Of gods and language.

[AeolianHarp]

Your post though again overlooks the enormous contribution to science and education made by Catholics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholi...ch_and_science.

I have been watching a programme on women artists on BBC iplayer. It was the Catholic church that actually gave women a space to practise their art- there is actually a Last Supper painting by a female artist and some sculptures.

OK you object to the moral teachings of the Catholic church, that is your own choice and no one is denying you that. You presumably do lead your life as you wish, so why so angry? You say we don't have to look further than Ireland - what do you mean? The violence has nothing to do with the Church which is opposed to all forms of violence, hatred and intolerance. The violence comes from people justifying themselves according to their own values.

I think Albert might be referring to the Magdalene laundries women were put in run by nuns who would make them work long hours for no pay and abuse them.

From an atheistic point of view there can be nothing wrong with this, because this is precisely what atheists claim we should do - live our lives according to our own values. Thus we arrive at the only logical conclusion as defined by Dostoevsky in the Brothers Karamazov and put into action by the Nazis and Communists “If God did not exist, everything is permitted”.

Not true Peter- atheism doesn't eschew morality- the Buddhist precepts and Ten Commandments are practically identical and come from a natural, logical set of values- humanism. Get a hundred people in a room of various belief systems and everyone would agree that murder, stealing etc are not good acts. I know many atheist activists who spend time on social justice marches, camps etc and met tons of atheists at Friends of the Earth meetings. They didn't have a religion of any sort but are still motivated to do good- by their own natural goodness.

[AeolianHarp]

I believe Beethoven was a lapsed Catholic.

He didn't go to Mass as an adult no.

As we all know was profoundly influenced by the French Revolution. He had a lot of deep difficulties in trying to fathom the violence and blood shed that resulted from the Revolution and we all know how he came to loathe Napoleon.
I don't think Beethoven ever shook off his great sympathy for the Revolution and it accounts I think for his political naivity. He didn't understand that absolute power corrupts.

Beethoven niave? Absolutely not! He understood very well that power corrupts! Like any deeply spiritual person, he was aware of that and understood why the people wanted a Revolution, but that revolutions often end in bloodshed.

My own view is that he was very taken with Robes Pierres idea of the supreme being. But he didn't seem to understand these people were simply criminals who regarded religion as a racket like everything else. It may be that he came back to his religion on his deathbed.

Oh yes he knew that too. He read Eastern and ancient Greek philosophies too.

[Peter]

Not true Peter- athiesm doesn't eschew morality- the Buddhist precepts and Ten Commandments are practically identical and come from a natural, logical set of values- humanism. Get a hundred people in a room of various belief systems and everyone would agree that murder, stealing etc are not good acts. I know many athiest activists who spend time on social justice marches, camps etc and met tons of athiests at Friends of the Earth meetings. They didn't have a religion of any sort but are still motivated to do good- by their own natural goodness.

Of course many atheists lead perfectly good and moral lives, in many cases more so than those in the Church who have been shown to be corrupt. The trouble is there is no logic to that from an atheistic perspective because your morality is relative. Where does this 'natural goodness' come from that you speak of? Had you lived in the 17th century it is quite likely you would have like the majority of people considered it right to turn up for the local hanging. If you lived at the time of Jesus, like the majority of people you would have considered it right to stone a woman for adultery - this is where Jesus' teaching was new and so revolutionary when he said 'let those amongst you without sin, cast the first stone.'

Today it is considered perfectly acceptable for people to have sex outside marriage with multiple partners and to abort the inconvenient product of selfish behaviour and to infect each other with diseases. Tomorrow it may well be acceptable to abort any foetus that isn't the right sex or has any abnormality. We are on a very dangerous path.

The logic of your position is that there is no such thing as good or evil, because what is considered good and right by society is on shifting sand - it varies within different ages and societies. As I said at the start though this doesn't mean I think atheists are all immoral, but they are illogical.

