Atheists and the Dictatorship of Relativism

[johnhp]

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

i agree.  Excellent point.

[ivanm]

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

Given the fact that there are a number of Gods then how can you say that any one of them has a corner on morality?  As to Good, if behavior is constructive and not detrimental to others or to one's self, then he or she doesn't need the rubber stamp of being a Christian or whatever.

As to life in the hereafter, can you prove that?  I doubt it.  You can only hope it exists in the state you are wishing for.  Some of the ancients in the OT apparently saw what I would say was a Heaven on earth, a haven from want, fear, drouth, and pestilence.  So maybe your Heaven is also a relative thing?

Religious belief is a behavorial tool and in principle it is well intended, but to diss those who don't share your beliefs is pretty ignorant. 

[johnhp]

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...?"

If you are using the term religionist in the strict sense, i have no disagreement with you,  However, if you are using it for religious persons in general, i would disagree.  i think we know why the extremist does this; it is because their faith is made from tissue: they have to assert its absolute truth to the detriment of everything else or their belief itself with fall apart.  Mornac has to believe that every other approach to life is partial and relative with "no profit" in order to believe his misunderstanding of Catholicism is true.

[johnhp]

Given the fact that there are a number of Gods then how can you say that any one of them has a corner on morality?  As to Good, if behavior is constructive and not detrimental to others or to one's self, then he or she doesn't need the rubber stamp of being a Christian or whatever.

As to life in the hereafter, can you prove that?  I doubt it.  You can only hope it exists in the state you are wishing for.  Some of the ancients in the OT apparently saw what I would say was a Heaven on earth, a haven from want, fear, drouth, and pestilence.  So maybe your Heaven is also a relative thing?

Religious belief is a behavorial tool and in principle it is well intended, but to diss those who don't share your beliefs is pretty ignorant. 

i think you may be missing, and almost everyone here may be missing, Mornac's larger point.  For Mornac religion functions in the here and now as a fascism delivery device.  Look at the type of society Mornac promotes and the outlines of the approach Voris promotes.  Fascism is the only word for it.

[ivanm]

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.

Religious belief is widespread and is sactioned by society as being legitimate and mentally sound.  However, if such beliefs were not religious in nature one could say they amounted to delusional thinking.

I don't mean to pick on Mornac because of his strong beliefs but he doesn't let up.  It amounts to spamming, that is if it weren't religious in nature. Since when does freedom of religion give one the right to intrude into the affairs of a forum on such a regular basis, and he doesn't even keep his posts in the Theology sub forum?

From what I can tell the Catholic faith is one of the most dogmatic of the Christian sects. Mornac may not call it a sect but technically it is and it is one of the most peculiar of the various Christian sects because of its many man made concepts of God and Christ.

We all might carry a rather unique and personal concept of what God or Christ really is, and that it fine.  However, I prefer that people read the bible, both testaments. and conclude from what they have read just what Christ and God consist of. A paraphrased bible really helped me to gain a better understanding of the Christian beliefs and also helped somewhat with my understanding of the ancient Judaic beliefs.

So what is a plain vanilla belief system and what is something that has been embellished by man made concoctions or conclusions?  Which is the best way to go?  It all depends on how much bullshit one can swallow without choking on  it.  

[JC]

I don't mean to pick on Mornac because of his strong beliefs but he doesn't let up.  It amounts to spamming, that is if it weren't religious in nature. Since when does freedom of religion give one the right to intrude into the affairs of a forum on such a regular basis, and he doesn't even keep his posts in the Theology sub forum?

THANK YOU FOR SAYING THIS!!!! I am not the ONLY one who is tired of his religious spamming. It is SPAM plain and simple.

[johnhp]

THANK YOU FOR SAYING THIS!!!! I am not the ONLY one who is tired of his religious spamming. It is SPAM plain and simple.

Except that, every once in a while, you have to have Spam.





Or potted meat....





But Mornac's bullshit?  No one needs that.

[ivanm]

Can he can it? The pols might lap it up.   

[ivanm]

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.

A basic duty of an evangelical Christian is to try and convert others to Christianity, and this seems to be where the rub comes in.  Some are gentle and laid back about it and prefer to lead by example where others can be very overbearing abut it.  From my experience the Catholics I know are not aggressive although they do seem to take their vows seriously.

Is Mornac being evangelical or is he being judgemental?  I would say the latter because you basically have to be borne into the Catholic church.

[johnhp]

A basic duty of an evangelical Christian is to try and convert others to Christianity, and this seems to be where the rub comes in.  Some are gentle and laid back about it and prefer to lead by example where others can be very overbearing abut it.  From my experience the Catholics I know are not aggressive although they do seem to take their vows seriously.

Is Mornac being evangelical or is he being judgemental?  I would say the latter because you basically have to be borne into the Catholic church.

Neither.  Like many reverts, Mornac projects his weaknesses on others.

[SpaceCadet]

A basic duty of an evangelical Christian is to try and convert others to Christianity, and this seems to be where the rub comes in.  Some are gentle and laid back about it and prefer to lead by example where others can be very overbearing abut it.  From my experience the Catholics I know are not aggressive although they do seem to take their vows seriously.

Is Mornac being evangelical or is he being judgemental?  I would say the latter because you basically have to be borne into the Catholic church.

I've known people who have converted to Catholicism.

[ivanm]

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.

From above:

"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."

 

Perhaps the atheists don't press the issue because they are in the minority in America.  It appears that in parts of Europe atheists or non-believers are a much higher percent of the population than in America.

A true Christian believer has an obligation, spiritually speaking, to try and convert others to Christianity. It is how they do it that matters to me.  Being a Methodist of sorts, I cannot remember any Methodist who had brow beaten me and it is because the UMW is basically a service oriented sect where other more fundamentalist sects emphasize doctrine more than service.

[ivanm]

The thread title seems to be oxymoronical to me in that relativists tend not to adhere to established rules or dogma where deeply religious people often observe their creed without ever questioning it, which makes it an authoritarian sort of institution.

Maybe someone can explain to me what the thread title is supposed to mean?

[johnhp]

The thread title seems to be oxymoronical to me in that relativists tend not to adhere to established rules or dogma where deeply religious people often observe their creed without ever questioning it, which makes it an authoritarian sort of institution.

Maybe someone can explain to me what the thread title is supposed to mean?

It means Mornac is an asshole.

[Mornac]

If such is the case, why must religionists fall back on their religion to engage in "moral" behavior?

--I can’t speak for religionists at large but as far as my own religion is concerned its adherents already have the desire to behave morally. Our religion merely defines what that morality is.

Religions use the "carrot and stick" approach to control behavior. Be "good" and you will be rewarded. Be "bad" and you will be punished.

--I believe that is true for some religions.

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...

--Not to me it isn’t.

hence the question "What do atheists have to gain...?"

--The question stands. There are some atheists who may behave morally because it makes them feel comfortable in their society. However, if a given atheist decides to behave immorally (which is to say against the morals of society which are by and large defined by the religionists within) his fellow atheists cannot argue that he is doing anything wrong. As a free-lance being with no fealty to any other being in existence, he has the right to make up his own moral code no matter how out of sync it may be with that commonly accepted by religionists.

The answer is just as SC expressed it.

--SC’s expression is flawed. Let’s wait and see how he refines 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."

--Arthur C. Clark now knows the truth of the matter.

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

…and that ain’t it.