Why are atheists so unhappy?

[josie_L]

I had a feeling you would say something like this.
There is no need for a maximum (a moral ideal in this case) to make progress.
And you don’t need an absolute ruler to measure differencies.

Oh, and if I already knew what moral (or any other) progress humankind will make in the future, I’d change my profession. Like becoming a prophet.

The word “progress” alludes to the fact that there is a standard of good by which you are measuring these morals for how else could you say morals have progressed if you are not comparing them in some way to something you consider an ideal. Furthermore it is nonsense to say that “there is need for a maximum to make progress” because progression means you are moving towards something better, and by all intents and purposes morals will continue to progress. Maybe it’s best that I let Peter Kreeft speak:

Isa: Ah, but that very notion - of moral progress - presupposes moral absolutism.

Libby: No way.

Isa: Oh yes. You can make progress only if there’s an objective standard toward which you’re progressing. “Progress” doesn’t mean just “change”, but change for the better. The very idea of progress presupposes a real “better” and a real “good”. In fact, an unchanging one.

Libby: What? How do you get that?

Isa: Imagine you’re runner. How could you make progress toward a moving line? One that ran away from you as fast as you ran toward it?

 

[Angel7]

Exactly, this is the same with all moral absolutes. That is why they are nonsense.

Yes but your theory is more “Nonsense”
It even Contradicts itself.
You say it is absolutely true that there are no Absolute truths.
That is an Absolute truth.

 

[j1akey]

Yeah but the church fought the war, prayed to make women fight and set up the unions .

Oh right, silly me.

 

[josie_L]

Haha it only took them 1950 years and it was the CHRISTIANS that practiced that lot. Read yours. It was society that dragged the church, kicking and screaming, out the of dark ages. Why did it take your church 1950 years to realise these things were immoral, if morals are absolutes?

Do you get your sense of history from hate cites or something?

The Church is not living in a vacuum she along with everyone else had to subsist within a society that was always in transition. The Church may have made (physical) errors (of which I’m sure you should not be judging her for since you believe there are no moral absolutes) but never with regard to truth on morals (and faith). These ideals of which she preached she sometimes failed to live up to, but the truth of matter is that these ideals were there for people to pursue (not everyone pursued it as not everyone was practicing their faith as they should). These ideals were absolutes they always existed but societies took time to discover them. This is not to say that the earliest societies were without conscience it just took time for societies to transition because humans were learning. Good and bad always existed together. Furthermore, the term “dark ages” is relative as I do not so much see darkness as progress from which the Church was moving society towards (it was the Church that created the university system and as such universities, hospitals, the protection of property rights, the basis for internation law, the promulgation of the sciences, in fact, the Church was the biggest contributor to the sciences and the arts).

p.s. I will gladly post for you the many accomplishments of the Church in her quest to enlighten society.

 

[Angel7]

I will not repeat myself but I stand by my previous statement.

We could also look at this present life and think about how we could be better persons now and here on Earth.

I believe your God is trinitarian, while theirs isn’t. So it doesn’t seem that They are quite the same. But I’ll leave that for you and them to discuss.

**If only Christians are “serving God” and all the rest, atheists as well as believers of other religions (including presumably some of the 30,000+ Christian denominations that you would deem un-Christian and in error, but let’s set that aside) are “serving Satan”, it would seem that the odds are not in favour of God, as two thirds of the world are not worshiping Him. **

However another Christian on another thread has told me that the Church is doing quite fine and that God’s project is coming along quite fine too. Maybe you would disagree with that person. But I’ll leave that for you and your fellow Christians to discuss.

I could also tell you that atheists actually are merely human beings just like you. But I suspect you wouldn’t listen, so I’ll leave you to your prejudices.

This Fulfills what Jesus said.
The Road to The Kingdom of G-d, is Narrow. But the Road To Hell, is wide and Broad.
and a verse from the Bible concerning Rich people (Greedy people is more appropriate)
“It is easier for a Camel to enter into the Eye of a Needle, then it is for a Rich man to enter into heaven.”

Ofcourse Rich people CAN enter heaven, its just difficult for them, because they have so many worldly Possessions.

 

[CWBetts]

Haha it only took them 1950 years and it was the CHRISTIANS that practiced that lot. Read yours. It was society that dragged the church, kicking and screaming, out the of dark ages. Why did it take your church 1950 years to realise these things were immoral, if morals are absolutes?

In the 16th century, anyone who participated in the slave trade risked excommunication. WHo was at the forefront of the various civil rights movements? The Church. The Church has always supported the rights of workers to unionize, and has always been opposed to child labor. You have actually no knowldege of history my friend

 

[josie_L]

Oh right, silly me.