[RobertH]

He didn't go to Mass as an adult no.



Beethoven niave? Absolutely not! He understood very well that power corrupts! Like any deeply spiritual person, he was aware of that and understood why the people wanted a Revolution, but that revolutions often end in bloodshed.



Oh yes he knew that too. He read Eastern and ancient Greek philosophies too.

I see what you are saying, but what you are overlooking is a quite simple point about Beethoven. He was what we would call a "progressive." He believed in the forward progress of mankind - which of course, apart from some medical improvements, is complete nonsense. He suspected that only Revolution - violent revolution, because how else could you deal with the 'forces of reaction'- would do the job. We who regard him so highly in musical terms - and he was a progressive, or avant-guarde - composer should not be blind to his faults. He was very naive but he did try to get a better perspective on things. He came to admire the parliamentary system because he saw a way how opposition elements could be blended into the sytem, but things could still get done without Revolution. Prof. Ken Minogue often used to say that the greatest invention of Britain was oppositional politics. This was simply unknown, or incredible, to Beethoven who lived in a crumbling absolutist empire.
I fear dear Beethoven would have fallen for the 'modernizing' propaganda of Mr. Blair - and we all know how that one worked out.
It was a mercy that Beethoven did not live to see two world wars. That would have simply destroyed him as a caring human being, and like Stefan Zweig he may have given up completely on his human project.

[AeolianHarp]

Of course many atheists lead perfectly good and moral lives, in many cases more so than those in the Church who have been shown to be corrupt. The trouble is there is no logic to that from an atheistic perspective because your morality is relative. Where does this 'natural goodness' come from that you speak of?

It comes from within. It lives within us. My morality is high and yet I don't believe in God. I don't need gods or religion to tell me what is compassion. All things can be said to be relative- as we relate to each other. Even animals can show morality and altruism. To help others is natural- co operation makes for community, sharing and survival. We are not robots.

Had you lived in the 17th century it is quite likely you would have like the majority of people considered it right to turn up for the local hanging. If you lived at the time of Jesus, like the majority of people you would have considered it right to stone a woman for adultery - this is where Jesus' teaching was new and so revolutionary when he said 'let those amongst you without sin, cast the first stone.'

I am not in the 17th century and many people then didn't agree with such horrible actions.
And in the old Testament the god there tells people to kill others and approves animal sacrifice! I need no god to tell me what is compassionate, what loving deeds are and what is not.

People are and can be moral without god. Some of the most moral people I know are atheists.I remember arguing this with adults as a child when my mother was Jehovah's Witness and I had to go to their meetings. I never believed what they tried to condition me to believe. Even as a child I could see the lies.


It is possible to be moral without God
We should recognise and celebrate good wherever we come across it, while being ready to acknowledge and counter the darker side of human nature.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...religion.world

Now, I am not saying people are not moral if they believe in God- but those who believe in god and then abuse others are not moral. Belief in god does not make one moral in itself.


Who is more moral? The atheist who devotes their life to social justice, works in an ethical company and supports local community projects and sustainability or the church goer who goes every sunday yet buys from unethical companies, uses pesticides, hurts animals and is intolerant to homosexuals and immigrants? You get my drift here Peter?????

Didn't Jesus say by their acts they will be known?



Are you familiar with the Vietnamese monk Thich Nhat Hanh? He brought US ex veterans and Vietnamese families together in very moving, profound healing and been nominated for the Nobel Peace. He doesn't believe in God- so where does his extraordinary compassion for all living beings come from then? It comes from within.


“My actions are my only true belongings. I cannot escape the consequences of my actions. My actions are the ground on which I stand.”

Thích Nhất Hạnh.

