Why are atheists so unhappy?

[RNRobert]

In this case, the Nazi has no right to know my business. Yes, I would kill him in order to save the lives of my “guests” and it would not be a sin. Self defense and the defense of others is moral even if deadly force must be used.

Years ago I read “The Hiding Place” by Corrie Ten Boom. She was a Dutch woman who lived with her sister and father, and who hid Jews in their home during WW2. One day, some Nazis came by looking for Jews, and there were some hiding in a space below the kitchen table. Corrie’s sister felt it was wrong to lie, even to save innocent lifem so when the Nazis asked if they were hiding any Jews, she told them the truth, but they didn’t believe her, and left.

 

[CWBetts]

I have no problem with truth, I LOVE truth, I just don’t accept the Catholic churches “truth”, which by the way is not the end all be all or else everyone would be Catholic.

I’m pretty sure I’m not a god since I don’t have any special powers or anything. I never really “got” this argument even though it’s used against me all the time.

What you and all no-Catholics have a problem with is authority. You do not feel anyone has the right to make moral judgements except for yourself. THe fact is there are such things as cultural universals. This supports the idea that there are absolute rights and wrongs. What is the source for the absolutes? did it “just happen”? Or is there a God who has instilled these in us? I suspect the latter, mostly because I am leery of any belief system based on coincidence.

 

[StillWondering]

I was hoping you would say this… I am now going to demonstrate why your moral absolutes are “absolutely” obtuse.

Say you were alive in the second world war, and you were harbouring 100 jewish children, and a nazi turned up at your door looking for jews. Would you lie to that nazi to save the live of 100 innocent kids? Say he insisted on inspecting your house and found them, would you take one life to save 100 innocent kids?

Its clear in this care there is no black and white that comes with moral absolutes.

If this case, protecting those people provides for a clear an redeeming purpose because the lie, a sin, is committed to prevent a larger sin. You would still need to confess it if it becomes a mortal sin, but you would commit a greater sin by letting them know about the refugees under your care.

Thus, the absolute still maintains.

 

[StillWondering]

If this case, protecting those people provides for a clear an redeeming purpose because the lie, a sin, is committed to prevent a larger sin. You would still need to confess it if it becomes a mortal sin, but you would commit a greater sin by letting them know about the refugees under your care.

Thus, the absolute still maintains.

One person I greatly admire is Pope John XXIII. He was great way before his work as pope. During his time surviving as a Vatican delegate inside turkey, he smuggled countless Jews out of reach of the Nazi’s. He is not stupid and did it within the teachings of the Church. Please do not insult the value of Catholic teachings.

 

[j1akey]

CWBetts:

What you and all no-Catholics have a problem with is authority.

Well, once again people just make assumptions that aren’t true. I have no problems with authority that i recognize as an authority and I don’t recognize the church’s or God’s authority namely because I’m of the thinking that there is no god. You probably don’t recognize Muhammad’s authority over you but that doesn’t mean you have a problem with authority.

All non-Catholics have problems with authority? Even though they believe in a God? Maybe not the Catholic god but does that mean they have problems as well? I don’t get it.

You do not feel anyone has the right to make moral judgements except for yourself.

Wrong again, I may not agree with others’ moral judgments just like you don’t agree with mine but that doesn’t mean I feel no one has the right to make them.

The fact is there are such things as cultural universals. This supports the idea that there are absolute rights and wrongs. What is the source for the absolutes? did it “just happen”? Or is there a God who has instilled these in us? I suspect the latter, mostly because I am leery of any belief system based on coincidence.

Well, I don’t think it’s coincidence either that there are certain universally bad things like killing, stealing, cheating, lying, etc. However it’s probably not that God instilled these moral beliefs on us but that people even before we there was a large population figured out that these things harmed their society.

