Why do Atheists/Agnostics come to CAF?

[josie_L]

I just gave it a quick read, and not once does it mention that the Papacy endorsed slavery (as the Wikipedia article I cited does; and provided footnotes for verification). I define that as biased (since the papacy at one point did indeed endorse slavery, notwithstanding their subsequent renunciation).

The article is about what the Church did to fight slavery so why would they mention that one episode by one pope if this was an anomaly rather than the norm? And by the way, when you took that wikipedia source did it mention the other bulls, did it mention the saints and the religious orders who helped those who suffered from slavery?

 

[josie_L]

I wouldn’t say atheism demands any particular “way of life”

I’ve noticed a pattern with atheists thus far, almost all of them (I’ve met or encountered on CAF) hold to a more or less secular morality fed by the liberal media/culture (probably because most atheists are liberals). There are not many conservative Atheists out there with a traditional morality mind set.

 

[gearhead]

Ohhh… Well I thought it was kinda funny! Atheism is not a religion… it is just a basic belief and way of life, right. Although religion can be called the same thing! Well, I was trying to keep out of this one, but I just thought it was funny! HAHA

Again, not quite.

Atheism is an umbrella term for many different belief systems. Would you consider “theism” a religion unto itself? I wouldn’t - the actual religions are things like Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, etc.

By the same token, there are atheistic belief systems (e.g. secular humanism, freethought… though there are a few theistic freethinkers out there) and even atheistic religions (e.g. some forms of Buddhism… and I’ve even run into a few people who call themselves “non-theist Christian”, which is a concept I personally have trouble wrapping my head around), but “atheism” itself is neither a belief system or a religion.

To use another one-liner, “atheism is a religion the way not collecting stamps is a hobby.” Just as model railroading and quilting aren’t the same hobby even though they’re both “not collecting stamps”, the fact that two different belief systems can both be described as “atheism” doesn’t make them a single belief system.

I’ve noticed a pattern with atheists thus far, almost all of them (I’ve met or encountered on CAF) hold to a more or less secular morality fed by the liberal media/culture (probably because most atheists are liberals). There are not many conservative Atheists out there with a traditional morality mind set.

How do you mean?

I know quite a number of atheists who have had very religious and decidedly non-secular upbringings. Catholics, Evangelical Protestants, Orthodox Jews, Hindus, you name it.

 

[estesbob]

I just gave it a quick read, and not once does it mention that the Papacy endorsed slavery (as the Wikipedia article I cited does; and provided footnotes for verification). I define that as biased (since the papacy at one point did indeed endorse slavery, notwithstanding their subsequent renunciation).

Actually exactly one Pope endorsed slavery in a specific situation. Both the Pope Prior to him and the one immdeuately after him roundly condemend slavery

 

[josie_L]

How do you mean?

I know quite a number of atheists who have had very religious and decidedly non-secular upbringings. Catholics, Evangelical Protestants, Orthodox Jews, Hindus, you name it.

I meant exactly what I meant, that most of the atheists I’ve encountered here at CAF or that I read about or that I know of have a liberal mindset especially in respect to morality, do you know of many conservative Atheists who’ve retained a traditional morality? Furthermore, aren’t atheists moral relativists?

 

[gearhead]

I meant exactly what I meant, that most of the atheists I’ve encountered here at CAF or that I read about or that I know of have a liberal mindset especially in respect to morality,

And you assume that the necessarily weren’t raised in something different?

Something occurred to me after I thought about your earlier post a bit longer: I think you may be getting a bit of a biased sample of atheists here. I think that in a fair number of cases, when a person goes from religious to atheist, they distance themselves from the religion they’ve rejected. Maybe this means that formerly Christian atheists are less likely to want to come here.

On many atheist forums, you can’t swing a virtual cat without hitting a dozen members who used to be devout Catholics or Evangelicals.

do you know of many conservative Atheists who’ve retained a traditional morality?

Depends on what you mean by “traditional”.

Edit: for example, my family background is about half Quaker. What would arguably be “traditional” morality for me would probably be considered very liberal.