“We often think of peace as the absence of war, that if powerful countries would reduce their weapon arsenals, we could have peace. But if we look deeply into the weapons, we see our own minds- our own prejudices, fears and ignorance. Even if we transport all the bombs to the moon, the roots of war and the roots of bombs are still there, in our hearts and minds, and sooner or later we will make new bombs. To work for peace is to uproot war from ourselves and from the hearts of men and women. To prepare for war, to give millions of men and women the opportunity to practice killing day and night in their hearts, is to plant millions of seeds of violence, anger, frustration, and fear that will be passed on for generations to come. ”

Thich Nhat Hanh.

“When we walk like (we are rushing), we print anxiety and sorrow on the earth. We have to walk in a way that we only print peace and serenity on the earth... Be aware of the contact between your feet and the earth. Walk as if you are kissing the earth with your feet.”

Thích Nhất Hạnh.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Th%C3%A...t_H%E1%BA%A1nh

Buddhists are atheists, yet the teachings are profoundly moral.

On love:

"You look into their eyes and you say, "Darling, you know something? I'm here for you." You offer him or her your presence. You are not preoccupied with the past or the future; you are there for your beloved. The second mantra is, "Darling, I know you are there and I am so happy." Because you are fully there, you recognize the presence of your beloved as something very precious. You embrace your beloved with mindfulness. And he or she will bloom like a flower. To be loved means to be recognized as existing. And these two mantras can bring happiness right away, even if your beloved one is not there. You can use your telephone and practice the mantra."

If the world was based on this type of morality it would be a far better life.

On bringing peace to the world:

"Dear friends, dear people, I know that you suffer. I have not understood enough of your difficulties and suffering. It's not our intention to make you suffer more. It is the opposite. We don't want you to suffer. But we don't know what to do and we might do the wrong thing if you don't help us to understand. So please tell us about your difficulties. I'm eager to learn, to understand." We have to have loving speech. And if we are honest, if we are true, they will open their hearts. Then we practice compassionate listening, and we can learn so much about our own perception and their perception. Only after that can we help remove wrong perception. That is the best way, the only way, to remove terrorism."

"When we come to the table, we shouldn't negotiate right away. We should spend time walking together, eating together, making acquaintance, telling each other about our own suffering, without blame or condemnation. It takes maybe one, two, three weeks to do that. And if communication and understanding are possible, negotiation will be easier. So if I am to organize a peace negotiation, I will organize it in that way."



Imagine of the world leaders had such moral and spiritual integrity as this monk. Can you even imagine how it would feel to live in such a world?

The logic of your position is that there is no such thing as good or evil, because what is considered good and right by society is on shifting sand - it varies within different ages and societies.

Funny, but in the heyday of Christianity they burnt women for being "witches" and tortured heretics. They had their morality.
But in a modern secular age we don't agree with that and it is this age that has outlawed torture, capital punishment and the death penalty. Since you mentioned logic below, it is true to say that the secular age in general has brought in greater human rights, equality and freedom - though we still have a ways to go ( the Illuminati are still afoot....but that is another issue).

As I said at the start though this doesn't mean I think atheists are all immoral, but they are illogical.

This is how he knows...

"The question can be answered when you can answer this: What happens in the present moment? In the present moment, you are producing thought, speech, and action. And they continue in the world. Every thought you produce, anything you say, any action you do, it bears your signature. Action is called karma. And that's your continuation. When this body disintegrates, you continue on with your actions. It's like the cloud in the sky. When the cloud is no longer in the sky, it hasn't died. The cloud is continued in other forms like rain or snow or ice. Our nature is the nature of no birth and no death. It is impossible for a cloud to pass from being into nonbeing. And that is true with a beloved person. They have not died. They have continued in many new forms and you can look deeply and recognize them in you and around you."

"I am a mayfly metamorphosing on the surface of the river. And I am the bird that swoops down to swallow the mayfly.... I am the child in Uganda, all skin and bones, my legs as thin as bamboo sticks. And I am the arms merchant, selling deadly weapons to Uganda. I am the 12-year-old girl, refugee on a small boat, who throws herself into the ocean after being raped by a sea pirate. And I am the pirate, my heart not yet capable of seeing and loving.... Please call me by my true names, so I can hear all my cries and laughter at once, so I can see that my joy and pain are one. Please call me by my true names, so I can wake up and the door of my heart could be left open, the door of compassion."

