Why are atheists so unhappy?

[josie_L]

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.

You are wrong in stating this, and here is why (I will post a conversation taken from a book entitled: A Refutation of Moral Relativism);

Libby: So absolutes are unchangeable.

Isa: Yes, and universal, and objective. Those are the three characteristics that distinguish an absolute. It is not relative to time, so it doesn’t change. And it’s not relative to place or nation or class or culture or race or gender or any group - it’s universal. Third, it’s not relative to opinion or thought or belief or desire or feeling or any subjective consciousness. It’s objectively real, objectively true, whether I or you or anyone else knows it, or believes it, or likes it, or cares about it, or obeys it.

Libby: So personal opinions and beliefs and feelings and motivations and intentions - they don’t change morality?

Isa: No. . . .

Libby: So intentions aren’t important, ony the rules?

Isa: No, that’s not right. Some moral rules are about intentions. Others are about external deeds. For instance, “don’t be greedy” is about intentions, and “don’t steal” is about deeds. But both are absolute. Greed and theft are both wrong - always wrong, for everyone. No exceptions.

Libby: So a good intention doesn’t make a deed good?

Isa: It doesn’t make a bad deed good.

Libby: So love isn’t enough? A sincere, loving intention isn’t enough? Is that what you’re saying?

Isa: That’s what I’m saying. If I kill you because I’m sincerely trying to help the poor by killing the rich, that’s still a bad deed.

Libby: So only deeds count, not intentions?

Isa: No, both count. You need both good deeds and good intentions. Neither one can substitute for the other. A good deed doesn’t change a bad intention into a good one, so a good intention doesn’t change a bad deed into a good deed either.

Libby: And what about situations? Changing situations don’t change morality either, according to your absolutism?

Isa: No, they change how you should apply the rules, but they don’t change the rules.

Libby: So it’s just as wrong for Jean Valjean in Les Miserables to steal a loaf of bread to feed his starving family as it for Blackbeard the pirate to steal the King’s gold to make himself rich? Is that what you’re saying?

Isa: No, I say Jean Valjean did not steal at all. He had a right to that food. Blackbeard had no right to the gold.

Libby: I see. So the situation doesn’t ever change stealing from wrong to right, but it sometimes changes taking from stealing to not stealing.

Isa: Very well put, Libby.

Libby: Let’s be sure I understand this. You’re a moral absolutist, but you’d say it was morally right for a Dutch family who were hiding Jews from the Nazis to lie to the Nazis when they came to search the house, right? I mean you’d say that wasn’t lying at all, because the Nazis had no right to know. Is that right?

Isa: Yes. The Nazis had no right to know that truth, and the Jews had a right to conceal it, and the Dutch had a right to deceive the Nazis about it - an obligation, even. So it wasn’t wrong. Lying is always wrong, and that wasn’t wrong, so that wasn’t a lie, just as Jean Valjean taking the bread wasn’t theft. So the absolutes remain: never lie, never steal.

 

[j1akey]

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.

Atheists aren’t out to destroy anything, we’re just sick of being told we’re bad people by folks like you. As for my charity work, of course it made me feel good about myself! It’s rediculous to say otherwise. So even if I help others I’m still not a good person because I felt good when I did it? Seriously?

When/If you do charity work do you feel bad about yourself that you’re helping other people? Even if that’s not what you mean, which I’m sure it isn’t, you sure seem to imply it. Do you do it just because you’re a Catholic and it’s your duty or do you feel good that you’re helping someone less fortunate than you?

At this point I don’t think it would matter if I cured cancer and gave it to the world for free anonymously and took no reward for myself. I’d still be labeled as a bad person because I felt good about it.

 

[CWBetts]

Atheists aren’t out to destroy anything, we’re just sick of being told we’re bad people by folks like you. As for my charity work, of course it made me feel good about myself! It’s rediculous to say otherwise. So even if I help others I’m still not a good person because I felt good when I did it? Seriously?

