3
4

Thoughts on atheism (self.Catholicism)

submitted ago* by metalhead9

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I would just like to know others' view of atheism, what you guys think about it. Also, what are your thoughts on the new atheist movement? I, honestly, think that the new atheism is based on complete misunderstanding and them comparing God to something like the easter bunny or Santa Claus is just ridiculous. And I'd also like to know your reasons for believing in God.

all 33 comments
sorted by:
best
best
top
new
hot
controversial
old

[–]BurroBurrito 4 points5 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I think the best way to look at atheism is as a faith. More specifically, atheism is the belief that there is no supreme deity or higher power. It is near-impossible to prove that something does not exist and even more difficult to prove that a being with unlimited power (including the power to hide itself from our observations) does not exist. Beyond the belief in the non-existence of a supreme being that defines the term, beliefs are very individual and can vary widely.

I think that making generalizations about the beliefs of such a broad and non-uniform group will prevent us from loving atheists each as individuals.

[–]badbluemoon 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I think the best way to look at atheism is as a faith. More specifically, atheism is the belief that there is no supreme deity or higher power.

Sorry, I disagree.

I'm an atheist - not because I believe there is no god (which is a weird statement), but because I doubt the existence of one. That's actually quite a difference.

Please be aware that not all of us assert there isn't one, and claim to 100% know there isn't a god. Some of us just strongly doubt it. We're called agnostic atheists.

[–]BurroBurrito 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

You are more than welcome to call yourself whatever you'd like, but at this point, we'd really be debating whose definition of the word "atheism" we're using. You are using the definition of "the disbelief in a deity" and I was using the definition "the belief that no deity exists". The difference is a subtle one, but you'll find both definitions in common usage. And while I realize there are dissenting opinions within any group, the vast majority of atheists I have met define themselves according to my definition.

Of course, your counter-argument to that is that they are using the wrong definition and that that definition is incorrect and out of date. To which my counter-counter-argument would be that words are just arrangements of sounds or letters to which we as a society agree to assign meaning and that, so long as the term is commonly accepted to mean my definition, or your definition, both are valid.

And then your counter-counter-counterargument would be "Didn't your message warn against making generalizations about the beliefs of the group?" And then my counter-counter-counter-counterargument would be that I considered my use of the term correct and encompassing of the topic at hand. But at this point I'm losing track of how many counters I'm up to, so I apologize if I offended you.

If you would be willing to help me avoid such an error in the future, how do you define the differences between pure agnostics, agnostic atheists and atheist agnostics?

[–]theLmovingKnight 11 points12 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

This is a really broad question, and in my opinion is likely to result in unclear and ill defined discussion.

[–]theretheresweetthing 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I don't think it's all evil, really. As Catholics, we're taught that you need faith AND reason; atheists are simply taking one of the "wings of salvation" and pushing it to the absolute extreme. To a fault, yes, but I see that as no better or worse than those that try to have ultimate faith but don't care about reason.

I think the idea that they're all prideful or have no moral foundation is a baseless argument that has been proven wrong by many, many times. They're still people still for the most part follow the natural law whether they acknowledge it or not, and I don't think "pride" is the right word, although I can't articulate what a better one would be at this point.

In essence, they are people who have made a god out of reason. No more, no less, and probably no worse off than the millions of us that make gods out of sex, money or success.

EDIT: how ever, what they miss is the relationship with God, which is a huge part of the human experience, and it makes me a little sad for them, but that's their choice.

[–]mikfay2010 6 points7 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

As a rational position to maintain: Atheism has its heroes only in philosophy. They have been forgotten by the new-atheists because many of those philosophies do not offer much hope or direction, and their practical application in the 20th century were often ... less than perfect. Even the benign ones are pretty boring/non-satisfying: materialism, scientism, empiricism, existentialism, nihilism, ect.

As a spiritual state: pride. pride. pride.

As a moral life: foundationless.

A Christian's proper response to Atheism: charity and prayer. Atheists are almost never converted through sheer intellectual force, but through the radically unworldly life lived by a Christian. It leads them to ask: "Why?" and "For what?"