I confess reading this monk's words brings a few tears to my eyes- so profoundly moving.

http://www.oprah.com/spirit/Oprah-Ta...hich-Nhat-Hanh

All that is illogical how? When such profound feeling, spirituality and healing is going on...

Today it is considered perfectly acceptable for people to have sex outside marriage with multiple partners

There is a difference between sex and making love. The latter is the higher, spiritual connection between two people. It makes no difference if they are married or not.

and to abort the inconvenient product of selfish behaviour and to infect each other with diseases.

These are indeed not admirable actions.

Tomorrow it may well be acceptable to abort any foetus that isn't the right sex or has any abnormality. We are on a very dangerous path.

The former isn't aceptable; the former may be so when the baby would be born to suffer greatly and die within a few days of birth.

[AeolianHarp]

I see what you are saying, but what you are overlooking is a quite simple point about Beethoven. He was what we would call a "progressive." He believed in the forward progress of mankind - which of course, apart from some medical improvements, is complete nonsense.

Robert I do not seek to label dear Ludwig as anything. To believe and have hope in progress of humanity ( let's include women here shall we?) is crucial to improving what we are and what we could be. It is not nonsense, for if it were, we would stagnate. Have you read below my posts of the words Buddhist monk Thich Nhat Hanh? This is what true progress is- the greater cultivation of compassion and spirituality. I expect Ludwig would have liked what this monk practises and teaches.

He suspected that only Revolution - violent revolution, because how else could you deal with the 'forces of reaction'- would do the job.

I have never read anything that Ludwig said stating violence was the way forward.

We who regard him so highly in musical terms - and he was a progressive, or avant-guarde - composer should not be blind to his faults. He was very naive but he did try to get a better perspective on things.

Everyone has faults, and he was fully aware of them- one only has to read his letters and diary entries to see that. Naive he was not- he was well read and a deep thinker.

Prof. Ken Minogue often used to say that the greatest invention of Britain was oppositional politics. This was simply unknown, or incredible, to Beethoven who lived in a crumbling absolutist empire.

Well, that is not perfect either. There is no perfection, but we should strive to improve ourselves and spirituality is one way to do so- to look at others and see no other- to recognise the soul in all sentient beings.

I fear dear Beethoven would have fallen for the 'modernizing' propaganda of Mr. Blair - and we all know how that one worked out.

You have got to be joking! Beethoven could see right through liars!

It was a mercy that Beethoven did not live to see two world wars. That would have simply destroyed him as a caring human being, and like Stefan Zweig he may have given up completely on his human project.

He would have been appalled indeed.

[Peter]

It comes from within. It lives within us. My morality is high and yet I don't believe in God. I don't need gods or religion to tell me what is compassion. All things can be said to be relative- as we relate to each other. Even animals can show morality and altruism. To help others is natural- co operation makes for community, sharing and survival. We are not robots.

So where does the desire to kill each other come from? How come the 20th century was one of the most horrific in human history if we're all so naturally good? Look at programmes like neighbours from hell or the Jerry Springer show just to see how nice people can naturally be! We live in an evil world and people are naturally selfish - it doesn't take much to bring it out - just remember Hitler was elected and the German people are no different to anyone else.

We should recognise and celebrate good wherever we come across it, while being ready to acknowledge and counter the darker side of human nature.

Absolutely!

Now, I am not saying people are not moral if they believe in God- but those who believe in god and then abuse others are not moral. Belief in god does not make one moral in itself.

Nor did I say atheists per se were necessarily immoral. The Catholic church hardly has the monopoly on child abuse - you'll find plenty of that amongst atheists.