Furthermore, aren’t atheists moral relativists?

Some are, some aren’t. Just like theists.

 

[josie_L]

And you assume that the necessarily weren’t raised in something different?

I’m not assuming anything gearhead.

Something occurred to me after I thought about your earlier post a bit longer: I think you may be getting a bit of a biased sample of atheists here. I think that in a fair number of cases, when a person goes from religious to atheist, they distance themselves from the religion they’ve rejected. Maybe this means that formerly Christian atheists are less likely to want to come here.

Possibly, but I did mention that I base my statement on the Atheists I’ve encountered, met or read about, and a goodly number of atheists here at CAF used to be Catholics or Christians and none of them hold to the traditional morality of their previous faith. This is simply my observation.

“On many atheist forums, you can’t swing a virtual cat without hitting a dozen members who used to be devout Catholics or Evangelicals.”

So have you noticed a difference in their stance towards morality (pro-abortion, gay marriage, pre-marital sex is ok, euthanasia supporters, pro-contraceptive instead of pro-abstinence, supporters of stem cell research . . . etc.)?

Depends on what you mean by “traditional”.

Well, what do most conservatives of major religions moralistically support?

Edit: for example, my family background is about half Quaker. What would arguably be “traditional” morality for me would probably be considered very liberal.

Well I mentioned a few of the things I consider traditional (I would add that tradition is reflected in what the earliest Christians propounded and what we more recent Christians have kept), so that might help.

Some are, some aren’t. Just like theists.

Atheists who believe in moral absolutes, that’s amazing, but is that the same as saying they are moral absolutists? I must say that if theists are moral relativists it’s because of how they practice their faith, I find that most religions especially the monotheistic kind are very precise when it comes to defining morality.

 

[gearhead]

I’m not assuming anything gearhead.

Hmm.

So have you noticed a difference in their stance towards morality (pro-abortion, gay marriage, pre-marital sex is ok, euthanasia supporters, pro-contraceptive instead of pro-abstinence, supporters of stem cell research . . . etc.)

Again, I think it depends. Are those specific things “morality”, or are they the effects of underlying moral principles?

For example, if a person consistently holds to the moral principle of “value the lives of people” but changes his mind about whether a fetus is a person… while always valuing the lives of people as he understands the term, has his morality changed?

Well, what do most conservatives of major religions moralistically support?

Heh… depends what you mean by “moralistically”. They support lots of things, and morals inform all of our actions. Depending on how you look at things, potentially every decision is a “moralistic” decision. Even the decision of what to have for breakfast is a moralistic decision - just ask a vegetarian.

Well I mentioned a few of the things I consider traditional, so that might help.

The stances on individual issues might change - for example, I’ve never met an atheist who opposed same-sex marriage. However, we base our moral positions on a combination of moral principles and our understanding of the world. When a person’s understanding changes, their moral positions will likely change, but those underlying moral principles don’t necessarily change as well.

Take abortion again: there’s more to the Catholic position that just saying “abortion is wrong”. You say that it’s wrong because a fetus is a person and deliberately ending the life of a person is wrong, correct? Our beliefs about factual matters (e.g. whether a fetus is a person) have an effect on how we translate our moral principles into real-world actions.

To use a less emotionally charged example, is it moral to keep a 20 dollar bill that you find on the sidewalk? Person A, who has only seen the bill itself and doesn’t see anyone there to claim it, would probably say “yes - it’s okay to keep it”. However, Person B, who has a different vantage point and sees the owner of the bill who’s just realized that he dropped it and is running back to pick up the bill himself, might say “no - I should give it back to it’s rightful owner.” Person A and B have come to opposite decisions - even though they both view theft as wrong, they’ve come to different conclusions about whether picking up the bill constitutes theft. Do they have different morality?

Wow, there are atheists who believe in moral absolutists, that’s amazing!! But I must say that if theists are moral relativists it’s because of how they practice their faith, I find that most religions especially the monotheistic kind are very precise when it comes to defining morality.

