock and all who speak treuthfully! AMEN GLORY TO GOD IN THE HIGHEST!!! GOD WINS EVERY BATTLE!!! EVEN THE ONES WE WERE ONE IN AND THE ONES WE THOUGHT WE FAILED!!! "GOD IS MY HERO!!! " the translation of the ARC ANGEL MICHEALS NAME “GOD IS MY HERO” GOD WINS EVERY TIME!!! ETERNALLY HE IS ALWAYS THE WINNER< even if an aitheist refuses it. Truth is still GOD.

 

[tonyrey]

A life without the existence of God also means a life without any true moral value, substance, or meaning.

It is possible that objective moral values exist in an amoral, purposeless universe but what is their rational basis?

Everyone has moral rights regardless of what they believe or disbelieve. Whether they can justify their rights is another matter…

 

[grannymh]

That’s good granny. But may I respectfully point out to you that we are debating about a certain non-theist existential state of being, a state of being of which most atheists believe themselves to be apart; and given that belief I am asking what moral rights do they have. The answer is ZERO.

In real life, what is being debated is human nature and not a certain non-theistential state of being. It does not really matter in the real life of guts and blood what certain groups of people believe or think. The guts and blood of real human nature remain God’s creation.

If you want to separate your discussion from real life, then you need to be more specific in each and every post.

You seem to assume that statements about moral values and rights would be true regardless of whether or not God exists.

My statement is – The human person is worthy of profound respect.

This statement is based on an objective evaluation of human nature. One can evaluate the status of human people independently of any belief system. This is because the human person exists independently of other peoples thoughts about a “certain non-theist existential state of being,”

Apart from not being a Catholic idea;

Actually Catholic teaching is that the created person is both separate from the Creator *and *dependent on the Creator.

there are some intelligent atheists on here that will tell you that their lives have no true value or rights given their world view; but rather they behave as if they do and tell other people to think that they do because it supports their survival.

There are all kinds of people in the world so I don’t doubt your description. However descriptions, right or wrong, do not make different human natures for different folks.

I cannot afford for people to think that it is okay to be an atheist and believe in objective moral values at the same time.

Let’s take apart this sentence. The first part sounds to me that you want to make sure that people know that atheism is not a correct approach to real life. That is a worthy goal.

Then the last part of the sentences makes a leap from a philosophy of life to a real live human being. Real live human beings usually can think and make their own decisions. If a real, live, human non-theist makes a decision to believe in objective moral values of his own choosing, he is able to do so.

I don’t want them to think that they have moral rights and existential values regardless of Gods existence.

That is not what I have been saying since I first starting using “The human person is worthy of profound respect.” as a signature.

“The human person is worthy of profound respect.” is so simple that it applies to all people before any discussion of moral rights, existential values, God’s existence, etc., etc. Once it is accepted that every human person (needed for an universal truth) is worthy of profound respect, then one can branch into morality, God’s justice, love and mercy, etc., etc.

Continued in post 202.

 

[ASimon]

It is possible that objective moral values exist in an amoral, purposeless universe but what is their rational basis?

Morality relates to the suffering of conscious creatures, and suffering relates to activity in their brains. That’s the knowable, rational basis.

 

[grannymh]

Continued from post 200

I want atheists to be honest about the existential consequences of their atheism; that a life with out God means more than just a life without a divine overlord.

So far, so good.

A life without the existence of God also means a life without any true moral value, substance, or meaning.

At this point, have you switched playing fields from real, ordinary life into that “certain non-theist existential state of being,” Please make it clear which life or “life” you are referring to.

This is very important especially in these times where the tide of moral-atheism/humanism is causing damage to peoples faith in a moral God.

What is really important is to understand that the same human nature is shared by all people. Human nature exists regardless of what people think they themselves are. However, if you are referring to a different “state” possessed by some but not by others, please be more clear.

It is not acceptable for an atheist to think that they have the moral upper-hand in any true objective sense of the word when it comes to judging the moral value of God.

I think I understand so I will point out that God exists regardless of what a non-theist thinks.

Continued in next post.

 

[grannymh]

continued from post 202

It is very important for people to understand the important connection between the existence of moral truth and Gods existence if faith is to thrive in to the next generation.

This is a valid observation. However, if we are in the area of real life, then it is also important to understand what “moral truth” is based on. It can be said that moral truth is based on God. That is a valid statement.

However, in a temporal, created, material world, moral truth pertains to human persons and their actions. What I have done is to point out an universal truth which applies to every human being, no matter what a human being thinks. This objective truth is “The human person is worthy of profound respect.” The non-theist can find reasons in the natural world why the human person is worthy of profound respect.

Is the theist limited by the reasoning of the non-theist?

Many people treat the concept of God in a careless manner, as if the concept does not matter; and this has to change.

This is correct.

I don’t believe that many atheists look at the consequences of their atheism honestly. Many people take their atheism for granted and never consider what it really implies about the value of their existence.