Who is more moral? The atheist who devotes their life to social justice, works in an ethical company and supports local community projects and sustainability or the church goer who goes every sunday yet buys from unethical companies, uses pesticides, hurts animals and is intolerant to homosexuals and immigrants? You get my drift here Peter?????

This is a pointless remark - intolerance is not limited to belief in God, nor is buying from unethical companies or any other negative you care to mention. I get your drift and it's a bit insulting to imply every Catholic church goer behaves or thinks as you suggest.

Funny, but in the heyday of Christianity they burnt women for being "witches" and tortured heretics. They had their morality.

Yes but this wasn't true Christianity was it? Christianity is what Christ preached. You're right they had their 'morality' which was a perversion of the truth - this was my point about the dangers of 'relative' morality.

But in a modern secular age we don't agree with that and it is this age that has outlawed torture, capital punishment and the death penalty. Since you mentioned logic below, it is true to say that the secular age in general has brought in greater human rights, equality and freedom - though we still have a ways to go ( the Illuminati are still afoot....but that is another issue).

Really? - that depends on where you live - countries where religion has been outlawed certainly do not do as you say, quite the opposite - I can also think of a few democracies as well that hardly live up to your claims. As I pointed out earlier, this wonderful secular age has also presided over some of the world's greatest atrocities, mass abortion, the break up of families, the worship of materialism, a depressing selfish attitude of 'Me,me, me', an unhealthy obsession with sex, vanity and youth with a pornographic culture that is now entirely out of control, a total disrespect for the elderly often abandoned by their own families, the mindless worship of celebrities, the greatest gap between rich and poor with an obscene amount of wealth concentrated in the hands of a tiny minority, the technology to destroy the entire planet and perhaps most dangerous of all, an entire generation brought up with a very limited, selective and PC 'knowledge' of history - progress indeed! And with all the so-called 'freedoms' you talk of, are people any happier than they were 50 years ago? The rise in anti-depressants, suicides and all sorts of addictions and mental health issues would suggest not.

[Harvey]

A few quick thoughts:

A moral foundation must be established outside of man, else it is subject to majority rule or some other rule (a dictator for example) and subject to change.

None of us stands before God as a morally good person: "But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags." --Isaiah 64:6a

One must evaluate Christianity not on the faults of Christians (or those claiming to be Christians), but on the truth of it's founder Jesus Christ.

[AeolianHarp]

So where does the desire to kill each other come from?

It comes from within as does the desire to good- therein lies the paradox. But most people are not wanting to kill each other- that is a minority in a world of billions of people.

Or, if one wishes to delve deeper we could look at what Eckhart Tolle says on the matter:

Some people carry dense pain bodies that are never completely dormant. They may appear normal and indifferent, having normal relationships, going to work and socializing. Yet, just underneath the surface is a seething mass of disturbance just waiting for the next thing to react to or the next person or group to blame. These pain bodies are hungry ghosts. They are always in a state of blaming, wanting revenge, feeling outraged and betrayed. The ego’s need for enemies is always magnified in people like this.

Because of this heightened reactivity, something that really is relatively insignificant gets magnified into a life and death situation that pulls other people into their drama. Some people get themselves involved in extended, exhausting court battles with organizations or corporations like the couple in England who sued McDonald’s over a period of 17 years. Others are consumed with hatred toward an ex-partner or family member. Because they are not aware of the pain they are constantly carrying inside, this dense pain body is superimposed onto ordinary situations. This sets up a scenario where the person cannot tell the difference between what is happening in their reality and their reaction to it.