When/If you do charity work do you feel bad about yourself that you’re helping other people? Even if that’s not what you mean, which I’m sure it isn’t, you sure seem to imply it. Do you do it just because you’re a Catholic and it’s your duty or do you feel good that you’re helping someone less fortunate than you?

At this point I don’t think it would matter if I cured cancer and gave it to the world for free anonymously and took no reward for myself. I’d still be labeled as a bad person because I felt good about it.

I never called you a bad person! If you claim you are good because of what you do, it makes you legalistic. ANd of course I do charity work! Comforting the sick, visiting the imprisoned, clothing the naked and feeding the hungry are the Corporeal works of Mercy

 

[Charles_Darwin]

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

If you can break the rule for WHATEVER reason it is NOT AN ABSOLUTE!

 

[Charles_Darwin]

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.

Don’t aviod the question, define “moral absolute” then give me an example of one, with a source. i.e your gods book.

 

[RebeccaJ]

No insult was intended, friend. It’s just that in your first post on this thread, you described yourself as a militant atheist (and I believe in another post you implied you had left the Catholic faith). So when in one post you say you don’t believe in God and consider religious belief detrimental, I get thrown a curve when you tell someone God wants them simply to try to avoid sin, it took me by surprise.
Speaking for myself, it I had rejected a belief in a deity and any form of religion, I would have told someone that sin didn’t exist, that there was no need to feel guilt, etc.

hello RNRobert, for what it’s worth, in conversations I have with my atheist husband, he is understanding of and acknowledges my beliefs. He sometimes floors me with the advice he gives me, insights that are very not atheist, but are a recognition of my beliefs.

 

[SHW]

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.”

Catholics are used to being bashed. Scripture states that we will be persecuted. (Acts 14:21-23, 2 Thessalonians 1:4)

I have never thought, as a Catholic, that I suffer any loss because I miss out on “worldly pleasures” due to my adherence to Catholic beliefs.

I instead believe that if I keep God’s commandments, then I will be the happiest, most joyful person possible for my state in life, and so far in 50-plus years, I have found this belief to be perfectly true, so I do not plan on revising it.

I do not particularly fear hell. I do fear disappointing God who is all good and deserving of all my love and so therefore I desire to please Him rather than myself. In doing this, I admit that I have received joy in return and also the hope that I will spend eternity in heaven with Him.

**You do not know the results of full-blown atheism since the prevailing thinking in the USA is not yet totally corrupted by relativism: **

Abortion, contraception, homosexuals’ right to sodomize, etc. used to be illegal in the USA until the last 75 years. Until then, Judeo-Christian doctrines deemed the practice of these things as immoral and that is why they were illegal, with penalties attached if caught doing these things, since our country’s founders acknowledged God and desired to uphold His laws in its Declaration of Independence, etc.

But, now, do you see how this once strict moral code has since been deemed “outdated” by the moral relativists (bad Christians, especially Catholics) in power? **The moral absolute of “human life is precious” **(because we are made in the image and likeness of God) has now been so completely trampled by godless selfishness that abortion has been made legal in the USA for whatever reason desired and so now it is even “culturally” accepted as “moral” to kill innocent human life in the womb. These “new” laws which are accepted now in the USA would have been met with outrage 100 years ago in the USA and would definitely not have been allowed to be made the “law of the land.”

Even so-called Christians in great numbers are now embracing this new moral code. They will be in for a big surprise come Judgment Day. (Matthew 7:20-24)

 

[j1akey]

CWBetts:

I never called you a bad person!

Ok, I’ll grant you that you never did actually call me a bad person but it sure was implied based on what you’ve said in your earlier posts.

If you claim you are good because of what you do, it makes you legalistic.

Also aren’t we considered good or bad people based on our actions? I do obey the laws of the land so I guess I could be considered legalistic just like everyone else who obeys the laws of their land.

 

[SHW]

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.

His choice is to harm, so he must face the consequences of his actions, which may ultimately result in his death. Life is still precious. This fact does not change.

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.