And who fought in that war? Was it mostly Atheists or Christians? I’ll give you the answer it was mostly Christians using their Christian ideals of equality and love for their neighbor (remember Christianity did not invent slavery it existed long before it ever came along). And where do you think Lincoln got his ideals (I’ll give you a hint he was Christian)? Also the Catholic Church worked hard in eradicating slavery you only need to read history to know this. Furthermore, any and all moral progressive movements needed the backing of Christians (has I hardly think there were many atheists around). These Christians did not suddenly up and realize freedom, equality and justice were moral absolutes for these were ideals preached by Jesus (God incarnate). Those who chose not to respond in bringing about good were the moral relativists (be it Christian or otherwise), as the one thing the relativist is absolutely sure of is that there are no absolutes. The reality is you can’t have a well-functioning society based (in practice) on moral relativism.

 

[AnAtheist]

The word “progress” alludes to the fact that there is a standard of good by which you are measuring these morals for how else could you say morals have progressed if you are not comparing them in some way to something you consider an ideal. Furthermore it is nonsense to say that “there is need for a maximum to make progress” because progression means you are moving towards something better, and by all intents and purposes morals will continue to progress.

I said no maximum is needed, and that’s not nonsense that’s basic mathematics.

 

[Leela]

The word “progress” alludes to the fact that there is a standard of good by which you are measuring these morals for how else could you say morals have progressed if you are not comparing them in some way to something you consider an ideal. Furthermore it is nonsense to say that “there is need for a maximum to make progress” because progression means you are moving towards something better, and by all intents and purposes morals will continue to progress. Maybe it’s best that I let Peter Kreeft speak:

Isa: Ah, but that very notion - of moral progress - presupposes moral absolutism.

Libby: No way.

Isa: Oh yes. You can make progress only if there’s an objective standard toward which you’re progressing. “Progress” doesn’t mean just “change”, but change for the better. The very idea of progress presupposes a real “better” and a real “good”. In fact, an unchanging one.

Libby: What? How do you get that?

Isa: Imagine you’re runner. How could you make progress toward a moving line? One that ran away from you as fast as you ran toward it?

There are lots of ways of talking about morality without needing to reference a specific moral standard. For example we could talk about increasing human happiness as what we mean by moral progress without having to have in mind the absolute greatest possible happiness. We also talk about reducing cruelty or suffering, or we could talk about our concerns for others and how we can progress morally by expanding our circle of concern to see others as also human. In such ways it is easy to note progress without defining a “finish line.” In fact, pragmatists like myself have a problem with putting such a boundary as a “finish line” on human capacity for moral progress. We don’t see any practical limits to what human can do to create a better future or even see humanity as having a fixed Nature but rather as a promising ongoing project.

Best,
Leela

 

[josie_L]

I said no maximum is needed, and that’s not nonsense that’s basic mathematics.

But we’re not talking about mathemathics. We are discussing moral progression (in relation to your position as a moral relativism) and the only way you can make sense of a word like “progress” is if you are comparing it to something better, this presupposes an absolute. You cannot be progressing (towards something) that is constantly running away from you. Moral progression is therefore a figment of our imagination.

 

[Angel7]

But we’re not talking about mathemathics. We are discussing moral progression (in relation to your position as a moral relativism) and the only way you can make sense of a word like “progress” is if you are comparing it to something better, this presupposes an absolute. You cannot be progressing (towards something) that is constantly running away from you. Moral progression is therefore a figment of our imagination.

Yes.

And also Mathematics are irrevelent.
You can have INFINTY in math.
But in the Physical realm there is nothing considered Infinite.
In Math Numbers go FOREVER.
Math however, does not affect the physical realm as of itself.

 

[josie_L]

There are lots of ways of talking about morality without needing to reference a specific moral standard. For example we could talk about increasing human happiness as what we mean by moral progress without having to have in mind the absolute greatest possible happiness. We also talk about reducing cruelty or suffering, or we could talk about our concerns for others and how we can progress morally by expanding our circle of concern to see others as also human. In such ways it is easy to note progress without defining a “finish line.” In fact, pragmatists like myself have a problem with putting such a boundary as a “finish line” on human capacity for moral progress. We don’t see any practical limits to what human can do to create a better future or even see humanity as having a fixed Nature but rather as a promising ongoing project.

