Why are atheists so unhappy?

[theistgal]

As the originator of this thread, I wish I could rename it. It is true that there are happy atheists and unhappy theists.
The point I was trying to make is that many atheists don’t simply deny God, they rage against Him (see the example Fulton Sheen gave in my OP).

True. And many theists don’t simply deny that atheism is correct, they rage against atheists themselves, calling them names, insulting them, threatening them.

For example, check out this guy on Facebook - among other charming comments, he calls the atheist who’s arguing with him a “clueless atheist savage monkey beast”!

Do you think atheists would be justified in seeing that and assuming that “all theists are angry”?

We’re none of us perfect. (Well - I am - but it’s taken a lot of work! )

 

[SHW]

Originally Posted by SHW
The Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Or love your neighbor as yourself.

Are you trying to be facetious?

If I did not mind or wish myself or my family to be killed, I would not be defending myself in the first place! Life is precious, but I have the right to defend my own precious life against those who desire to take my precious life away from me. If he forfeits his own life in his attack against me, then he has received the consequence of his own actions, albeit not his desired result/consequence.

I doubt very much if I will be thinking of “loving my enemy,” which he has become by attacking me, while I am busy defending myself or my family. You can go to his funeral if it will make you feel better. I am sure that I will not be welcome!

“Loving my neighbor as myself” is how I must treat them. My neighbors are worthy of my respect and help if needed. However, if they attack me, I can morally defend myself against their harm towards me. My action is but a “reaction” to their action against me. My action against them did not “originate” with me so I do not break the command to love my neighbor as myself when I defend myself against their desire to harm me.

 

[Angel7]

Thank you for this oustanding statement summarizing your intellectual position.

How is “changing how we should apply the rules” (your words) not self-contradictory when applied to absolute rules?

Moral absolutism implies that the rules stand regardless of the context in which they are applied. If it is morally wrong to steal bread when you are not starving, then it is equally morally wrong to steal bread when you are starving, because only the context changes, not the act of taking something without permission (i.e. stealing).

Some amount of relativism seems to have invited itself in your understanding of the concept of absolute.

Apparantley i’ve noticed a flaw!
But, i’ve also found an answer
It is like this, saying "it is ALWAYS, wrong to steal, is wrong because we don’t know the situation. I’ve noticed we need to be moer specific, that is it.

For example. It is always wrong to steal, if you have no need for said object.
It is always justified to steal a loaf of bread to feed you family. (this doesn’t mean we can play Robin Hood) it just means that, after all other options have failed, this is the only one that works! The Paradox is no more!

Its is always wrong to Murder.
it is always just to fight in a Just War.

Again, if we continued with the “Broader” point of view, ofcourse Moral absoluteness would be bent, because we lacked the Motives!

Saying it is wrong to steal, is to broad, you have to see the persons motives!

I think everyone else must agree with me to, I’ve noticed how we were missing the “Motive” of the action, that was the problem.
See, it is Absolute.

 

[Angel7]

True. And many theists don’t simply deny that atheism is correct, they rage against atheists themselves, calling them names, insulting them, threatening them.
For example, check out this guy on Facebook - among other charming comments, he calls the atheist who’s arguing with him a “clueless atheist savage monkey beast”!

Do you think atheists would be justified in seeing that and assuming that “all theists are angry”?

We’re none of us perfect. (Well - I am - but it’s taken a lot of work! )

This is un-christ like attitude. Jesus told us to love our neighbors, we need to be patient and answer there questions about the faith. I wish I could apologise to all the people that have been hurt by Comments from less “Friendly” catholics. This is not the Behavior we support.

 

[josie_L]

Thank you for this oustanding statement summarizing your intellectual position.

How is “changing how we should apply the rules” (your words) not self-contradictory when applied to absolute rules?

Moral absolutism implies that the rules stand regardless of the context in which they are applied. If it is morally wrong to steal bread when you are not starving, then it is equally morally wrong to steal bread when you are starving, because only the context changes, not the act of taking something without permission (i.e. stealing).

Some amount of relativism seems to have invited itself in your understanding of the concept of absolute.