[–]The_Geb 7 points8 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I'd like to know why you feel that atheists are in a state of pride, and why they have a moral life without foundation?

I'm Catholic, but I think that Richard Dawkins' "Atheist 10 Commandments" show a distinct lack of pride, and a strong moral foundation:

  1. Do not do to others what you would not want them to do to you.
  2. In all things, strive to cause no harm.
  3. Treat your fellow human beings, your fellow living things, and the world in general with love, honesty, faithfulness and respect.
  4. Do not overlook evil or shrink from administering justice, but always be ready to forgive wrongdoing freely admitted and honestly regretted.
  5. Live life with a sense of joy and wonder.
  6. Always seek to be learning something new.
  7. Test all things; always check your ideas against the facts, and be ready to discard even a cherished belief if it does not conform to them.
  8. Never seek to censor or cut yourself off from dissent; always respect the right of others to disagree with you.
  9. Form independent opinions on the basis of your own reason and experience; do not allow yourself to be led blindly by others.
  10. Question everything.

Yes, they are missing out on something wonderful and true by choosing to not seek a relationship with God, but I see nothing in that list that the Church would disagree with.

[–]mikfay2010 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I agree that the Church wouldn't disagree with anything he says in the list. However, I do not think there is a logically consistent and well-grounded reason to live out these commandments in an atheistic world-view. For example, without any objective moral code to measure these against, these "commandments" are more like "Dawkin's personal suggestions to live a decent human life, but if you don't want to that's ok because there's no obligation to live by these anyway."

Pride is a sin at the root of virtually all sin. So everyone is guilty of it to some extant. Atheism is a worldview that narrowly restricts knowledge and assent to truth to ONLY that which can be demonstrated after starting from a default position of doubt/skepticism. Atheism arbitrarily defines its own definition of what can be true. So, in other words, a person who doesn't open themselves up to receiving truths that they haven't defined is, at a basic intellectual level, prideful.

[–]The_Geb 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

The obligation is held by societal norms... these are behaviors that appear to be inherent in the better side of human nature. Morality goes back to the days when we were pack hunters on the plains of Africa, before we had a coherent idea of God, if you harmed a member of your pack, you would be punished, not because they believed it was wrong in God's eyes, but because it was harmful to the success of the clan.

I agree on the pride front, but disagree that they arbitrarily define what can be true, there is nothing arbitrary in relying on empiricism, it's not a world view I agree with, and they are missing much of the beauty and poetry of our world by that choice, but I can respect their choice (a choice I made for most of my life, before I felt God calling me home)

[–]hairyotter 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

But why should I care about the rest of the clan? If my life is the only life I will live, why do I even care what happens to the rest of you after I die? You can argue that the idea that something is "wrong" has its roots in nature, but the reality is that such a morality is not binding, especially now that we are beyond not only primitive morality but beyond even the "superstition" that made it binding.

You say that morality can be based on what helps the clan survive, but who is to say that the clan surviving is good? This morality is simply based on more morality. You appeal to the "better side of human nature"; who is to say that what you think is better is actually so? Many things that you believe as "better" have no roots in the pack morality. If you want to talk about human rights, the human family, etc, these things actually directly oppose the "success of the primitive clan" and would likely be punished in ages past. They find their foundation in belief, specifically beliefs that stemmed from Christian belief.

If you strip away everything, the only core good you can definitively establish is your own life, your own will, your own success and power. This is the only good that cannot realistically be opposed; if the good of the clan opposes my own good, who is to really say that I should value others over myself? That kind of morality requires belief, an appeal to faith; it certainly is not a rational necessity. I am here of course merely bastardizing Nietzsche's rejection of morality. He would say that all these modern atheists are merely pseudo-Christians and are worse than Christians, because they have thrown off the system of belief and yet are too cowardly and inane to understand and accept the moral ramifications of doing so.

[–]hairyotter 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

If we use 7, 9, and 10 on the list, we can definitively dispense with the rest of the list altogether; certainly we can say that such a system has absolutely no basis in truth and cannot be said to be binding in any way, shape, or form. Unless the Commandments and Dawkins's morality should not be questioned and tested, in which case 7,9, and 10 are false? Pretty confusing.