But there’s a fine line between moral relativism and situational ethics. And every moral or ethical system has to be situational to some degree.

Also, I’d argue that if a theist believes in one moral standard for humanity and a separate one for God, then he believes in a form of moral relativism. And plenty of theists I’ve met would fall under that description.

 

[josie_L]

Hmm.

I’m not assuming as I made no generalizations of atheists on the whole, I only made a statement on those of whom I encountered or read about. Again, this is simply based on observation, but more importantly for what they (ex Christians now atheists/agnostics) themselves mentioned and brought to light about themselves.

Again, I think it depends. Are those specific things “morality”, or are they the effects of underlying moral principles?

Well, according to their previous faith it is (traditionally, Christianity as held to a moral code which we today still hold to). So again I ask, did these former devout Catholics and Evangelicals change their traditional morality for one more secular?

For example, if a person consistently holds to the moral principle of “value the lives of people” but changes his mind about whether a fetus is a person… while always valuing the lives of people as he understands the term, has his morality changed?

Yes, absolutely as valuing life should entail all life whether developing or developed.

Heh… depends what you mean by “moralistically”. They support lots of things, and morals inform all of our actions. Depending on how you look at things, potentially every decision is a “moralistic” decision. Even the decision of what to have for breakfast is a moralistic decision - just ask a vegetarian.

People are obliged to follow their conscience, there’s no doubt about it, but how does one go from believing something to be inherently evil to accepting it as a necessity and in some cases a societal good?

The stances on individual issues might change - for example, I’ve never met an atheist who opposed same-sex marriage. However, we base our moral positions on a combination of moral principles and our understanding of the world. When a person’s understanding changes, their moral positions will likely change, but those underlying moral principles don’t necessarily change as well.

Gearhead, why can’t you simply answer my question, have they changed their understanding of morality? Yes or No?

Take abortion again: there’s more to the Catholic position that just saying “abortion is wrong”. You say that it’s wrong because a fetus is a person and deliberately ending the life of a person is wrong, correct? Our beliefs about factual matters (e.g. whether a fetus is a person) have an effect on how we translate our moral principles into real-world actions.

Ok, gearhead the fetus you refer to is a developing human being (did you know that the “fetus” feels pain at around 21 weeks, possibly earlier), it’s not a developing tree, it’s not a developing cow, it’s a human being who has every right to live. There is no reason to kill your own offspring unless you’re in danger of losing your life (and even then I would not consider it killing as much as trying to save the fetus without endangering the mother).

To use a less emotionally charged example, is it moral to keep a 20 dollar bill that you find on the sidewalk? Person A, who has only seen the bill itself and doesn’t see anyone there to claim it, would probably say “yes - it’s okay to keep it”. However, Person B, who has a different vantage point and sees the owner of the bill who’s just realized that he dropped it and is running back to pick up the bill himself, might say “no - I should give it back to it’s rightful owner.” Person A and B have come to opposite decisions - even though they both view theft as wrong, they’ve come to different conclusions about whether picking up the bill constitutes theft. Do they have different morality?

Person A did what he did out of ignorance (didn’t bother to look all around him) which goes to show that when you don’t have the right type of morality or fail to see every vantage point you may be committing a wrong even if you don’t know it.

But there’s a fine line between moral relativism and situational ethics. And every moral or ethical system has to be situational to some degree.

That does not change the moral absolute, only how the act itself has been defined.

Also, I’d argue that if a theist believes in one moral standard for humanity and a separate one for God, then he believes in a form of moral relativism. And plenty of theists I’ve met would fall under that description.

I can only say this, that theists of monotheist religions should believe in moral absolutes, if they do not well then I would say they are very poor theists indeed.

 

[gearhead]

Well, according to their previous faith it is (traditionally, Christianity as held to a moral code which we today still hold to).

I disagree. I’ve yet to meet a single Catholic who’s said that murder is wrong merely because they think God said so. In my experience, moral codes are usually seen as the practical offshoots of moral principles.

So again I ask, did these former devout Catholics and Evangelicals change their traditional morality for one more secular?