It is a moral obligation to feed one’s family, so if there is nothing left but to take a loaf of bread in order to feed them, then it is not morally wrong, There is no moral obligation involved when one is stealing a loaf of a bread just because one can, thus making the act morally wrong.

p.s. My outstanding statement is a reflection of the Relativist’s position.

 

[josie_L]

Are you trying to be facetious?

If I did not mind or wish myself or my family to be killed, I would not be defending myself in the first place! Life is precious, but I have the right to defend my own precious life against those who desire to take my precious life away from me. If he forfeits his own life in his attack against me, then he has received the consequence of his own actions, albeit not his desired result/consequence.

I doubt very much if I will be thinking of “loving my enemy,” which he has become by attacking me, while I am busy defending myself or my family. You can go to his funeral if it will make you feel better. I am sure that I will not be welcome!

“Loving my neighbor as myself” is how I must treat them. My neighbors are worthy of my respect and help if needed. However, if they attack me, I can morally defend myself against their harm towards me. My action is but a “reaction” to their action against me. My action against them did not “originate” with me so I do not break the command to love my neighbor as myself when I defend myself against their desire to harm me.

I think what most atheists do when arguing against moral absolutism is something akin to straining a gnat only to swallow a camel (moral relativism).

 

[j1akey]

Josie L:

I think what most atheists do when arguing against moral absolutism is something akin to straining a gnat only to swallow a camel (moral relativism).

I have no idea what the gnat and camel thing means but the more I think about it the more your moral absolutism is also “relative”. It seems to me that it’s only absolute to those that think it/follow it, it’s relative to everyone else, lets say anyone, catholic or otherwise, that even disagrees with only 1 point of your moral code that you follow.

My moral code is relative because I don’t answer to god, you say you answer to god but your moral code hasn’t been absolute throughout history. It’s all relative.

 

[Angel7]

The Gnat and Camel, phrase.
Was taken out of scripture from the Bible.
It is like this
You focus so much one 1 in important issue, you miss the bigger one, and it flies over your head. (in this case you swallow a camel)

you strain at a small detail (a Gnat)
But you do not see the Camel in front of you(The REAL issue)
and you swallow it whole.

 

[Angel7]

I have no idea what the gnat and camel thing means but the more I think about it the more your moral absolutism is also “relative”. It seems to me that it’s only absolute to those that think it/follow it, it’s relative to everyone else, lets say anyone, catholic or otherwise, that even disagrees with only 1 point of your moral code that you follow.

My moral code is relative because I don’t answer to god, you say you answer to god but your moral code hasn’t been absolute throughout history. It’s all relative.

you do you mean by Moral code not being absolute?

It is Wrong to murder an innocent man for no reason. Christian or not? Correct?
Thus it is ALWAYS wrong to kill and innocent man for no reason. This is verified.
The Idea of Relativism is that all Absolute Morals ARE NOT Absolute.
This in itself is an Absolute Moral. It Contradicts itself then.
Truth can NOT contradict Truth.
Good does not disagree with Good.
Light does not shadow Light.
One of them must be wrong.

 

[StillWondering]

Thank you for this oustanding statement summarizing your intellectual position.

How is “changing how we should apply the rules” (your words) not self-contradictory when applied to absolute rules?

Moral absolutism implies that the rules stand regardless of the context in which they are applied. If it is morally wrong to steal bread when you are not starving, then it is equally morally wrong to steal bread when you are starving, because only the context changes, not the act of taking something without permission (i.e. stealing).

Some amount of relativism seems to have invited itself in your understanding of the concept of absolute.

Here is another way to explain it if you do not understand my clarifications of the definitions.

Say everyone around you lives in 2D but you live in 3D. I am watching your world. Now say your day and mom needs to walk by each other to reach for some milk, by your mom, and some fruits by your day. Well if they are in 2D, they can’t walk around each other as I view them from the side. They can only jump over each other or crawl under each other. [Think of Super Mario Bros]. Now you live in 3D, so you can move in and out of the scene and pass or let pass your mom or dad without a problem. In the 2D x and y plane that your parents lived in, it looks like you went right through them without bumping into them. It is impossible if I do not realized you had a third dimension.