Best,
Leela

The fact that you see cruelty as morally wrong signifies you see cruelty has being absolutely wrong (no society can function if cruelty were perceived as morally right). Relativists believe there are no absolutes, therefore even the notion of morality is a hoax, for morality would cease to be morality if it was subjective only. Progress can only make sense if there is an objective standard for good. God bless.

 

[AnAtheist]

But we’re not talking about mathemathics. We are discussing moral progression (in relation to your position as a moral relativism) and the only way you can make sense of a word like “progress” is if you are comparing it to something better, this presupposes an absolute. You cannot be progressing (towards something) that is constantly running away from you. Moral progression is therefore a figment of our imagination.

It seems you are making a very old mistake there that amuses philosophers for 2500 years now. See Zeno’s paradoxes

But anyway, do YOU think there is moral progression (or degression) ?

 

[Leela]

The fact that you see cruelty as morally wrong signifies you see cruelty has being absolutely wrong (no society can function if cruelty were perceived as morally right). Relativists believe there are no absolutes, therefore even the notion of you speaking of morality is a hoax, for morality would cease to be morality if it was subjective only. Progress can only make sense if there is an objective standard for good. God bless.

It’s a hoax that I am speaking about morality? Nice. Could it be that we just have different ideas about morality?

I see objective as amounting to “things that are easier to get agreement about” and subjective as “things that are hard to get agreement about.” It is easy to get agreement about much of morality but still hard to get such agreement on other things.

I can’t see what is gained by saying that cruelty is *absolutely *wrong as opposed to just saying that cruelty is wrong. So I can’t see the need for absolutes. At any rate, you’ve gotten off point. You were arguing along with Kreeft that we need a standard to compare to in talking about progress whereas I demonstrated that we don’t need a standard. We don’t need to know what absolute happiness is to know that we are happier today than we were yesterday.

Best,
Leela

 

[josie_L]

It’s a hoax that I am speaking about morality? Nice. Could it be that we just have different ideas about morality?

I see objective as amounting to “things that are easier to get agreement about” and subjective as “things that are hard to get agreement about.” It is easy to get agreement about much of morality but still hard to get such agreement on other things.

I can’t see what is gained by saying that cruelty is *absolutely *wrong as opposed to just saying that cruelty is wrong. So I can’t see the need for absolutes. At any rate, you’ve gotten off point. You were arguing along with Kreeft that we need a standard to compare to in talking about progress whereas I demonstrated that we don’t need a standard. We don’t need to know what absolute happiness is to know that we are happier today than we were yesterday.

Best,
Leela

Kreeft is arguing for the existence of moral absolutes as am I (moral absolutes have always existed but the progression/degression of those moral absolutes within society change) . Moral progress implies there is some moral standard for good that is objective, for example, when we are making comparisons with other societies (past or present) and found them wanting/lacking in morals (or in applying those morals) we can only do so if we have some real sense of what good is, otherwise such comparisons are subjective and mere opinion (there is no objective truth involved). There must be moral absolutes/ standards if society is progressing morally. My question to you is this: are there morals for which all (sane) people can agree to?

p.s. Cruelty is wrong which means it cannot be right which makes it is a moral absolute.

Kreeft is not arguing for absolute happiness (although God is the absolute of everything) but that happiness is an absolute.

 

[Angel7]

It’s a hoax that I am speaking about morality? Nice. Could it be that we just have different ideas about morality?

I see objective as amounting to “things that are easier to get agreement about” and subjective as “things that are hard to get agreement about.” It is easy to get agreement about much of morality but still hard to get such agreement on other things.

I can’t see what is gained by saying that cruelty is *absolutely *wrong as opposed to just saying that cruelty is wrong. So I can’t see the need for absolutes. At any rate, you’ve gotten off point. You were arguing along with Kreeft that we need a standard to compare to in talking about progress whereas I demonstrated that we don’t need a standard. We don’t need to know what absolute happiness is to know that we are happier today than we were yesterday.

Best,
Leela

So in your words, your okay with Mediocracy when it comes to Morality. You can let soem evil slide here and there, right?

 

[SimonArizona]

for example, when we are making comparisons with other societies (past or present) and found them wanting/lacking in morals (or in applying those morals) we can only do so if we have some real sense of what good is,

No. We observe that they are lacking or exceeding our own scale of morality.

There must be moral absolutes/ standards if society is progressing morally. My question to you is this: are there morals for which all (sane) people can agree to?

There is one which cries fraud when defrauded. That inner protest that everyone has that says “unfair!” But unfair based on whose law? Who says its unfair? its mysterious and hidden.

p.s. Cruelty is wrong which means it cannot be right which makes it is a moral absolute.