The resolution of this pain and suffering therefore must be outside of themselves, so split-off are these people from their dense pain-bodies. This usually brings about actions that recreate the pain body in real life real world events. This is what seems to have happened to the Norwegian mass-murderer who appeared to everyone as an ordinary citizen, yet, for years an incredible internal hatred was brewing inside -— a pain body so dense that even to this day, there is no remorse for acting out on innocent victims. As shocking as these extremely dense pain bodies are, they are an exaggerated symptom of the human pain body as a whole — a warning to all of us that the pain body in each of us must be recognized and resolved through understanding, compassion, and the present moment.

http://www.tolleteachings.com/dense-...s.html#Eckhart

How come the 20th century was one of the most horrific in human history if we're all so naturally good? Look at programmes like neighbours from hell or the Jerry Springer show just to see how nice people can naturally be! We live in an evil world and people are naturally selfish - it doesn't take much to bring it out - just remember Hitler was elected and the German people are no different to anyone else.

If we step back and take a wider look at circumstances that arise that lead to war and violence, we can see that these usually arise out of lack- lack of food, a lack of gainful employment, lack of love, oppression, despair and so on. When people have enough of these there is less impetus to revolt, go to war and so on. Imagine a society where there is enough food, enough gainful employment, positive community then war and murder are unlikely to occur. Fear breeds these actions.

Nor did I say atheists per se were necessarily immoral. The Catholic church hardly has the monopoly on child abuse - you'll find plenty of that amongst atheists.

Often abusers are sick occultists.

This is a pointless remark - intolerance is not limited to belief in God, nor is buying from unethical companies or any other negative you care to mention. I get your drift and it's a bit insulting to imply every Catholic church goer behaves or thinks as you suggest.

I am not implying any church goer is one way or another- ( and didn't even state I meant one type of religion in particular) but giving a hypothetical example that it is not only what one believes but one one does in life that is the most important thing.

I knew a woman who was a member of Friends of the Earth and a Protestant, and was always lamenting to me that she could not find a church to go where people were concerned about the environment and shopped ethically ( as much as one can afford to) etc. She said she found them superficial. I said to her I couldn't comment on how they were as I didn't know them. She was impressed at the eco spirituality of some pagans and how that is part of their spiritual path and was interested in my Druid/Buddhist ways. She said if Christians believe God created this planet then being eco conscious ought to come with it.

Yes but this wasn't true Christianity was it? Christianity is what Christ preached. You're right they had their 'morality' which was a perversion of the truth - this was my point about the dangers of 'relative' morality.

Indeed and it kind of proves my point- people can believe in God/gods and be moral or immoral in their actions; people can be atheist and be moral or immoral in their actions. Neither has a monopoly on morality or immorality. Beliefs of any kind can lead to immorality and cruelty. Jihadists are an example. This is why I rate the Buddhist teachings of mindfulness and compassion- this is about examinng one's motives, being more aware of the effect of our actions upon others and also how our own thoughts affect ourselves:

http://www.wildmind.org/applied/dail...is-mindfulness

Even mental health professionals know how beneficial this practise is to us.

Really? - that depends on where you live - countries where religion has been outlawed certainly do not do as you say, quite the opposite - I can also think of a few democracies as well that hardly live up to your claims.

Outlawing religion for another ideology and state run belief system is just another form of a belief system. I wasn't talking about that specifically, but talking about how in the West ( and in other societies also too) we have moved on from burning women as "witches", torturing people if they question the state religion, sending children up chimneys, denying women educational opportunities, putting bridles in their mouths so they could not speak, and so on. I love history, I would be the first to enter a time machine, but for all the faults of the c.21st, our society is in many ways the most tolerant and free it has ever been. Go back to the 1400s and you would rather be living now.