This is the same with my absolute truth examples. The truth of 1 + 1 within our math concepts maintains. However, in decimal the result is 2, and in binary the result is 10. But both are still absolutely right. Well, it is like going to that third dimension, which in this case in context of numeric system. Say I do 5 + 5. In decimal it is 5 + 5 = 10. In binary it is 101 + 101 = 1010. Both is perfectly true at the same time.

So take my two examples. Going against God knowingly, willingly, deliberately is a mortal sin. This is true in all examples. Say God says, you must steal StillWondering’s vitamins. Now if you know God told you, and you know what God means, and you refuse because you hate to do anything God says. You are in big big big trouble. Even though you think it is wrong to steal my vitamins. End of story. Give any example like this, where you replace a task “steal” with anything else that God wants you as a human to do that is logically consistent (i.e.not null value commands such as God instructing you to not listen to this sentence I am telling you because by listening you cannot refuse to do the task automatically).

The other example was about the taking of a life unjustly, without proportionate cause, reason, and with the intend to harm. We can word it any which way as long as it has the meaning. It is because this statement like other moral truths, lie outside of our human language understanding and so it can have multiple projections onto our language reality. Now if I kill you because you ate my dog, that is unjustly (also not proportionate as well). If I kill you because I hate you, that is “with intent to harm”. If I kill you in a friendly manner and because you asked me, but there is no cause for me to kill you besides request, I have killed you without proportionate cause. All are morally wrong. Simple as that. The context matters because this moral truth exists beyond the limited realm of our reality and can manifest in different ways.

If you say only “kill” or “take life” or “kill with intent to harm”, these are all not by itself comprehensive of the reality of the moral wrong expressed. You can kill Tom with the intent harm his cancer. Oh my, you did not mean to kill Tom but fully intended to preform a procedure with harm as a deliberate factor.

Do you understand now?

 

[josie_L]

I have no idea what the gnat and camel thing means but the more I think about it the more your moral absolutism is also “relative”. It seems to me that it’s only absolute to those that think it/follow it, it’s relative to everyone else, lets say anyone, catholic or otherwise, that even disagrees with only 1 point of your moral code that you follow.

My moral code is relative because I don’t answer to god, you say you answer to god but your moral code hasn’t been absolute throughout history. It’s all relative.

So everything is relative including your statement, so if you please do not impose your opinons on me.

 

[Akheron]

For example. It is always wrong to steal, if you have no need for said object.
It is always justified to steal a loaf of bread to feed you family. (this doesn’t mean we can play Robin Hood) it just means that, after all other options have failed, this is the only one that works! The Paradox is no more!

Well, sorry but no.

If it is sometimes wrong and sometimes justified to steal depending on the context, it doesn’t describe a absolute moral value, i.e. a moral rule that always applies the same way regardless of the context. I was under the impression that you were advocating moral absolutism.

I think everyone else must agree with me to,

You are heading for a bit of disappointment here. Brace yourself.

I’ve noticed how we were missing the “Motive” of the action, that was the problem.
See, it is Absolute.

Motives have nothing to do with the rule in itself. Motives depend on which way the context you are in affects the way in which you choose to apply the rule. A absolute moral rule should always be applied in exactly the same way, regardless of the context, and that implies regardless of the motives.

 

[Akheron]

A couple of quick points if I may.

There is no paradox. We do not need to absolutely protect all life all the time in order to believe the moral absolute that human life is precious/sacred.

---

We need to absolutely protect all life all the time, except when some instance of life threatens your own. In that case, you are still protecting life (your own) but you are not protecting *all *life (you threaten the life of your assaillant). I agree that it is morally justified to defend yourself but you cannot claim to be protecting *all *life when you are protecting yourself by threatening another life.
SHW;5526518:

Christian moral absolutes do not ever change and so we Christians are now being censured and we will be persecuted since public sentiment continues to move towards an atheistic culture.

The Bible says Christians will be persecuted. Should it not rejoice you to see that the Will of God is being fulfilled?