No, I am not changing my mind about human life being precious. Innocent human life especially needs to be protected, however, since he/she can not defend himself/herself.

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?

Innocent life does not normally threaten other innocent life so this is a moot point. Let’s take the atomic bombs which were dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Was this moral since only hundreds of thousands of Japanese non-combatants either died, were injured, and/or died of radiation poisoning, etc. and these bombings may have saved more American lives than the actual Japanese lives lost? I don’t believe it was any more moral than the jihadist attacks on the World Trade Centers, but this is my personal opinion.

Human life is precious and should be protected. However, if a person tries to deprive me of my life or of those lives under my care, I have the moral right to stop this person and if he loses his life because of it, so be it. **He forfeits his right to life by trying to deprive me of mine. **

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

Ain’t politics wonderful? Some people may think that we should try to kill all leaders of every country who order their troops to war against other countries. This action alone would certainly save millions of noncombatants lives.

 

[josie_L]

Don’t aviod the question, define “moral absolute” then give me an example of one, with a source. i.e your gods book.

I didn’t avoid the question, I just gave you one example. Furthermore what do you mean God’s book I don’t need to use scripture to defend moral absolutes. The evidence is there for you to see only you’re being too stubborn about it. Moral relativism means nothing is moral except that which you define, if that were true we could not have binding laws, we could not judge people’s actions, we could not use words such as good and bad, right and wrong. There are logical ways to know that moral absolutes exist.

 

[josie_L]

if you can break the rule for whatever reason it is not an absolute!

That is not true. Read the post one page back directed to Akheron. It deals with this issue and it defined moral absolutism.

 

[Akheron]

You are wrong in stating this, and here is why (I will post a conversation taken from a book entitled: A Refutation of Moral Relativism);

Thank you Josie, I would rather hear your own thoughts on the matter but anyway.

Libby: So absolutes are unchangeable.

Isa: Yes, and universal, and objective. Those are the three characteristics that distinguish an absolute. It is not relative to time, so it doesn’t change. And it’s not relative to place or nation or class or culture or race or gender or any group - it’s universal. Third, it’s not relative to opinion or thought or belief or desire or feeling or any subjective consciousness. It’s objectively real, objectively true, whether I or you or anyone else knows it, or believes it, or likes it, or cares about it, or obeys it.

I agree to this definition of absolute. It seems to me that some Christians might not.

Libby: So personal opinions and beliefs and feelings and motivations and intentions - they don’t change morality?

Isa: No. . . .

Libby: So intentions aren’t important, ony the rules?

Isa: No, that’s not right. Some moral rules are about intentions. Others are about external deeds. For instance, “don’t be greedy” is about intentions, and “don’t steal” is about deeds. But both are absolute. Greed and theft are both wrong - always wrong, for everyone. No exceptions.

Does it even apply if one doesn’t act upon the “bad” intention? An intention without consequent action is a personal thought and I assume everyone has the right to their personal thoughts.

Libby: So a good intention doesn’t make a deed good?

Isa: It doesn’t make a bad deed good.

Libby: So love isn’t enough? A sincere, loving intention isn’t enough? Is that what you’re saying?

Isa: That’s what I’m saying. If I kill you because I’m sincerely trying to help the poor by killing the rich, that’s still a bad deed.

Isn’t that obvious even without the concept of moral absolutes, without the concept of God? You mean that without the divine command you would consider the killing of a rich person to help a poor person an appropriate course of action?

I would say that if after careful evaluation of the situation you come to the conclusion that there is no other way to help a person in need than to *steal *from a person blessed with abundant resources, that would be a more appropriate action.

To not only steal but kill that person would be a breach of the most basic human judgment, the one that you have to be able to move around the situation at hands in order to evaluate the consequences for yourself and others and select the appropriate response, i.e. the response that would result in the smallest amount of suffering for all the persons involved.

Libby: So only deeds count, not intentions?