My point has always been that a non-theist can ignore or even deny the value of his or her own existence. But this choice does not change the fact that all human persons, including non-theists, are worthy of profound respect because each human is created by God. God directly creates the spiritual soul which is what makes an individual a human being.

That’s why there are many atheists who irrationally believe they have moral rights; and they are prepared to disbelieve in God so long as they go on believing that they do have moral rights.

At the same time, one should not eliminate the basic truth that a true human being created by God is worthy of profound respect. Someone thinking irrationally is no reason for making them a person unworthy of respect.

Many well known atheists have converted to Christianity precisely because they became aware of the necessity of Gods existence in relation to the moral truths they held dear to their hearts.

This is correct.

If I leave them deluded, then I fear that I am guilty of their delusion, for their atheism keeps them away from God.

What you said above “I don’t believe that many atheists look at the consequences of their atheism honestly.” is key and you should continue to work from that point.

When it comes to the actual person, it is good to point out that he or she is worthy of profound respect regardless. The Prodigal Son’s father never lost sight of the worth of his child. Go over the words of the Prodigal Son when he was starving.
Luke 15: 11-32

Remind the non-theist that God’s compassion never wavers even when a person denies His existence. In God’s eyes, the fact that each human being is worthy of profound respect is not dependent on a person’s beliefs. This fact is objectively true because God, Himself, is the Creator Who never abandons us.

If atheism is true then the catechism is worthless. This is not a game; its a war for peoples souls; its a war for faith.

It would be better to start with the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, as being true. It would be better to start with the fact that each human person is eligible for God’s loving mercy.

Seek the good in an individual so that the individual can learn how to seek the good in God.

Blessings,
granny

Isaiah, Chapter 55

 

[MindOverMatter2]

At this point, have you switched playing fields from real, ordinary life into that “certain non-theist existential state of being,” Or have you switched? Please make it clear which life or “life” you are referring to.

I am not switching any playing fields. I am doing metaphysics. You are doing humanism.

Here are the metaphysical facts. If the nature we call God, according to the Christian conception, doesn’t exist, then moral truth cannot be rationally said to exist. It doesn’t matter whether people think it does or not, and that is because its existence is dependent on the reality and nature of God; not the opinion of granny. I am sorry if that upsets you.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

It would be better to start with the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, as being true. It would be better to start with the fact that each human person is eligible for God’s loving mercy.

Seek the good in an individual so that the individual can learn how to seek the good in God.

Blessings,
granny

Isaiah, Chapter 55

I understand that you want to express your belief that people are worthy of profound respect. But in a philosophical debate it does me no good to begin by dictating what i believe. Sure, its my faith that a human being is worthy of profound respect. But that is not what we are debating. The OP asks a philosophical question. It asks what moral rights they have if there is no God. Assuming that their beliefs reflect the actual nature of objective reality, do they have moral rights in the Christian sense of the word. **The answer is no.
**

 

[davidv]

I understand that you want to express your belief that people are worthy of profound respect. But in a philosophical debate it does me no good to begin by dictating what i believe. Sure, its my faith that a human being is worthy of profound respect. But that is not what we are debating. The OP asks a philosophical question. It asks what moral rights they have if there is no God. Assuming that their beliefs reflect the actual nature of objective reality, do they have moral rights in the Christian sense of the word. **The answer is no. **

Since their assumption about objective reality is incorrect, your conclusion based on this assumption is also incorrect.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Since their assumption about objective reality is incorrect, your conclusion based on this assumption is also incorrect.

What relevance does this assertion have to the context of this debate?

I never argued that their world view is correct. I am arguing that my conclusion is correct as a consequence of their world-view being correct. This is to say if their atheism reflected objective reality, they would have no moral rights.

Its that difficult?

 

[grannymh]

I am not switching any playing fields. I am doing metaphysics. You are doing humanism.

Here are the metaphysical facts. If the nature we call God, according to the Christian conception, doesn’t exist, then moral truth cannot be rationally said to exist. It doesn’t matter whether people think it does or not, and that is because its existence is dependent on the reality and nature of God; not the opinion of granny. I am sorry if that upsets you.

In metaphysics a moral truth does not have the same nature as an human being. I consistently refer to human nature which is not the same as a moral truth.

My worldview is based on the existence of God. There is no reason for me to work from an “if” God doesn’t exist.

Now, a moral truth is neither God nor a human person. So what is moral truth? That is a difficult question because many, not all, have been conditioned to think subjectively.

Slipping by the definition of moral truth, it is correct to say that moral truth does depend on the existence of God. I would expand your statement a bit by saying that moral truth flows from the nature of God as the Creator. From the beginning of human history, man is dependent on his Creator and subject to the laws of creation and to the moral norms that govern the use of freedom. (Please refer to Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, paragraphs 396-398)

In addition, each person is called to share through knowledge and love in God’s life. This is the fundamental reason for the dignity of each person. (CCC 355-357)

The point I am making is that the dignity given by God to each person is an objective truth. While, yes, the worth of a human person is based on God as Creator, the worth of a person is not based on human belief. The worth of a human being comes from being made in the Image of God not because “So and So” was a believer.

