Why are atheists so unhappy?

[Angel7]

A couple of quick points if I may.

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.

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

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.

… Allah is an Arabic word that means G-d.
Muslims Jews and Christian all worship the same G-d.
We just do so in different ways.
This is what the Catholic Church teachings.
Thus Allah (which is a word that means G-d. in Arabic) is G-d to us.

Thus what you are saying would not make sense

 

[Charles_Darwin]

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.

This? You have three!

**Killing **is wrong.

Killing in a just war (tragic it is) is justified.

Wheres the absolute??? Are you on the wind up??

 

[josie_L]

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.

She did say “christian or not”, furthermore the whole point of moral absolutes is that they always existed, in fact this is the natural moral law of which the Church speaks of that enables men to have a certain understanding of right and wrong. In the beginning God created man in his image, this means he inscribed a conscience into all men. That some react differently morally is because they choose to ignore their conscience and therefore practice moral relativism.

 

[Angel7]

This? You have three!

**Killing **is wrong.

Killing in a just war (tragic it is) is justified.

Wheres the absolute??? Are you on the wind up??

But notice. The contect of the last 2 are different.
The First 1 was a generalization.
Saying it is wrong to Kill. Period.
Means that self defense, and rescuing others from harm is Wrong (although you should not try to kill your enemies in this situation, only disable there ability to harm you)

 

[StillWondering]

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?

I have made several attempts at explaining what moral absolute is. I seem to be ignored. Thank you for the conversations, I hope those who do not see moral absolute will one day find some or all of them. In my mind, I come to contradictions each time I consider moral relativism. I wish you peace and may you provide others peace.

 

[AnAtheist]

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?

No. A moral states what doing is right or wrong.
The statement “there are no absolute statements about what is right or wrong” does not make a statement about what really IS right or wrong. The statement itself does not help at all to make a moral decision. Therefore it is not a moral rule. That is basic semantics.

 

[josie_L]

This? You have three!

**Killing **is wrong.

Killing in a just war (tragic it is) is justified.

Wheres the absolute??? Are you on the wind up??

When one kills for the purpose of defending a moral right (freedom from tyranny for example) it is no longer perceived as morally wrong (therefore fighting off the Nazis was a moral right wherein the act of taking a life is no longer perceived as killing/murder). So the absolute remains: killing/murder is wrong (as this is not perceived as killing/murder).

 

[josie_L]

I have made several attempts at explaining what moral absolute is. I seem to be ignored. Thank you for the conversations, I hope those who do not see moral absolute will one day find some or all of them. In my mind, I come to contradictions each time I consider moral relativism. I wish you peace and may you provide others peace.

They ignore you because they have no argument to use against you. God bless and please stick around.

 

[josie_L]

But notice. The contect of the last 2 are different.
The First 1 was a generalization.
Saying it is wrong to Kill. Period.
Means that self defense, and rescuing others from harm is Wrong (although you should not try to kill your enemies in this situation, only disable there ability to harm you)

The absolute remains, it is how we describe the act that changes. And to clarify things you should say “killing/murder is wrong” rather than “killing is wrong”. I think this makes a big difference.

 

[AnAtheist]

The absolute remains, it is how we describe the act that changes. And to clarify things you should say “killing/murder is wrong” rather than “killing is wrong”. I think this makes a big difference.

Yes, because it is a tautology. Murder is by defintion a killing for wrong reasons.

 

[StillWondering]

They ignore you because they have no argument to use against you. God bless and please stick around.

I will stay on the forums. Since I am a limited human with my owns sins to work through, I will focus my efforts on praying for the world to either come to know truth or to avoid harm and sin against others. Also prayer in itself is complicated and I wish to learn more. Moreover there are many books and articles both about faith and morals as well as worthwhile books about the human condition and psychological growth I hope to spend time in.

Lastly, I believe for the faithful, the most potent combat against evil is prayer, Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament, and living with God in our daily lives. My secular parts of my brain tells me I am naive, but my soul and heart tells me one day the rest of me will understand in its totality.

Edit: Thank you to you and all others for your kindness and community of support. It’s a nice perk in being Catholic to never be alone, physically nor spiritually.

 

[josie_L]

No. A moral states what doing is right or wrong.
The statement “there are no absolute statements about what is right or wrong” does not make a statement about what really IS right or wrong. The statement itself does not help at all to make a moral decision. Therefore it is not a moral rule. That is basic semantics.

Sorry, but she is right in stating that moral relativism is ironically understood as the only absolute. If it is not then moral relativism is relative and therefore subjectively rather than objectively true (absolute). There is no use therefore for the philosophy of relativism.

 

[josie_L]

Yes, because it is a tautology. Murder is by defintion a killing for wrong reasons.

So then we have an absolute.