If I live with a tribe in a cave and someone else from another tribe came and stole food from me I’d figure out pretty quick that I didn’t like what he just did. If I killed someone in my tribe that did half the hunting the for everyone else then killing him would be a bad thing since how people couldn’t eat. Perhaps someone else in the tribe would want to kill me in revenge which is also a bad thing. It doesn’t take a god to figure out that these sorts of things are bad for a community and by association a society.

Now that I think about it this is probably there’s a few atheists lurking on these boards. If this is what people are taught about non-believers then I can see people are here trying to defend themselves against the general catholic community. We’re blamed for all sorts of things from the holocaust to communism to the fall of civilization as a group and when you get right down to it, we’re really not a group of anything. We’re just a bunch of people who have been given a label and blamed for everything that ails humanity. An atheist is no better or worse than anyone else but damn.

 

[Akheron]

Thus according to your Idea, that would mean we should just let Hitler take over the World.
A just war is a War, where the War is less evil then the Enemy we are fighting. in the case of WWII an Evil German Empire, Murdering innocent people by the thousands. It would be JUST to intervene. A just war is justifiable if the evil of violence is LESS evil than that of the enemy.
(hard concept but you get the idea)
A lie to protect a jewish child from a Nazi would be justifiable. You must surely agree to BOTH analagies correct? there is no flaw in it.

Yes, I agree with you, as you have just stated that sometimes evil is justifiable, thus there is no such thing as a moral absolute.

 

[SHW]

“In philosophy moral relativism is the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect objective and/or universal moral truths, but instead make claims relative to social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances” then yes and I’m proud to say I’m a moral relativist then. I know the church demonizes it but I really don’t see a problem as much as people on this message board use it as an indirect insult to insinuate atheist have no morals or the wrong morals.

Questions for moral relativists:

So, then, euthanizing unruly children, or the disabled, or the elderly is okay as long as it is the “cultural” thing to do or if “personal circumstance” (I don’t want to deal with it) warrants it?

Abortion is okay because children use up too many personal resources which should be used for personal entertainment instead, since this is how the prevailing culture believes?

You have two kidneys, I need one, so you should be forced to give me one of yours since we are a perfect match, because this is the new law that just passed in the prevailing culture that we live in?

**“Cultural” or “personal circumstance” moral relativism: Soon we can all be culturally classified as undesirable and be declared necessarily expendable; for the greater good, of course.

Moral absolutes: All human life is precious and must be protected from conception to natural death.**

I prefer moral absolutes.

As far as rejecting God goes, I can’t conciously reject something I don’t think is real in the first place.

**Since God alone knows everything in our hearts and minds, He judges each of us “rightly,” as to whether we are “consciously” rejecting Him or not. ** (Luke 16:15, Romans 2:14-16 Revelation 2:23)

As far as I’m concerned my purpose is to live my life to the best of my ability, have some fun, and be happy. So far it’s working out pretty good. If you’re looking for a bigger answer than that then I’m afraid I don’t have one and that’s OK with me.

I was speaking of CAF, not life on earth. But, thank you for answering anyway. A very limited “future” indeed for you, if you are correct.

Immorality (serving self at others’ expense) eventually enters into atheist belief because there are no eternal consequences. Atheists today are still constrained by Christian principles. As these moral absolutes continue to erode as Christianity wanes in a country’s government, the Christian morals that you claim for yourself now, will no longer exist in legislation. Unless, of course, God intervenes and sends a chastisement like He did in the past.

I think that I’ve said all that is necessary on this thread in order to get my point of view across. So, I wish you well, and I bid you adieu. Some on this thread think my answers are “stupid” anyway, so I’m sure my absence will be no great loss to them.

If you post a response to this, other Catholics on CAF are likely to answer you. Probably much better than I can. Adios!

 

[SHW]

Yes, I agree with you, as you have just stated that sometimes evil is justifiable, thus there is no such thing as a moral absolute.

Life is precious and must be protected from harm, from conception to natural death. This is a moral absolute.