Recognizing that a human being is worthy of profound respect is possible because every human has a spiritual soul with its faculties of intellect and will; therefore, a human person can reason and then choose a worldview. Humans do not have the power to say no soul, no way, to God.

What I can say is that is possible to reason to the worth of a person on a natural basis without a belief in the supernatural. This does not mean that reasoning without a belief in God is the greatest thing since sliced bread. It does mean that one can reason that the human race is peerless and for that alone, a person can be considered worthy of profound respect.

I am not, absolutely not implying that a simple reasoning process based on observation of humanity is the only way to moral truth in regard to the human person.
There are so many other ways to conclude that the human person is worthy of profound respect. The CCC is full of them.

 

[grannymh]

I understand that you want to express your belief that people are worthy of profound respect. But in a philosophical debate it does me no good to begin by dictating what i believe. Sure, its my faith that a human being is worthy of profound respect. But that is not what we are debating. The OP asks a philosophical question. It asks what moral rights they have if there is no God. Assuming that their beliefs reflect the actual nature of objective reality, do they have moral rights in the Christian sense of the word. **The answer is no. **

The following is based on the poster’s second to last sentence which begins "Assuming that their beliefs reflect the actual nature of objective reality, … "
from post 205. Emphasis mine.

Assuming that the atheistic beliefs reflect the actual nature of objective reality, i.e. objective reality does not include the existence of God, the real philosophical question would be – does the atheist exist as a real person who could only be created by a God capable of creating a spiritual/corporeal human nature?

That makes my head spin.

Having said all that I could, thank you for the challenge.

 

[nostik]

Because antheist does not espouse any religious belief this does not mean that religion does not impact on him.he atheist is a fellow human being and child of God and we who do believe in God are bound by that belief.We must give the same respect and dignity to the atheist and respect his human rights otherwise we are not being true to the will of God

 

[MindOverMatter2]

While, yes, the worth of a human person is based on God as Creator, the worth of a person is not based on human belief.

I never said that the worth of a person is based on human belief. I don’t understand why you have a problem with the OP.

 

[tonyrey]

Morality relates to the suffering of conscious creatures, and suffering relates to activity in their brains. That’s the knowable, rational basis.

1. Suffering alone is not related to morality.
2. Suffering is not necessarily evil because pain is a defence mechanism.
3. Suffering often exists only in the mind.
4. Morality cannot exist without rationality.
5. The brain is not rational!

 

[ASimon]

1. Suffering alone is not related to morality.

Well being and suffering are related to morality.

1. Suffering is not necessarily evil because pain is a defence mechanism.

That’s why it’s related, but not a reflection of moral truth in every case.

1. Suffering often exists only in the mind.

Actual pain suffering can be objectively viewed through states of the brain.

1. Morality cannot exist without rationality.

Meaning without a rational basis, yes.

1. The brain is not rational!

Stimuli can have its effects observed through changes in the state of the brain. We can observe, neurologically, whether someone is in pain or not.

 

[tonyrey]

1. Suffering alone is not related to morality.

But they don’t constitute morality!

2. Suffering is not necessarily evil because pain is a defence mechanism.

That’s why it’s related, but not a reflection of moral truth in every case.

A physical defence mechanism is amoral.

3. Suffering often exists only in the mind.

Actual pain suffering can be objectively viewed through states of the brain.

The **effects **of mental anguish can be viewed.

5. The brain is not rational!

Stimuli can have its effects observed through changes in the state of the brain. We can observe, neurologically, whether someone is in pain or not.

The brain is still not rational!

 

[guestseeking]

So all references to evil, justice, freedom and responsibility are nonsense?:coffeeread:

Neither factuality nor an abstraction is a material thing.

How do you explain truth in material terms?

:harp::harp:
My foot fell asleep and my slipper fell of and while i was rocking my foot and i hit the desk with my foot. i didnt feel it, i looked down AND saw it. perhaps if my foot is asleep it didnt really hit the desk unless i saw it. haha :egyptian:

does that mean that the desk does not exist to my foot? :stretcher::stretcher:

 

[Norminha]

**No one **has any moral rights if atheism is true and rights are merely human inventions! Everyone can do exactly what they like with total impunity - provided they are cunning enough to avoid detection. That is the prevailing mentality in our secular society…

How true is all you’ve said. Indeed, we are living times exactly as you described, based on human inventions -utilitarian minds that will never distinguish between right and wrong, for it does not know or does not want to know the difference, leading to total immorality.

A moral right is in the heart of every creature, it is the law of nature.

 

[grannymh]

How true is all you’ve said. Indeed, we are living times exactly as you described, based on human inventions -utilitarian minds that will never distinguish between right and wrong, for it does not know or does not want to know the difference, leading to total immorality.

A moral right is in the heart of every creature, it is the law of nature.

Please, what is this moral right you speak of?