And again I answer: it depends what you mean by those terms.

Yes, absolutely as valuing life should entail all life whether developing or developed.

All life? You must be very hungry.

People are obliged to follow their conscience, there’s no doubt about it, but how does one go from believing something to be inherently evil to accepting it as a necessity and in some cases a societal good?

By changing one’s understanding of the facts. This is how we can differentiate between, say, a soldier fighting in defense of his country and a psychopathic murderer. Both take lives, but for very different reasons and with very different moral implications. One type of killing is as inherently evil as you can get, while the other definitely can be a societal good in some situations.

Gearhead, why can’t you simply answer my question, have they changed their understanding of morality? Yes or No?

I’ve already told you: they’ve changed their understanding of factual matters, which changes their understanding of specific, practical decisions. They haven’t necessarily changed their understanding of their underlying moral principles. Take from that what you want based on what you believe “morality” to mean.

Ok, gearhead the fetus you refer to is a developing human being (did you know that the “fetus” feels pain at around 21 weeks, possibly earlier), it’s not a developing tree, it’s not a developing cow, it’s a human being who has every right to live.

… based on your belief that the fetus is a person, which is informed by factual matters like your understanding of fetal development and the opinion of the Church, right?

Change the understanding of the facts and the outcome of the decision can change.

Person A did what he did out of ignorance (didn’t bother to look all around him) which goes to show that when you don’t have the right type of morality or fail to see every vantage point you may be committing a wrong even if you don’t know it.

But it’s not immoral to commit an act with negative consequences if you weren’t aware of those consequences at the time, is it?

Anyhow, all I was trying to do is illustrate my point: that different understandings of factual matters will affect our moral decisions (and any decision that can be phrased as “should I do this?” is a moral decision), but not necessarily our underlying morality.

That does not change the moral absolute, only how the act itself has been defined.

Exactly! There are underlying moral principles that, when combined with our understanding of the world, result in our moral choices. For example, if a firefighter sleeping in the fire station (do they even still do that? Not sure) were to choose to ignore the alarm and stay in bed instead of responding to the house fire, this would probably be considered immoral… but that’s because of the effects of the decision, not because there’s anything inherently immoral about sleeping through an alarm; at home on his day off, it might be perfectly moral for the firefighter to do that.

So, again, it depends on what you view morality to be. If you have a list of moral commands, such as “because of A, do X… and because of B, don’t do Y”, is “morality” A and B, or is it X and Y?

 

[yankee_doodle]

I would say balancing the right of the potential life to exist (and the nearly absolute probability he or she will exist if the pregnancy is uninterrupted) against the nine month inconvenience of the mother, it’s a no brainer (the potential life wins). However, that’s not really the question is it?

The question really is whether or not we can compel a woman to carry a child, and if she refuses whether or not it’s in societies best interest to imprison her? I do think there are some things that transcend individual liberty (so much should be obvious to anyone). For instance, we can’t yell fire in a crowded theater (just to name one of many examples). And I do think pro-life folks have a valid argument (even beyond religious implications). However, ultimately I’m pro-choice because of practical reality.

 

[josie_L]

I disagree. I’ve yet to meet a single Catholic who’s said that murder is wrong merely because they think God said so. In my experience, moral codes are usually seen as the practical offshoots of moral principles.

Wow, I’m not sure what Catholics you’ve been speaking to but the only reason we understand good from evil is because God created us in his image, i.e., his laws were inscribed into our hearts.

And again I answer: it depends what you mean by those terms.

I said what I meant by “traditionally”, just read what the Earliest Christians taught and practiced (Didache or the early Church Fathers) when it came to morals. Historically speaking, morality is on our side.

All life? You must be very hungry.

Yes, and no I’m not, but sometimes I fast.

By changing one’s understanding of the facts. This is how we can differentiate between, say, a soldier fighting in defense of his country and a psychopathic murderer. Both take lives, but for very different reasons and with very different moral implications. One type of killing is as inherently evil as you can get, while the other definitely can be a societal good in some situations.