 

[NoWings]

Immorality (serving self at others’ expense) eventually enters into atheist belief because there are no eternal consequences.

Ah, yes…

There’s nothing like waking up in the morning, having a good stretch, and being overcome with joy as my feet hit the floor in the realization that I’m going to be out doing all sorts of naughtiness since I don’t have any rules to follow.

wiggles fingers



How would you like it if atheists lumped all of you folks who are lucky enough to have a god in your lives in with statements like: “Self-loathing and seething envy eventually enter into Catholic belief because they have to restrict themselves out of fear of Hell while they watch others receive worldly pleasures, secretly wondering if they could, too because they might be wrong.”

 

[Akheron]

Life is precious and must be protected from harm, from conception to natural death. This is a moral absolute.

Life is precious and must be protected from harm except, as we have seen, when someone’s existence threatens your own or the existence of someone else. Therefore the protection of life is not a moral absolute.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

If this case, protecting those people provides for a clear an redeeming purpose because the lie, a sin, is committed to prevent a larger sin. You would still need to confess it if it becomes a mortal sin, but you would commit a greater sin by letting them know about the refugees under your care.

Thus, the absolute still maintains.

If it is ok under certian circumstances then it is NOT absolute. :banghead:

 

[CWBetts]

If it is ok under certian circumstances then it is NOT absolute. :banghead:

The absolute holds. It is wrong to l commit any sin under any circumstances unless the comission of said sin would prevent a greater sin. It really is not that hard of a concept to grasp sheesh

 

[Charles_Darwin]

I prefer moral absolutes.

I gather you don’t even know what absolute means. So define “moral absolute” then give me an example of one, with a source.

 

[SHW]

Life is precious and must be protected from harm except, as we have seen, when someone’s existence threatens your own or the existence of someone else. Therefore the protection of life is not a moral absolute.

Human life is precious. This is the moral absolute. The protection of innocent human life is morally necessary because of this moral absolute. Source: God; we are made in His image and likeness. (Genesis 1:26)

I am spending too much time on this thread and not accomplishing anything. Why don’t you “Google” for answers to your questions since you do not like our “Catholic Answers” or definitions?

 

[CWBetts]

Well, once again people just make assumptions that aren’t true. I have no problems with authority that i recognize as an authority and I don’t recognize the church’s or God’s authority namely because I’m of the thinking that there is no god. You probably don’t recognize Muhammad’s authority over you but that doesn’t mean you have a problem with authority.

All non-Catholics have problems with authority? Even though they believe in a God? Maybe not the Catholic god but does that mean they have problems as well? I don’t get it.

Wrong again, I may not agree with others’ moral judgments just like you don’t agree with mine but that doesn’t mean I feel no one has the right to make them.

Well, I don’t think it’s coincidence either that there are certain universally bad things like killing, stealing, cheating, lying, etc. However it’s probably not that God instilled these moral beliefs on us but that people even before we there was a large population figured out that these things harmed their society.

If I live with a tribe in a cave and someone else from another tribe came and stole food from me I’d figure out pretty quick that I didn’t like what he just did. If I killed someone in my tribe that did half the hunting the for everyone else then killing him would be a bad thing since how people couldn’t eat. Perhaps someone else in the tribe would want to kill me in revenge which is also a bad thing. It doesn’t take a god to figure out that these sorts of things are bad for a community and by association a society.

Now that I think about it this is probably there’s a few atheists lurking on these boards. If this is what people are taught about non-believers then I can see people are here trying to defend themselves against the general catholic community. We’re blamed for all sorts of things from the holocaust to communism to the fall of civilization as a group and when you get right down to it, we’re really not a group of anything. We’re just a bunch of people who have been given a label and blamed for everything that ails humanity. An atheist is no better or worse than anyone else but damn.