Atheism is also anti-God and His laws and deifies “self” and “pleasure” in the end,

If being atheist is being anti-God then by your definition being atheist is also being anti-Allah and I believe that would provide some common grounds between atheists and Christians, because I assume that you don’t believe in Allah and therefore, by your definition, are anti-Allah.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

Apparantley i’ve noticed a flaw!
But, i’ve also found an answer
It is like this, saying "it is ALWAYS, wrong to steal, is wrong because we don’t know the situation. I’ve noticed we need to be moer specific, that is it.

For example. It is always wrong to steal, if you have no need for said object.
It is always justified to steal a loaf of bread to feed you family. (this doesn’t mean we can play Robin Hood) it just means that, after all other options have failed, this is the only one that works! The Paradox is no more!

Its is always wrong to Murder.
it is always just to fight in a Just War.

Again, if we continued with the “Broader” point of view, ofcourse Moral absoluteness would be bent, because we lacked the Motives!

Saying it is wrong to steal, is to broad, you have to see the persons motives!

I think everyone else must agree with me to, I’ve noticed how we were missing the “Motive” of the action, that was the problem.
See, it is Absolute.

What you are discribing is moral relativism

 

[AnAtheist]

The Idea of Relativism is that all Absolute Morals ARE NOT Absolute.
This in itself is an Absolute Moral. It Contradicts itself then.

No it doesn’t. The statement “there are no absolute morals” is not a moral statement by itself but a statement about morals.

 

[theistgal]

you do you mean by Moral code not being absolute?

It is Wrong to murder an innocent man for no reason. Christian or not?

So do you think murdering an innocent man was perfectly OK till Christianity came along and said it was wrong?

I think you can make a perfectly valid nonreligious case that murdering an innocent man is wrong because most of us like to think of ourselves as innocent, and we don’t want to live in a society where it’s considered OK to murder innocent people, because we might be next.

 

[Angel7]

So do you think murdering an innocent man was perfectly OK till Christianity came along and said it was wrong?

I think you can make a perfectly valid nonreligious case that murdering an innocent man is wrong because most of us like to think of ourselves as innocent, and we don’t want to live in a society where it’s considered OK to murder innocent people, because we might be next.

??? It is wrong to murder a random (innocent) man for no reason. Yes or NO?
Its an obvious answer because, even before Christianity, it was wrong to do such things. Its called Natural law, that G-d wrote in our hearts (whether we heard of Christianity or not) We in herintly know what is right and wrong.

 

[Angel7]

No it doesn’t. The statement “there are no absolute morals” is not a moral statement by itself but a statement about morals.

An Absolute statement about morals.
Moral reletivism states there are NO Absolute Morals AT ALL.
This itself is a Absolute Moral. Contradicting itself.
Yes or no?

 

[Angel7]

What you are discribing is moral relativism

No, listen its like this,

Killing is wrong. think about it. No, not ALL killing is condemable.
Killing in a just war (tragic it is) is justified.
Killing a random man on the street. Is always a sin.

This is Moral Absolute.

Thus unless you become specific it is open to doubt.

 

[Angel7]

Well, sorry but no.

If it is sometimes wrong and sometimes justified to steal depending on the context, it doesn’t describe a absolute moral value, i.e. a moral rule that always applies the same way regardless of the context. I was under the impression that you were advocating moral absolutism.

You are heading for a bit of disappointment here. Brace yourself.

Motives have nothing to do with the rule in itself. Motives depend on which way the context you are in affects the way in which you choose to apply the rule. A absolute moral rule should always be applied in exactly the same way, regardless of the context, and that implies regardless of the motives.

If you do not have the whole Picture (context and all) you can not Judge wether it is Absolute or not.

It is wrong to steal. not necesserily. It is to Broad.
It is wrong for a starving disease man, to take a loaf of bread from a rich mans, table. Not at all. In this case it is justified.
It is wrong for a rich man who has everything, to take from a poor man his only possesion (a small satchel of money, for instance) Yes. The rich man has no need of it, he is stealing from a poor man.

If you broaden it to “No killing, No Stealing”
You take out hte context. Thus you can not make it absolute.
Because certain instances are always justified others are not.