Killing is not a moral absolute, but killing/murder is.

… based on your belief that the fetus is a person, which is informed by factual matters like your understanding of fetal development and the opinion of the Church, right?

The fetus is a person, no less than a new born child (who I might add is still developing with regards to his brain/consciousness), this is based on . . . drum roll please . . . common sense.

Change the understanding of the facts and the outcome of the decision can change.

I did not say facts per se but actions, for example, stealing is a moral wrong, therefore a moral absolute, however, if I take a piece of a bread because I have no other recourse and I do this to feed my family, this is no longer stealing but a moral obligation that I and society has to feed the poor, thus the moral absolute remains: “thou shalt not steal” because my actions are no longer viewed as stealing because stealing is morally wrong.

But it’s not immoral to commit an act with negative consequences if you weren’t aware of those consequences at the time, is it?

No, but it’s definitely stupid or naive to do something if you haven’t really bothered to understand every vantage point, like someone getting an abortion and then regretting it because they now realized they killed a human being.

Anyhow, all I was trying to do is illustrate my point: that different understandings of factual matters will affect our moral decisions (and any decision that can be phrased as “should I do this?” is a moral decision), but not necessarily our underlying morality.

If you don’t start with the premise that moral absolutes exist (or you may be ignorant of certain moral codes), then yes, we have different ways of approaching moral decisions.

Exactly! There are underlying moral principles that, when combined with our understanding of the world, result in our moral choices. For example, if a firefighter sleeping in the fire station (do they even still do that? Not sure) were to choose to ignore the alarm and stay in bed instead of responding to the house fire, this would probably be considered immoral… but that’s because of the effects of the decision, not because there’s anything inherently immoral about sleeping through an alarm; at home on his day off, it might be perfectly moral for the firefighter to do that.

Moral absolutes don’t change and are not affected by situational ethics, i.e., moral relativism is a figment of our imagination,

So, again, it depends on what you view morality to be. If you have a list of moral commands, such as “because of A, do X… and because of B, don’t do Y”, is “morality” A and B, or is it X and Y?

As you can see I’m not a fan of moral relativism, and how we even got to this topic when my sole observation was that morality changes (I mean their stance on issues) when ex-Catholics or Christians become atheists is beyond me? A simple, “yes it does” would have sufficed.

 

[gearhead]

As you can see I’m not a fan of moral relativism, and how we even got to this topic when my sole observation was that morality changes (I mean their stance on issues) when ex-Catholics or Christians become atheists is beyond me? A simple, “yes it does” would have sufficed.

And that’s the answer you would’ve received… if that had been the question you had asked in the first place.

 

[theistgal]

Heh … what I’d really like to know is how many Catholics come to CAF and leave as Atheists or Agnostics due to some of the bad (not to mention uncharitable) apologetics they encounter.

 

[josie_L]

I would say balancing the right of the potential life to exist (and the nearly absolute probability he or she will exist if the pregnancy is uninterrupted) against the nine month inconvenience of the mother, it’s a no brainer (the potential life wins). However, that’s not really the question is it?

The question really is whether or not we can compel a woman to carry a child, and if she refuses whether or not it’s in societies best interest to imprison her? I do think there are some things that transcend individual liberty (so much should be obvious to anyone). For instance, we can’t yell fire in a crowded theater (just to name one of many examples). And I do think pro-life folks have a valid argument (even beyond religious implications). However, ultimately I’m pro-choice because of practical reality.

You ever heard the expression “reality is what you make of it”? Why bend to this reality we presently live in when the reality of what is good should make us want to change things for the better? Moreover, a little over 60% of women (I can’t remember where I saw this, but I’ll try looking for the data) regret having had an abortion, these percentages are huge. I don’t think we do women justice by believing they actually want an abortion, I think they are pressured into such decisions by society at large.

 

[josie_L]

Heh … what I’d really like to know is how many Catholics come to CAF and leave as Atheists or Agnostics due to some of the bad (not to mention uncharitable) apologetics they encounter.

Not to burst your bubble here, but your attitude I have remarked on many occasions borders on the sarcastic.