You very much DO have a problem with authority! You reject the Church’s stance on extra-marital sex (hypothetically). Why? because you would rather ignore moral living for the sake of your own pleasure. The atheist position is ultimately an idolatrous system of self-worship. All is done for self. Can an atheist be a “good person”? That depends on your measuring stick. They can be civil, yes. THe vast majority of atheists are not rapists or murderers. So yes, an atheist can be a good person compared to John Dillenger. But we must also realize that John Dillenger is a very poor reference point for morality. So lets aim higher. Can an atheist be as “good” a person as Omar Bradley? I don’t see why not. He was well liked by his men, a natural leader, and a descent human being. But agin, General Bradley had his failings as well, so lets aim higher still. Lets use the CHristian measure of a good person: Jesus Christ. Can an atheist be as good a man as Jesus? Nope. Not by a longshot. Christians, Catholic and Protestant alike fall short every single day. It is impossible to even come remotely close to the righteousness of Jesus. In submitting to Him, we admit we cannot be good without Him. Atheists, in their self-righteous arrogance say that they are good without Him. I have seen faith in CHrist completely turn lives around for the better, my own included. Can a single example be given of a believer who rejected his faith and embraced atheism that resulted in a righeous life? Even one? I am thinking not.

 

[josie_L]

I gather you don’t even know what absolute means. So define “moral absolute” then give me an example of one, with a source.

Do you know deny freedom is a virtue, would any sane person deny freedom is a virtue, therefore is this not a moral absolute? No society could function without freedom, or work under the assumption that freedom was bad. Those who practiced slavery were in actuality practicing moral relativism because what they would not wish upon themselves they did to others.

 

[josie_L]

Ah, yes…

There’s nothing like waking up in the morning, having a good stretch, and being overcome with joy as my feet hit the floor in the realization that I’m going to be out doing all sorts of naughtiness since I don’t have any rules to follow.

wiggles fingers



How would you like it if atheists lumped all of you folks who are lucky enough to have a god in your lives in with statements like: “Self-loathing and seething envy eventually enter into Catholic belief because they have to restrict themselves out of fear of Hell while they watch others receive worldly pleasures, secretly wondering if they could, too because they might be wrong.”

No wings have you been praying?

 

[Akheron]

Human life is precious. This is the moral absolute. The protection of innocent human life is morally necessary because of this moral absolute. Source: God; we are made in His image and likeness. (Genesis 1:26)

I am spending too much time on this thread and not accomplishing anything. Why don’t you “Google” for answers to your questions since you do not like our “Catholic Answers” or definitions?

Who said I didn’t like your answers? I neither like nor dislike them, I read them and try to make sense of them.

You stated earlier:

[In this case, the Nazi has no right to know my business. Yes, I would kill him in order to save the lives of my “guests” and it would not be a sin. Self defense and the defense of others is moral even if deadly force must be used.

and

Life is precious and must be protected from harm, from conception to natural death. This is a moral absolute.

I can therefore assume that you agree that not all life is to be protected from harm from conception to death. Presumably the aforementioned Nazi finds himself in a stage of his life somewhere between his conception and his natural death which qualifies him for your protection but his vicious intentions towards innocents would nevertheless compel you to act against him and kill him if need be. Thus the protection of life is not a moral absolute.

You now restate your position by saying that the protection of innocent human life is the moral absolute. You cite Genesis 1:26 in support of this position but I don’t see anything about innocence in this verse. Presumably, the Nazi of our example is also made in the image of God and thus deserves to be protected according to your statement.

Do you mean that self-defense and the defense of others is moral and can justify taking a life, but never an innocent life? What if one innocent life was threatening several innocent lives? Would this not justify your taking one innocent life in order to save several others?
[/quote]

 

[j1akey]

CWBetts:

You very much DO have a problem with authority! You reject the Church’s stance on extra-marital sex (hypothetically). Why? because you would rather ignore moral living for the sake of your own pleasure.

