Atheists and the Dictatorship of Relativism

[Mornac]

• Tweet

Angry Atheists	Small | Large

[SpaceCadet]

In reality, it has nothing to do with whether one is an atheist or not, and I think that is one of the main points that religious people have trouble understanding.  More basic than religion, you can choose to live a life filled with love and understanding, with tolerance for all people, or not.  Which of these paths you choose determines what kind of life you will lead.  If following a religion provides the structure to help you do that, then that's fine.  But when you start holding those in disdain who do not need that structure imposed upon them, then you are starting down the wrong path.

These positive values, for some reason, are not very much in evidence on these Internet discussion forums, especially some of the conservative ones, but also many of the liberal ones.  Probably because the anonymity of the Internet provides an outlet.  If the posters of these forums lived their Internet lives according to these principles, the discussion forums likely wouldn't exist.

[SpaceCadet]

I will add that there are so many downsides to the current organized religions, that humanity would be much better off if it could grow up and stop believing in such divisive sets of superstition.  It isn't necessary and these belief systems have been so corrupted by petty human desires that they now do far more harm than good.

[Mornac]

In reality, it has nothing to do with whether one is an atheist or not, and I think that is one of the main points that religious people have trouble understanding.

--What has nothing to do with whether one is an atheist or not?

More basic than religion, you can choose to live a life filled with love and understanding, with tolerance for all people, or not.  Which of these paths you choose determines what kind of life you will lead.

--What does an atheist profit from choosing to live a life filled with love and understanding and tolerance for all people? Those things are often difficult and would seem to be a waste of time for someone who only has a century at best to enjoy sentience and fulfill all of its attendant desires to the extant that he can. 

If following a religion provides the structure to help you do that, then that's fine.

--Religion does no such thing. Religion (mine anyway) provides the structure to help me to an eternity of happiness. Living a life filled with love and understanding and tolerance for all people is merely a stepping stone.

But when you start holding those in disdain who do not need that structure imposed upon them, then you are starting down the wrong path.

--I hold no one in disdain for not believing nor does my Church. On the contrary we pray for such people and reach out to them. Further, while I and my Church accept your position that such people “do not need that structure imposed upon them”, we do not accept that they do not need the structure. They need it just as much as everyone else if they wish to live forever in happiness, however it is something that they must freely accept.

These positive values, for some reason, are not very much in evidence on these Internet discussion forums, especially some of the conservative ones, but also many of the liberal ones.

--I have no reason to dispute that observation.

Probably because the anonymity of the Internet provides an outlet.

--Nor that one.

If the posters of these forums lived their Internet lives according to these principles, the discussion forums likely wouldn't exist.

--I don’t know. There’s always something to discuss. One need not be contentious about it. I don’t have any such need anyway.

[Observer]

--What does an atheist profit from choosing to live a life filled with love and understanding and tolerance for all people? Those things are often difficult and would seem to be a waste of time for someone who only has a century at best to enjoy sentience and fulfill all of its attendant desires to the extant that he can. 

Not everyone has to be bribed or threatened to behave toward others in a civil manner.

[SpaceCadet]

--What has nothing to do with whether one is an atheist or not?

Whether you live a good life or not.  The speaker wants to convince us that belief in God, and specifically living as a Catholic, is necessary to live a good life and not fall into league with "Satan" - in short, to avoid being an "angry atheist".

--What does an atheist profit from choosing to live a life filled with love and understanding and tolerance for all people? Those things are often difficult and would seem to be a waste of time for someone who only has a century at best to enjoy sentience and fulfill all of its attendant desires to the extant that he can. 

A pleasant life.  A life that is not filled with anger.  Helping to bring about social justice for his fellow people.  Hopefully leaving behind a better world for his descendents.  etc., etc.

--Religion does no such thing. Religion (mine anyway) provides the structure to help me to an eternity of happiness. Living a life filled with love and understanding and tolerance for all people is merely a stepping stone.

Ok.

--I hold no one in disdain for not believing nor does my Church. On the contrary we pray for such people and reach out to them. Further, while I and my Church accept your position that such people “do not need that structure imposed upon them”, we do not accept that they do not need the structure. They need it just as much as everyone else if they wish to live forever in happiness, however it is something that they must freely accept.

Ok.  But if we don't need it imposed upon us, then why are we making and distributing videos about how wretched the lives of non-believers must necessarily be, and posting them on public discussion forums?

--I have no reason to dispute that observation.
--Nor that one.

That's great.

--I don’t know. There’s always something to discuss. One need not be contentious about it. I don’t have any such need anyway.

