Nihil Obstat Posted October 22, 2009 Posted October 22, 2009 [quote name='Varg' date='22 October 2009 - 04:02 AM' timestamp='1256202166' post='1989582'] So what you're saying is that people don't commit sins because they're afraid of not going to heaven? [/quote] No, I'm saying that without God, morality is irrational and unnecessary.
Sojourner Posted October 22, 2009 Posted October 22, 2009 Realistically, I don't think you can prevent people from talking to your kids about what they believe, whether it's active proselytizing on an individual level or your kids seeing people expressing their beliefs in the public forum -- television, street protestors, friends who believe differently, displays of non-Catholic religious icons, etc. And frankly, I value free speech enough that I'm willing to allow for those influences to be part of my childrens' lives. As a parent, though, you are responsible for helping your child learn the truth, and learn how to discern truth from falsehood. Solid foundation at home is essential, along with talking through things your kids see and hear from others. That is my theory, at least. I'll let you know in 20 years how it works out.
Nihil Obstat Posted October 22, 2009 Posted October 22, 2009 [quote name='Varg' date='22 October 2009 - 11:04 AM' timestamp='1256227486' post='1989643'] Riiiiiight... [/quote] If you disagree, then develop why.
Winchester Posted October 22, 2009 Posted October 22, 2009 [quote name='Varg' date='21 October 2009 - 12:37 PM' timestamp='1256143026' post='1989017'] I personally think it's wrong to preach any form of religion (including atheism) to young children. They should be left until they are old enough to make the descision for themselves. What do the people of the good ship Phatmass think of this issue? [/quote] Considering that many people later change their religious, political, philosphical views, I'd condemn your idea as asinine. Better that we teach them to think. Imagine how much easier your life would be if you had been taught the rudiments of logic.
CatherineM Posted October 22, 2009 Posted October 22, 2009 [quote name='Varg' date='22 October 2009 - 04:02 AM' timestamp='1256202166' post='1989582'] So what you're saying is that people don't commit sins because they're afraid of not going to heaven? [/quote] Either that or they are afraid of going to jail, getting a ticket, getting fired, divorcing, or just being caught and embarrassed. A sin is something that hurts our relationships, like with God, our friends, family, neighbors. Each has its own consequence.
Winchester Posted October 22, 2009 Posted October 22, 2009 If you pretend hard enough, you can convince yourself we're completely simple and thus dismiss us. Wearing Ruby slippers can't hurt, either.
Winchester Posted October 22, 2009 Posted October 22, 2009 [quote name='Varg' date='22 October 2009 - 12:04 PM' timestamp='1256227486' post='1989643'] Riiiiiight... [/quote] It's not our fault you adopted a position simply to outrage people. Don't turn into a troll, Varg. Learn.
Anomaly Posted October 22, 2009 Posted October 22, 2009 [b][/b][quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='22 October 2009 - 12:53 AM' timestamp='1256183615' post='1989426'] In my opinion, if one is consistently atheist, then it should lead them to reject Natural Law as an irrelevant evolutionary construct, which one could freely break whenever one so desired. i.e., We are prohibited in all cultures to murder. If I were a consistent atheist, I would see this as a product of compounded cultural conditioning, which is ultimately good for the human race, but not necessarily good for me. Therefore if I thought I could have a more pleasurable life by breaking that rule, I could do so with no justification. Why should I sacrifice my own happiness for the good of a whole race, considering there's nothing after death anyway? [/quote]Many altruistic actions do not come from structured religious up-bringing. Even a child has a sense of right or wrong. A conscience is not just a creation of Religion. And what's a 'consistent atheist? Is that kinda like a perfect christian?
Nihil Obstat Posted October 22, 2009 Posted October 22, 2009 [quote name='Anomaly' date='22 October 2009 - 06:16 PM' timestamp='1256253377' post='1989845'] [b][/b]Many altruistic actions do not come from structured religious up-bringing. Even a child has a sense of right or wrong. A conscience is not just a creation of Religion. And what's a 'consistent atheist? Is that kinda like a perfect christian? [/quote] Oh yea, I don't deny any of this. You miss my point. I believe that this sense of right and wrong that every person has is Natural Law. I also believe that if one is a consistent atheist (I'll address that below), then they should reject natural law. The only way to explain its existence is by more or less "what's best for humans as a race", if you know what I'm getting at. A consistent atheist should see no particular value in the human race as a whole surviving- why should he? If after his death everything is over, who cares what he does? He might as well be as happy as he could possibly be. If that means killing someone that gets in his way, or abusing people, or stealing, then why not? It's not like there's consequences. It should be essentially opportunistic- do whatever will make him happiest in the long run. If he won't get caught, or if the consequences don't outweigh the benefits, then go for it., but there isn't an inherent value for him in doing what he's been conditioned to think is 'right', since right and wrong are arbitrary. By consistent atheist, I basically mean intellectually honest. An atheist who fully understands the implications of his beliefs and never contradicts himself. Obviously most people aren't intellectually consistent like this, but it's the assumption we make so that we can model behaviour.