Isa: No, both count. You need both good deeds and good intentions. Neither one can substitute for the other. A good deed doesn’t change a bad intention into a good one, so a good intention doesn’t change a bad deed into a good deed either.

How is a bad deed that is justified by a good intention and an appropriate response to the situation still a wrong deed? Or maybe “bad” is not the same as “wrong”?

Libby: And what about situations? Changing situations don’t change morality either, according to your absolutism?

Isa: No, they change how you should apply the rules, but they don’t change the rules.

Libby: So it’s just as wrong for Jean Valjean in Les Miserables to steal a loaf of bread to feed his starving family as it for Blackbeard the pirate to steal the King’s gold to make himself rich? Is that what you’re saying?

Isa: No, I say Jean Valjean did not steal at all. He had a right to that food. Blackbeard had no right to the gold.

Well, my opinion is that Jean Valjean *did *steal: he took something that wasn’t his without asking. In what sense did he have a right to that food? Did not the producer of that loaf of bread need the profit of the sale to feed his own family? The intention of Valjean may have been good but the deed still stands. Remember: “a good intention doesn’t change a bad deed into a good deed”.

Maybe you mean to imply that man sometimes has to right to infringe on the rights and needs of others in order to serve his own needs or the needs of others if their situation is more precarious than this of the ones whose free will they are stepping on? In other words a bad deed sometimes is right, depending on the situation. That’s precisely the opposite of absolute.

Libby: I see. So the situation doesn’t ever change stealing from wrong to right, but it sometimes changes taking from stealing to not stealing.

Isa: Very well put, Libby.

You’ll have to explain to me how a situation can change the nature of an action. It can change the motivation from morally wrong to morally justified but the action remains the same. When you take something that is not yours without the consent of the owner, you are stealing, that’s it.

Libby: Let’s be sure I understand this. You’re a moral absolutist, but you’d say it was morally right for a Dutch family who were hiding Jews from the Nazis to lie to the Nazis when they came to search the house, right? I mean you’d say that wasn’t lying at all, because the Nazis had no right to know. Is that right?

Isa: Yes. The Nazis had no right to know that truth, and the Jews had a right to conceal it, and the Dutch had a right to deceive the Nazis about it - an obligation, even. So it wasn’t wrong. Lying is always wrong, and that wasn’t wrong, so that wasn’t a lie, just as Jean Valjean taking the bread wasn’t theft. So the absolutes remain: never lie, never steal.

I agree that it was morally right to lie to the Nazis in order to save the lifes of the Jews, but lying is always lying. A justifiable lie is a lie, maybe an honorable one but still a lie, an untruth, an statement contrary to the demonstrable facts.

This dialogue seems to seek excuses to transform actions that are *wrong *from a standpoint of *absolute *morality into actions that are *justifiable *from a standpoint of *relative *morality. The definitions of the words “absolute”, “lie” and “steal” get unfortunately lost in the process.

 

[Akheron]

His choice is to harm, so he must face the consequences of his actions, which may ultimately result in his death. Life is still precious. This fact does not change.

I agree with you.

No, I am not changing my mind about human life being precious. Innocent human life especially needs to be protected, however, since he/she can not defend himself/herself.

Innocent doesn’t always mean helpless. I suspect you are thinking about a particular situation and are not talking about absolutes.

Innocent life does not normally threaten other innocent life so this is a moot point.

Normally it doesn’t, no. But such situations can arise, in which case you will have to make a difficult decision and a moral absolute could prevent you from saving lifes.

Let’s take the atomic bombs which were dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Was this moral since only hundreds of thousands of Japanese non-combatants either died, were injured, and/or died of radiation poisoning, etc. and these bombings may have saved more American lives than the actual Japanese lives lost?

Well, that is probably another topic but maybe letting go of the insistance on an unconditional capitulation from the Japanese would have attain the same objective without the thousands of dead.

I don’t believe it was any more moral than the jihadist attacks on the World Trade Centers, but this is my personal opinion.

You’ll have to discuss that point with Jodie because she seems to think that sometimes killing is not killing.