 

[Angel7]

Sorry, but she is right in stating that moral relativism is ironically understood as the only absolute. If it is not then moral relativism is relative and therefore subjectively rather than objectively true (absolute). There is no use therefore for the philosophy of relativism.

Indeed, Moral reletivism, is not Moral Reletivism, it is absolute, why should we believe it then?
If it Contradicts itself.

I’ll say it again. Athiests should go to Proof that God Exists.org

(The creator of said site is not Catholic, so don’t fall into non Catholic views, that will confuse you)

It uses simple Logic regarding Natural laws that Govern Life to Prove Athiests other wise.

 

[AnAtheist]

So then we have an absolute.

Defintions are always “absolute”.

 

[josie_L]

I will stay on the forums. Since I am a limited human with my owns sins to work through, I will focus my efforts on praying for the world to either come to know truth or to avoid harm and sin against others. Also prayer in itself is complicated and I wish to learn more. Moreover there are many books and articles both about faith and morals as well as worthwhile books about the human condition and psychological growth I hope to spend time in.

Lastly, I believe for the faithful, the most potent combat against evil is prayer, Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament, and living with God in our daily lives. My secular parts of my brain tells me I am naive, but my soul and heart tells me one day the rest of me will understand in its totality.

Edit: Thank you to you and all others for your kindness and community of support. It’s a nice perk in being Catholic to never be alone, physically nor spiritually.

Totally off topic, but what country are you from and what is your name, if you don’t mind telling me?

 

[josie_L]

Defintions are always “absolute”.

So killing/murder is absolutely morally wrong (always has been). Only a truly practicing moral relativist believes it isn’t (those who kill/murder).

 

[Akheron]

They ignore you because they have no argument to use against you. God bless and please stick around.

I don’t seek arguments to use against anyone. This is not verbal warfare. I am very well satisfied with just presenting my opinion to the readers.

I haven’t responded to StillWondering because I have stated my position several times and we are just discussing in circles, going nowhere and I don’t see how repeating myself would further the discussion.

May I suggest that maybe you are the one lacking answers, as you have neglected to respond to many questions of mine on the another thread we have been discussing on.

 

[SHW]

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.

Human life is precious/sacred. However, I do not see that killing a person who is attacking me in order to protect my own life is a problem at all with this moral absolute. My intention is to stop him from harming me at that moment. If he loses his life because of this, it still does not change the fact that all life is precious. He forfeits his own life as a consequence of his own actions. Now, if he gets away after killing a member of my family, I cannot take revenge on him and shoot him in the back at a later time. That would be in violation of this moral absolute that all life is precious.

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

Yes, however, when the rubber meets the road, pain of any kind is not a pleasant thing to have to deal with. The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak. We must look instead to the future with God’s promise of eternal life.

Romans 8:18
For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us.

2 Corinthians 1:5
For as the sufferings of Christ abound in us, so our consolation also abounds through Christ.

1 Peter 4:13
but rejoice to the extent that you partake of Christ’s sufferings, that when His glory is revealed, you may also be glad with exceeding joy.

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.

Since Muslims believe that Allah is the God of Abraham, then we worship the same God, because our God is the God of Abraham. Their understanding of God is not the same as ours though.

Common ground for true atheists and true Christians is not easily done since they are diametrically opposed. However, we can have common ground as far as defense of our country is concerned, private property rights, “common good” elements as long as they are actually “good,” etc.

The reason Christianity and Atheism are diametrically opposed is this: Either you serve God or you serve Satan because there are only two places possible to spend eternity; heaven or hell; God is the ruler of heaven and Satan is lord of hell and so even if atheists do not realize that they are serving Satan by opposing God, they still are.

Atheists reject/deny God on earth so God will reject them when they die. Only God knows each person’s heart, and He is both a merciful God and a just God whose judgment is right. (Matthew 10:33)

Some people close their ears to God’s call because they are enjoying their lives of indulging in personal pleasures and they do not wish to have to change in order to be able to inherit eternal life. They do not want to look beyond the present moment. St. Augustine was like this before he converted. "Lord, Make me chaste, but not yet,” was his prayer!

Mother Teresa went through a very long period of spiritual dryness which we call “the dark night of the soul” because she felt no consolation from God. She still obeyed His commandments even though she may have asked, “do You even exist?” I have asked God that myself when I have been struggling with problems. I have been fortunate that He has sent me the consolation that I needed when I asked for it.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

When one kills for the purpose of defending a moral right (freedom from tyranny for example) it is no longer perceived as morally wrong (therefore fighting off the Nazis was a moral right wherein the act of taking a life is no longer perceived as killing/murder). So the absolute remains: killing/murder is wrong (as this is not perceived as killing/murder).

Oh right so when you kill a nazi then your not actually killing them . Why can’t you just admit “killing is wrong” is not an absolute. If there are any cases where it is acceptable to kill, killing is not ALWAYS wrong. Therefore it is NOT an absolute.