How exactly do I have a problem with authority because I don’t believe what you do? I’ve really never understood this. For me to ignore “moral” living I have to first think something is immoral in the first place. Sex isn’t moral or immoral, it just is, it’s a natural function of the human body and I enjoy it. Extra-marital sex is only immoral to you because the bible tells you it is. I wouldn’t cheat on my girlfriend or wife if I was married because I think that is immoral and would cause them emotional harm but sex outside of marriage isn’t a bad thing as far as I’m concerned. I think alot of what is in the bible is true but at the end of the day they’re just stories to me, nothing more.

The atheist position is ultimately an idolatrous system of self-worship. All is done for self.

I’ve worked in soup kitchens, I’ve helped those less fortunate than me, I’ve donated my time to charity. Did I get anything out of this? Nope, but no matter what I say I did it all for myself because I’m obviously incapable of caring for others besides myself, right?

Can an atheist be a “good person”? That depends on your measuring stick. They can be civil, yes. THe vast majority of atheists are not rapists or murderers. So yes, an atheist can be a good person compared to John Dillenger. But we must also realize that John Dillenger is a very poor reference point for morality. So lets aim higher. Can an atheist be as “good” a person as Omar Bradley? I don’t see why not. He was well liked by his men, a natural leader, and a descent human being. But agin, General Bradley had his failings as well, so lets aim higher still. Lets use the CHristian measure of a good person: Jesus Christ. Can an atheist be as good a man as Jesus? Nope. Not by a longshot. Christians, Catholic and Protestant alike fall short every single day. It is impossible to even come remotely close to the righteousness of Jesus. In submitting to Him, we admit we cannot be good without Him. Atheists, in their self-righteous arrogance say that they are good without Him. I have seen faith in CHrist completely turn lives around for the better, my own included. Can a single example be given of a believer who rejected his faith and embraced atheism that resulted in a righeous life? Even one? I am thinking not.

Sorry but no one on this planet can live a righteous life given all that. No one can measure up against how JC is portrayed. Everyone here is a “sinner” in one way or another.

Atheists, in their self-righteous arrogance say that they are good without Him.

And catholics in THEIR self-righeous arrogance say you cannot be good without Him. I don’t go around talking down to people like you do, calling them sinners and evil-doers when they’ve done nothing wrong, give me a break here. Looking down on people who have different beliefs and telling them what they are and are not when you don’t really know who they are is righteous just because of their beliefs? Sounds like hate and fear to me. If that’s the case then you can have it because I don’t want it.

 

[CWBetts]

How exactly do I have a problem with authority because I don’t believe what you do? I’ve really never understood this. For me to ignore “moral” living I have to first think something is immoral in the first place. Sex isn’t moral or immoral, it just is, it’s a natural function of the human body and I enjoy it. Extra-marital sex is only immoral to you because the bible tells you it is. I wouldn’t cheat on my girlfriend or wife if I was married because I think that is immoral and would cause them emotional harm but sex outside of marriage isn’t a bad thing as far as I’m concerned. I think alot of what is in the bible is true but at the end of the day they’re just stories to me, nothing more.

I’ve worked in soup kitchens, I’ve helped those less fortunate than me, I’ve donated my time to charity. Did I get anything out of this? Nope, but no matter what I say I did it all for myself because I’m obviously incapable of caring for others besides myself, right?

Sorry but no one on this planet can live a righteous life given all that. No one can measure up against how JC is portrayed. Everyone here is a “sinner” in one way or another.

And catholics in THEIR self-righeous arrogance say you cannot be good without Him. I don’t go around talking down to people like you do, calling them sinners and evil-doers when they’ve done nothing wrong, give me a break here. Looking down on people who have different beliefs and telling them what they are and are not when you don’t really know who they are is righteous just because of their beliefs? Sounds like hate and fear to me. If that’s the case then you can have it because I don’t want it.

I am talking down to no one. It is the atheists who are on a mission to destroy Christianity. AS a CAtholic, I pray for the conversion of atheists. And as for your charity work. It was for self gratification on some level. It made you feel good about yourself.