Human life is precious and should be protected. However, if a person tries to deprive me of my life or of those lives under my care, I have the moral right to stop this person and if he loses his life because of it, so be it. **He forfeits his right to life by trying to deprive me of mine. **

I agree with you.

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

Do you wish to be killed if you try to defend yourself or your family by attacking someone else? If your neighbour attacks you without fault of your own, do you still love him? Or do you suspend this love while you defend yourself?

Ain’t politics wonderful? Some people may think that we should try to kill all leaders of every country who order their troops to war against other countries. This action alone would certainly save millions of noncombatants lives.

Some people think it is morally right to kill thousands because they think it is God’s will. The human mind is truly fascinating…

 

[josie_L]

.

This dialogue seems to seek excuses to transform actions that are *wrong *from a standpoint of *absolute *morality into actions that are *justifiable *from a standpoint of *relative *morality. The definitions of the words “absolute”, “lie” and “steal” get unfortunately lost in the process.

We know that lying is wrong and we know that stealing is wrong (show me one society that states lying and stealing are good, i.e., virtues, and if you find one, I’ll show you how morally corrupt it is ) but what was done under those specified situations was not morally wrong therefore it is not lying or stealing, because lying and stealing are morally wrong. This is a philosophical approach.

 

[Akheron]

We know that lying is wrong and we know that stealing is wrong (show me one society that states lying and stealing are good, i.e., virtues, and if you find one, I’ll show you how morally corrupt it is ) but what was done under those specified situations was not morally wrong therefore it is not lying or stealing, because lying and stealing are morally wrong. This is a philosophical approach.

It is not a philosophical approach, it is twisting the meaning of words. Willfully stating an untruth is always lying, taking something that is not yours without permission is always stealing. A morally right motivation may change the moral consequences of an action, but it doesn’t change the action itself.

Why is it that I, who don’t have a God to provide moral guidance, seem to have more inflexible moral values than you? If I was to steal a loaf of bread to prevent myself or someone else from starving, I would still call my action theft, stand for it because it was morally right but nevertheless face the consequences. You seem to seek a way to escape the consequences of your actions by changing the terminology. Don’t you agree that the rightful owner of the loaf of bread would still call your action theft?

 

[StillWondering]

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.

That is a small to big fallacy statement. Unless you can prove that **all **evil is justifiable, not just sometimes, you cannot be absolutely sure that there is no such thing as absolute.

 

[StillWondering]

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.

So you are not protecting life when your are protecting yourself or someone else from harm? What are you protecting their wallet or shirt or lunch money?

 

[StillWondering]

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

No, you aren’t getting it. It is still a sin to be confessed still if it is done as a mortal sin (there are rules to explain this if you look into it). But there are other sins at the same time that you must prevent. And it is an absolute that you must do what is best. Think about it.

 

[Akheron]

That is a small to big fallacy statement. Unless you can prove that **all **evil is justifiable, not just sometimes, you cannot be absolutely sure that there is no such thing as absolute.

You seem to have it backwards: if I state that morality is relative, I claim that evil is sometimes justifiable. If you state that morality is absolute, you would have to affirm that a) all evil is justifiable all the time *or *b) no evil is ever justifiable.

Relative morality implies that sometimes evil is justifiable, sometimes not.

Absolute morality implies that evil is either always justifiable, either never justifiable.

As it is you who profess the existence of absolute morality, it would seem that it is you who would have to take a stand about which side of absolute morality you which to stand on: do you side with “evil is always justifiable” or “evil is never justifiable"?

If you cannot chose side because neither of them seem morally acceptable, then you will have to side with relative morality.

 

[Akheron]

So you are not protecting life when your are protecting yourself or someone else from harm? What are you protecting their wallet or shirt or lunch money?

I would seem that if you protect yourself or others from harm with violence, you both protect a life and threatens another. You cannot threaten to harm another life, even to defend yourself, if you profess an absolute morality that requires that you absolutely protect all life all the time.

Do you see the paradox?