Some men argue that cruelty is right. Cruelty towards murderous men for example.

 

[josie_L]

It seems you are making a very old mistake there that amuses philosophers for 2500 years now. See Zeno’s paradoxes

But anyway, do YOU think there is moral progression (or degression) ?

I believe we have progressed on some social issues but that we have degressed in others (I speak of the present). If you’re asking if there has been consistent moral progress since the beginning of time (or even in the last 500 years), I would have to say no. The twentieth century was probably the most immoral era in human history and this after the age of “enlightenment”. I think we fluctuate in respect to our morality (especially since the enlightenment, as the proponents of moral relativism are gaining ground).

prog·ress (prgrs, -rs, prgrs)n.

1. Movement, as toward a goal; advance.
2. Development or growth: students who show progress.
3. Steady improvement, as of a society or civilization: a believer in human progress. See Synonyms at development.

 

[SHW]

We could also look at this present life and think about how we could be better persons now and here on Earth.

FYI: I linked all Scripture quotations to online Bible.

Rather hard to do while being hunted down to be murdered (which was the persecution situation that I was referring to). I am sorry that I did not make myself more clear.

I doubt that those on the rampage against Christians would be thinking at all about becoming “better” persons here on earth. However, Christians who are continually doing their best to serve God are always trying to become more Christlike (especially while being persecuted, since they are then imitating Christ’s own sufferings for us, in pursuit of their own Christlike perfection which is their response to God’s graces).

I believe your God is trinitarian, while theirs isn’t. So it doesn’t seem that They are quite the same. But I’ll leave that for you and them to discuss.

Like I said, the Muslim understanding of their God of Abraham is not the same as ours. The Jews do not believe in the Trinity either, yet their God is also the God of Abraham as is ours. We all worship the same God, whether they fully understand Him as Catholics do, or not. We Catholics also worship the Son and the Holy Spirit, the other two Divine Persons of the Blessed Trinity besides the Father.

If only Christians are “serving God” and all the rest, atheists as well as believers of other religions (including presumably some of the 30,000+ Christian denominations that you would deem un-Christian and in error, but let’s set that aside) are “serving Satan”, it would seem that the odds are not in favour of God, as two thirds of the world are not worshiping Him.

Non-Catholic Christians serve the same God as Catholics serve. They, however, do not have the “fullness” of truth that has been revealed only to Christ’s Catholic Church (hierarchy), or else they would also be Catholics. (John 16:13, Galatians 1:9)

Many Christians are “Christians in name only” (CINOs) because they are not obeying God’s commandments and producing good fruits as their reasonable service to God. (Romans 12:1, 2 Thessalonians 3:6, 2 Timothy 2:19, 1 John 2:4) These so-called Christians will not enter eternal life when they die unless they repent before death.

However another Christian on another thread has told me that the Church is doing quite fine and that God’s project is coming along quite fine too. Maybe you would disagree with that person. But I’ll leave that for you and your fellow Christians to discuss.

All that is happening is happening because of God’s permissive will. The “gate” to eternal life is “narrow and few find it.” (Matthew 7:12-14) More people will go to hell than to heaven. This is still in accordance with God’s Plan of Salvation. He knew before He created the world, that more people would choose to not know Him and/or to not obey Him. He still created Man, though, so that those who do choose to know Him and obey Him (to love Him) to the best of their ability will be able to live forever in heaven with Him after the Judgment. (James 1:12)

I could also tell you that atheists actually are merely human beings just like you. But I suspect you wouldn’t listen, so I’ll leave you to your prejudices.

You are made in the image and likeness of God, just as Christians are, whether you realize it or not.

I can state that true atheists (those persons who “knowingly” reject God) will go to hell if they die in their “unbelief.” However, I cannot judge peoples’ hearts, that is God’s business alone, so I do not know if a particular person will go to hell or not. Invincible ignorance is also not condemnable. (2 Thessalonians 1:8)

 

[josie_L]

No. We observe that they are lacking or exceeding our own scale of morality.

But it doesn’t change the fact that those who are comparing do so with the understanding that they are morally “superior”, i.e, that their standard of good is better than anothers, and such a thing is impossible for a moral relativist to do, as they believe in no moral absolutes. How then can such comparisons be valid (it is mere opinion rather than objective truth)?

There is one which cries fraud when defrauded. That inner protest that everyone has that says “unfair!” But unfair based on whose law? Who says its unfair? its mysterious and hidden.

Exactly.

Some men argue that cruelty is right. Cruelty towards murderous men for example.

But the question is, are they correct?