 

[josie_L]

And that’s the answer you would’ve received… if that had been the question you had asked in the first place.

But I did ask this question numerous times, and if I wasn’t clear in my first response to you (about Atheists being liberal minded about morality instead of retaining their traditional morality) then I delineated this in my later responses.

 

[yankee_doodle]

You ever heard the expression “reality is what you make of it”? Why bend to this reality we presently live in when the reality of what is good should make us want to change things for the better? Moreover, a little over 60% of women (I can’t remember where I saw this, but I’ll try looking for the data) regret having had an abortion, these percentages are huge. I don’t think we do women justice by believing they actually want an abortion, I think they are pressured into such decisions by society at large.

It wouldn’t surprise me to find out most women regret having abortions. But it’s not that I’m bending to any particular reality. Anti-abortion laws didn’t work when we had them in place (prior to1973); and I’m sure they would be equally ineffective today (probably much less effective given an abortion requires only a pill versus the surgical procudure, which was the only available option in prior years).

I read this article that asks are “we a people that see the unborn, family, and individuals as all part of the fundamental fabric of life? Or are we a materialistic, secular nation of individuals making claims on each other?” Obviously there’s considerable bias in the way that question is framed (which illustrates how big the psychological divide is between theists and the irreligious). It goes without saying that there’s plenty of misperception on both sides of the fence.

It’s remarkable that anyone would categorize me as belonging to a group who doesn’t believe family is important to our “fundamental fabric of life.” However, these are the sort of misperceptions that make real dialog between these two groups difficult (if not sometimes impossible). Of course the problem is amplified by pundits who approach everything in an adversarial manner. These are the type of people I try to simply ignore, whatever side of the fence they’re on.

 

[josie_L]

It wouldn’t surprise me to find out most women regret having abortions. But it’s not that I’m bending to any particular reality. Anti-abortion laws didn’t work when we had them in place (prior to1973); and I’m sure they would be equally ineffective today (probably much less effective given an abortion requires only a pill versus the surgical procudure, which was the only available option in prior years).

I read this article that asks are “we a people that see the unborn, family, and individuals as all part of the fundamental fabric of life? Or are we a materialistic, secular nation of individuals making claims on each other?” Obviously there’s considerable bias in the way that question is framed (which illustrates how big the psychological divide is between theists and the irreligious). It goes without saying that there’s plenty of misperception on both sides of the fence.

It’s remarkable that anyone would categorize me as belonging to a group who doesn’t believe family is important to our “fundamental fabric of life.” However, these are the sort of misperceptions that make real dialog between these two groups difficult (if not sometimes impossible). Of course the problem is amplified by pundits who approach everything in an adversarial manner. These are the type of people I try to simply ignore, whatever side of the fence they’re on.

Do you believe family is important, how so (I don’t mean this as an insult I want to understand practically speaking what this means)? What would you do to protect it? How would you react if the arbiters of change wished to restructure society as we know it into something that would affect the nuclear family?

 

[yankee_doodle]

Do you believe family is important, how so (I don’t mean this as an insult I want to understand practically speaking what this means)? What would you do to protect it? How would you react if the arbiters of change wished to restructure society as we know it into something that would affect the nuclear family?

I don’t see how allowing a woman (who is likely going through a period of despair in her life) legal access to abortion, who would probably seek one out through illicit means if the procedure weren’t safely and legally available, will affect American families one way or the other. Moreover, I’m not sure how allowing gay marriage could possibly impact families.

The problem is you guys invent a nexus where one doesn’t exist; and then accuse us of being anti-family for simply reminding folks that nexus you’re creating is fictitious.

Isn’t it usually liberals (who tend to be less religious) who fight for initiatives like the family and medical leave act, the Americans with disabilities act, etc.? These provide real assistance to families, whereas the nexus between abortion or gay rights and family is more than just sketchy … it doesn’t exist. We strive to achieve robust individual rights while preserving and helping foster the American family. There doesn’t need to be conflict between the two, in fact they should compliment one another.