[–]darkman2040 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

If I follow #10 properly I then question the other 9.

[–]The_Geb 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I think that's missing the point that those making the list are trying to make. Basic morality can be reached without a belief in God, and I think our moral code shouldn't just be based on God telling us what is and isn't moral, because then we are doing it because we must, not because reason tells us we should. God made us (through evolution) as beings of reason for a reason.

[–]darkman2040 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

"I think that's missing the point that those making the list are trying to make."

Doesn't matter. It's an illogical list. And precisely the problem with the New atheism. It has no capacity to reflect on its basic tenants (materialism, scientism, etc).

"Basic morality can be reached without a belief in God"

True but there are two problems:

  1. What defines such a moral standard then?
  2. Why be moral?

When atheists claim they can be moral too this means nothing. An atheist has no defined standard realistically speaking and redefines morality to suit their preferences (see homosexual marriage). If I could define morality to be whatever I wanted I would be the most moral person around.

[–]The_Geb 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

But we do the same thing, there are elements of the Mosaic Law (Leviticus) that modern people do not follow (disobedient child? punishment for them is stoning, Eat shellfish? You're unfit to worship) , yet people hold on to parts of it (prohibition on homosexual action). People are picking and choosing just the same, belief in God or not.

[–]darkman2040 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

"But we do the same thing, there are elements of the Mosaic Law (Leviticus) that modern people do not follow "

Not the same thing by a long shot. We still follow the Ten Commandments. And even the Mosaic Law has been revised as it is legislative in nature rather than morality focused.

The Ten Commandments are logical and consistent. The atheist ones are not.

[–]Cellinthias 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Why be moral?

I actually do not know what the 10 commandments are, and I still do not want to go around eating babies and stealing a kids lunch money. The same way that you would know that that fruit that smells bad, has brown mushy patches and flies on every square inch is not good to eat, you know you don't want to burn the house on your right or steal someones money. If you do, there will be serious consequences. Maybe not immediately, but there will be consequences.

[–]darkman2040 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

"I actually do not know what the 10 commandments are, and I still do not want to go around eating babies and stealing a kids lunch money."

My question is not "why don't YOU go eat babies?" It's "if someone were to say, 'I would like to eat babies' how would you argue against that?"

"The same way that you would know that that fruit that smells bad, has brown mushy patches and flies on every square inch is not good to eat, you know you don't want to burn the house on your right or steal someones money."

So is the aversion to eating babies or stealing lunch money purely a survival instinct? If eating babies were suddenly made legal would it then be ok?

The point of the question is not to say "atheists can't be moral" (though I find often atheists redefine morality to suit the current cultural view). It's "why should anyone be moral in general? And how do we define such beyond simply 'whatever I find to be good?'"

[–]Cellinthias 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I understand what you are saying, and I realize I did not explain myself fully. What I meant by consequences was that society would probably end up turning against me. If I go and steal someones money, then they would get mad and try to get back at me, ultimately ending up as a lose - lose situation and rendering the stealing counterproductive. Also, I know that if I steal, I would lose that person and possibly their friends as my allies, as it were. If I keep stealing and going around doing things that hurt people, I would end up with no allies, which would not be a very good situation for me as humans being social creatures means we get very depressed if we don't have anyone to socialize with. I know from experience.

[–]darkman2040 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

"What I meant by consequences was that society would probably end up turning against me."

I understand but this also leads to my point. The morality you cite is very self-centered (not selfish per se, but oriented toward you specifically). If society for example did not punish for stealing, would that make it right?

"If I keep stealing and going around doing things that hurt people, I would end up with no allies, which would not be a very good situation for me as humans being social creatures means we get very depressed if we don't have anyone to socialize with."

I understand but my question is still valid. Besides, it also raises an interesting question, why do we react the way we do toward such actions (theft, etc)?

[–]Cellinthias 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

If society for example did not punish for stealing, would that make it right?