There is always something to discuss.  But the majority of Internet posters, myself included at times, seem to get something out of being extremely contentious.  You're in the minority.  Maybe because we can't tell off anyone in our real lives tat way.

[Mornac]

Not everyone has to be bribed or threatened to behave toward others in a civil manner.

--Actually, no one has to be. Everyone has the capacity to behave in a civil manner of his own free will.

[Mornac]

Whether you live a good life or not.

--“Good” is a concept based on morality. I’ve asked the question here before and have yet to receive an adequate answer: Upon what is an atheist’s morality based?

The speaker wants to convince us that belief in God, and specifically living as a Catholic, is necessary to live a good life and not fall into league with "Satan" - in short, to avoid being an "angry atheist".

--No, the speaker wants to convince everyone that belief in God, and specifically living as a Catholic, is necessary to live life everlasting in a better place than we are now. An atheist can lead a life morally identical to someone who believes in God. What those of us who believe in God want to know is why they would? It’s very puzzling.

A pleasant life.  A life that is not filled with anger.

--I’d think that one would have a better chance of leading a good life by getting his hands on as much money as he could through any means possible – legal or otherwise. At that point he could live a life of leisure and luxury, doing whatever pleases him. After all, his life is bounded by space and time. Serving his own flesh would seem a natural priority. If others suffer because of it, there are no consequences.

Helping to bring about social justice for his fellow people.

--How is that helping him have a pleasant finite temporal existence?

Hopefully leaving behind a better world for his descendents.  etc., etc.

--What for? If he was resourceful enough, couldn’t he just as easily devise a way to destroy all human life? In fact wouldn’t that be more virtuous since if there is no human life, there is no human suffering? If another atheist proposed such a plan, would you even have an argument with him? If so, what would it be?

Ok.  But if we don't need it imposed upon us, then why are we making and distributing videos about how wretched the lives of non-believers must necessarily be, and posting them on public discussion forums?

--Because you need it offered to you. Christian charity dictates that if you have a gift that can be shared with your fellow man you make it available to him.

There is always something to discuss.  But the majority of Internet posters, myself included at times, seem to get something out of being extremely contentious.  You're in the minority.  Maybe because we can't tell off anyone in our real lives tat way.

--No, I’m sure that I get as contentious as the next guy at times but I don’t like it and it gives me the opportunity to realize it and try to control it. You’re partially right about the “can't tell off anyone in our real lives”. I could do it but people around me don’t have the same zeal for argument that I do. They find it annoying. Those that come to an internet forum do not. That’s why we’re here. There are probably some that shouldn’t show up at internet forums though. They don’t have the capacity to argue in a civil manner and they get all bent out of shape when they try.

[Observer]

--Actually, no one has to be. Everyone has the capacity to behave in a civil manner of his own free will.

If such is the case, why must religionists fall back on their religion to engage in "moral" behavior? Religions use the "carrot and stick" approach to control behavior. Be "good" and you will be rewarded. Be "bad" and you will be punished. The idea that someone can engage in "moral" behavior without the carrot or the stick being waved in front of them is foreign to religionists... hence the question "What do atheists have to gain...?"

The answer is just as SC expressed it.

One of my favorite quotes from Arthur C. Clarke is about this very issue.

"The greatest tragedy in mankind's entire history may be the hijacking of morality by religion."

Man does not need religion to determine "right" and "wrong".

[SpaceCadet]

--“Good” is a concept based on morality. I’ve asked the question here before and have yet to receive an adequate answer: Upon what is an atheist’s morality based?

That's not the way I was using "good" in this instance.  In the vein of the video, I was focusing on what is in it for the non-believer, whereas the term "morality" normally focuses on how behavior benefits those around the person in question.  IOW, someone with no morality is normally seen as hurting others or society, while someone exhibiting morality is generally seen as benefiting those arond them.  Many atheists live satisfying, happy lives, despite the fact that they don't subscribe to a system of superstitious belief.

An atheist's morality is based on a very simple concept: treat others as you would want to be treated.  That covers everything that is important.  It covers the most important commandments, not to kill, or steal, or covet.  It even covers civility toward others.  Atheists work to bring about social justice here on Earth, to try to make the world a better place in which to live, right here, right now, rather than waiting to "go" to a better place, or for some deity to save them.

--No, the speaker wants to convince everyone that belief in God, and specifically living as a Catholic, is necessary to live life everlasting in a better place than we are now. An atheist can lead a life morally identical to someone who believes in God. What those of us who believe in God want to know is why they would? It’s very puzzling.

Why is it puzzling?  As Observer put it, do you have to be threatened to live a moral life?  As atheists, we don't need to.  We can live a moral life because we are able to discern for ourselves the benefits of doing so to society at large, those around us whom we love, like, or simply respect, and ultimately, to ourselves.