Winchester Posted October 23, 2009 Posted October 23, 2009 [quote name='Anomaly' date='22 October 2009 - 07:16 PM' timestamp='1256253377' post='1989845'] [b][/b]Many altruistic actions do not come from structured religious up-bringing. Even a child has a sense of right or wrong. A conscience is not just a creation of Religion. And what's a 'consistent atheist? Is that kinda like a perfect christian? [/quote] Not all children. And it's not clear whether it's nature or nurture. Without an eternal being, there is no right and wrong. There may be instinct, but it's only instinct, not some law that exists outside man.
Anomaly Posted October 23, 2009 Posted October 23, 2009 [quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='22 October 2009 - 08:39 PM' timestamp='1256254758' post='1989859'] By consistent atheist, I basically mean intellectually honest. An atheist who fully understands the implications of his beliefs and never contradicts himself. Obviously most people aren't intellectually consistent like this, but it's the assumption we make so that we can model behaviour. [/quote]Or it's an overly-broad sterotype to make a shallow hypthesis workable... Win, It's merely a philisophical choice to ascribe the existence of right or wrong to an 'eternal being'.
Winchester Posted October 23, 2009 Posted October 23, 2009 [quote name='Anomaly' date='22 October 2009 - 08:33 PM' timestamp='1256257989' post='1989895'] Win, It's merely a philisophical choice to ascribe the existence of right or wrong to an 'eternal being'. [/quote] It's logic. Without an eternal being, there is no morality. It's not really real.
little_miss_late Posted October 23, 2009 Posted October 23, 2009 [quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='22 October 2009 - 07:39 PM' timestamp='1256254758' post='1989859'] Oh yea, I don't deny any of this. You miss my point. I believe that this sense of right and wrong that every person has is Natural Law. I also believe that if one is a consistent atheist (I'll address that below), then they should reject natural law. The only way to explain its existence is by more or less "what's best for humans as a race", if you know what I'm getting at. A consistent atheist should see no particular value in the human race as a whole surviving- why should he? If after his death everything is over, who cares what he does? He might as well be as happy as he could possibly be. If that means killing someone that gets in his way, or abusing people, or stealing, then why not? It's not like there's consequences. It should be essentially opportunistic- do whatever will make him happiest in the long run. If he won't get caught, or if the consequences don't outweigh the benefits, then go for it., but there isn't an inherent value for him in doing what he's been conditioned to think is 'right', since right and wrong are arbitrary. By consistent atheist, I basically mean intellectually honest. An atheist who fully understands the implications of his beliefs and never contradicts himself. Obviously most people aren't intellectually consistent like this, but it's the assumption we make so that we can model behaviour. [/quote] Really? This is probably for another thread. But you really don't think that people who don't believe in God can feel compelled to behave generously toward others? Or feel that there is inherent value in the survival of humanity? Do you have any atheist friends who you think are good people? Do you think they are intellectually dishonest?
OraProMe Posted October 23, 2009 Posted October 23, 2009 (edited) [quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='22 October 2009 - 10:27 AM' timestamp='1256225268' post='1989632'] No, I'm saying that without God, morality is irrational and unnecessary. [/quote] Well not really. One can believe that morals have a social and cultural basis rather than a divine basis. That doesn't make morals "unnecessary", it just acknowledges that they are human constructs based on certain premises. They are human developments that guide human action rather than a set of laws that God arbitrarily assigned value to. Edited October 23, 2009 by OraProMe
Varg Posted October 23, 2009 Author Posted October 23, 2009 [quote name='Winchester' date='22 October 2009 - 02:15 PM' timestamp='1256235308' post='1989741'] It's not our fault you adopted a position simply to outrage people. Don't turn into a troll, Varg. Learn. [/quote] Trollhammaren
Varg Posted October 23, 2009 Author Posted October 23, 2009 [quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='22 October 2009 - 12:55 PM' timestamp='1256230532' post='1989666'] If you disagree, then develop why. [/quote] Ok, so you're basically saying that atheists are more likely to commit crimes, right? So how come less than one percent of the American prison population is atheist?
Resurrexi Posted October 23, 2009 Posted October 23, 2009 [quote name='Varg' date='23 October 2009 - 03:13 AM' timestamp='1256285609' post='1990169'] Ok, so you're basically saying that atheists are more likely to commit crimes, right? So how come less than one percent of the American prison population is atheist? [/quote] Everyone knows that only idiots are in jail for the first part. Smart people usually don't get caught.
Anomaly Posted October 23, 2009 Posted October 23, 2009 [quote name='Winchester' date='22 October 2009 - 10:12 PM' timestamp='1256260367' post='1989918'] It's logic. Without an eternal being, there is no morality. It's not really real. [/quote]No, not at all. Show how an eternal being is needed for morality. As OraProMe points out, morality can be based on human social and cultural values. Just based on the need to survive as a group, a group of humans will develop certain rules of behavior so the individuals can operate as a group. What is good for the group in the long term, may require sacrifice of the individual in the short term. That is the foundation of the sense of right or wrong and isn't dependent on an 'eternal or divine' entity.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now