This situation is not exactly black-and-white. The reason we call it wrong is because society would punish us. Therefor if society did not, we might not find it wrong. Maybe it would even be the foundation for how a society would function. That may sound a little crazy (society functioning on cheating, stealing, lies, etc, etc, etc...), but that is exactly the point. It is crazy because it is not accepted in our type of society.

As to why we act the way we do towards said actions, I think it is probably because have a sense of possession. If we didn't feel entitled to something because we made or bought or dug up (etc), then we wouldn't feel wronged when it was taken from us without what we would accept as substantial compensation which would make up for the lost item. So overall, yes, humans are selfish because it is essential to our survival. The reason we still would do things for our companions or allies in the wild is so we have an even better chance of survival. It all comes down to life. If we have allies, we have people to protect or help us because they know we are there to protect or help them because we know that means they will... okay, I think you get it. So... yea. It all comes down to survival.

[–]Bruc3w4yn3 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

The reason I would say Atheism is based in pride, is because it sets the reality of self as the first and last truth, and everything is answerable to that. Without a cosmic judge, or divine benefactor(s), the only one you answer to is yourself (social and environmental influences may affect, but not determine decisions). This makes the atheist his/her own god.

[–]NukeChem 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Wow. Great explanation! Have an upvote.

[–]GipEihis 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

It leads them to ask: "Why?" and "For what?"

Which is funny because those are also the exact intellectual questions they cannot answer but Catholicism can.

[–]kaesekopf 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

It seems they want a tangible, physical example of God.

They are materialistic, through and through.

[–]CrawdaddyJoe 1 point2 points ago*

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I am going to speak as an extremely liberal atheist who was raised in a heavily Catholic community, to two ex-Catholic (now Unitarian) parents, and who attends a Catholic school (I'm actually in this sub-reddit because I just submitted a funny experience I had today, regarding fish and it being Tuesday).

I strongly dislike the New Atheist movement. I think they're too aggressive, too disrespectful, and too biased about religion's impact on the world. I think they ignore all the good things that religious organizations do, or focus, sometimes dishonestly, on the problematic aspects of those good things (maintaining that church-goers contribute to charity out of fear of God rather than genuine love for humanity, etc). I think they blame religion for things that religion is not solely or even primarily to blame for (like the existence of sexism or war). While I share some of their criticisms of religious institutions and share their belief that these institutions are not based in truth, I feel that religion should be a more private thing. I was raised by Unitarians- my parents weren't theistic, but they expected us to respect that other people were, and that we could live with them without getting into fights over it.

I just want peace between people. I want religion to stay out of the state as much as it can and the state to stay out of religion. I don't care if my public school has fish every Friday or creates a halal or kosher option or has a student-lead prayer group or a Chistmas break, so long as these religions aren't lobbying to, say, take away my access to contraception, ban pork or alcohol, or stop the civil marriages of my GLBT friends and relatives from being legalized. I even recognize that demanding a truly secular nations is problematic because religious voters can't be asked to vote from a 'secular' stance- I just want a country that accommodates religions within the bounds of reason (no human sacrifice, for example) and that grants me the freedom to not adhere to religious law if I so choose.

Edit: Also- I posted this in good faith knowing that I am probably going to be the sole atheist on a Catholic subreddit in an increasingly conservative Catholic church. You may be tempted to use this as an opportunity to share your faith with me. I assure you, I have heard theological arguments before and am not interested- I am not here to attack your beliefs and I hope that your will return the favor.

[–]badbluemoon 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Thank you, thank you, thank you.

You're not the only atheist here!

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I believe in God because I think the Bible has historical proof, I feel great during church, and I think that atheism does not provide an explanation for morals and emotions. As for atheism,I get along fine with atheistic friends,unless they slam my beliefs.

[–]darkman2040 -1 points0 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

The New Atheist movement is a vapid and shallow pseudo-intellectual movement. It claims the moral and intellectual high ground while demonstrating time and again that it holds neither. It masks ignorance and irrationality with contempt and bigotry.

I long for the day when atheists get back into real thought. Hell at this time I'd take Bertrand Russel.