--I’d think that one would have a better chance of leading a good life by getting his hands on as much money as he could through any means possible – legal or otherwise. At that point he could live a life of leisure and luxury, doing whatever pleases him. After all, his life is bounded by space and time. Serving his own flesh would seem a natural priority. If others suffer because of it, there are no consequences.

Ever heard the saying. "money can't buy happiness"?  That saying comes from a very solid foundation in human psychology.  Only a person who is pathological can exist happily in the way you suggest.

--How is that helping him have a pleasant finite temporal existence?

How do you feel after you've done something good for someone else?  What kind of society could be built if everyone did that constantly?  We're all connected, as much as many conservatives seem to want to ignore that.

--What for? If he was resourceful enough, couldn’t he just as easily devise a way to destroy all human life? In fact wouldn’t that be more virtuous since if there is no human life, there is no human suffering? If another atheist proposed such a plan, would you even have an argument with him? If so, what would it be?

Negative, for all of the reasons given previously.

--Because you need it offered to you. Christian charity dictates that if you have a gift that can be shared with your fellow man you make it available to him.

Well, it's been offered, again and again.  Can we ever say "no, thanks", and leave it at that?
 

--No, I’m sure that I get as contentious as the next guy at times but I don’t like it and it gives me the opportunity to realize it and try to control it. You’re partially right about the “can't tell off anyone in our real lives”. I could do it but people around me don’t have the same zeal for argument that I do. They find it annoying. Those that come to an internet forum do not. That’s why we’re here. There are probably some that shouldn’t show up at internet forums though. They don’t have the capacity to argue in a civil manner and they get all bent out of shape when they try.

I'm afraid that's me.

[ivanm]

--Actually, no one has to be. Everyone has the capacity to behave in a civil manner of his own free will.

Are you then saying that believing in God or in Christ is not necessary to behave in a civil manner?  Isn't that what Space Cadet is saying?

Do you ever think out of the box? 

[notoc]

--“Good” is a concept based on morality. I’ve asked the question here before and have yet to receive an adequate answer: Upon what is an atheist’s morality based?

I very much doubt you will ever consider any answers but your own to be adequate. This is probably due to a lack of self-realised empathy.

In my opinion true empathy requires a consistent system of thought, something all religions must necessarily and tenaciously avoid.

[JC]

This has been a very interesting thread. I have agreed with much if not everything both Space Cadet and Observer have said(Hear that guys?). One of the problems as I see it is religious folks,in this case Mornac, impose their values and opinions TOO MUCH. There seem to be many that believe that religion and superstition are not necessary to live a good live and life of value. Religious people like to treat non religious people as Godless, hopeless heathens and this couldn't be farther from the truth. We don't need the structure and superstition religion mindfucks people with to live a decent life and treat others well.

I find it refreshing that atheists, or non religious people don't spend our time trying to mindfuck or impose our values on others to the degree that folks like Mornac do. Simply put, keep your religion to yourself. You do have the freedom to worship as you please, but don't go door to door on the internet,thread to thread posting your Catholic videos to this annoying degree. I don't see Islamic types doing this yet they seem to portryed as the enemy these days. To the contrary, I find people like mornac far more annoying.

[johnhp]

In reality, it has nothing to do with whether one is an atheist or not, and I think that is one of the main points that religious people have trouble understanding.

Some religious people.  i have always been puzzled as to why so many of us, and i am not necessarily including you here SC, assume that the most conservative versions of a religion are the most authentic.  In fact, religious conservatism is the most frail and fragile expression of religion because they have to demand everyone else needs to assimilate or their very own faith will fall apart.

More basic than religion, you can choose to live a life filled with love and understanding, with tolerance for all people, or not.

You see right through what Mornac is trying to promote here.  Have you seen the conntent of these Voris videos?  On one video, allegedly discussing history, he claims that Judaism is not really Judaism.  Some understanding there.  On another, Voris claims that to "save democracy" we have to limit those who participate to "faithful" Catholics.  Some "tolerance for all people" there.

[johnhp]

I will add that there are so many downsides to the current organized religions, that humanity would be much better off if it could grow up and stop believing in such divisive sets of superstition.  It isn't necessary and these belief systems have been so corrupted by petty human desires that they now do far more harm than good.

i want to disagree here a bit.  Organized religious person, in spite of the Mornacs among them, are an amazing source of good in the world.  They feed to poor, the take care of the ill and the socially marginalized.  We can do this without organized religions but we cannot deny how effective organized religion has been doing these things.

It is also a source of iniquity, and that cannot be denied.