As I pointed out earlier, this wonderful secular age has also presided over some of the world's greatest atrocities, mass abortion, the break up of families, the worship of materialism, a depressing selfish attitude of 'Me,me, me', an unhealthy obsession with sex, vanity and youth with a pornographic culture that is now entirely out of control, a total disrespect for the elderly often abandoned by their own families, the mindless worship of celebrities, the greatest gap between rich and poor with an obscene amount of wealth concentrated in the hands of a tiny minority,

I will agree that we do in many ways live in a degenerate age, but those above have always existed- there have always been atrocities ( Europe was warring for almost a thousand years!), there have always been backstreet abortions and the babies were often left in the street to die by the poor who couldn't afford to feed them ( thanks science for giving us contraceptives!!), the rich/elite have always been materialistic and many of them were sexual deviants and abusing the female servants, there have always been narcissists ( look at the monarchy of ye old days!), the elderly were left to die in slums in the 1800s or on the streets ( no old folks homes then), the elite paraded round being admired at court (akin to our celebs today), and far far more people were in poverty then- the elite of the past were equivalent to multi billionaires- this has always been so in any civilisation and the gap between the poor and the rich in the west was hundreds of years ago much much wider. If you had no employment you starved, and often even with employment you barely had enough to eat. Sure, the elite still rule the roost (I am well aware of the NWO and the Illuminati) but go back to 1400 AD or the slums of the 1800s and you'd see the most abject poverty that is not around now ( and I am unemployed so I am not well off by a long shot...)

And if you want to compare perversions- go back to the Roman Empire!!!

the technology to destroy the entire planet

Destroy some populations yes, but we haven't the technology to obliterate the planet!

and perhaps most dangerous of all, an entire generation brought up with a very limited, selective and PC 'knowledge' of history - progress indeed!

History is always seen through the eyes of someone. Once historians and anthroplogists called tribal societies "savages."

and with all the so-called 'freedoms' you talk of, are people any happier than they were 50 years ago? The rise in anti-depressants, suicides and all sorts of addictions and mental health issues would suggest not.

I am sure they were very happy dying in sewage infested slums of starvation and cold in the Victorian era too. Alchoholism was rife, as were suicides, infanticide, opium addiction...
It is easy to look upon the past with rose tinted spectacles.

[Chris]

Can there be morality without God? Some are saying yes, and some are saying no. I think the answer is both yes and no. If one accepts Aristotelian essentialism, then yes. Under that system, what is good for a thing, including a human being, is determined by its nature. And the nature of a human being is what it is, regardless of the question of God.

The morality taught by any institution rooted in classical theism (such as the Catholic Church) works this same way, in fact. So it is no good to argue that the morality taught by such an institution is rooted in something an atheist cannot accept because he does not accept the existence of God. Morality in classical theism does not come from arbitrary divine commands. It is rooted in the natural law, which comes from the nature of things, and, to a major extent, can be known without appealing to God at all.

That said, the popular kind of atheism today is not something that holds Aristotelian essentialism, but absolutely denies it in favor of an anti-teleological conception of the natural world. Under that system, there cannot really be any rational justification for objective morality. Because if there is no intrinsic teleology, all teleology must be mere as-if teleology. And that means that there can be no true goodness, but only as-if goodness. And that in turn means there can be no true morality; it can only be as if there is morality.

And this is why this kind of atheism leads to evil. Certainly any classical theist could do evil and justify it by making some kind of rationalization to himself, but he could never actually justify it under the system of morality he purports to hold. On the other hand, when all you have is a system with "as-if" morality, that is not true. People might come together and form a civil society because they can see it is advantageous to most of them. They can choose to act as if there is morality because most people benefit. If people do not murder, steal, etc., things work a lot better. But then when it becomes convenient to murder the weakest members of that society, or steal from them, those actions can be justified on the grounds that the society is better off that way. Here morality becomes nothing more than a convenient fiction that can be discarded when it becomes inconvenient.

And certainly even this kind of atheist can be capable of charity and compassion. But why? Because of something inside, as has been noted. Emotion or sentiment. But there is no rational justification for it.

So no, atheism does not, in itself, rule out true morality. But the modern kind of naturalistic atheism does.

[Peter]

It is easy to look upon the past with rose tinted spectacles.

I can assure you I certainly don't look on the past with rose tinted spectacles and it is also easy to see the present through rose tinted spectacles as these statistics point out:

Almost half of the world’s wealth is now owned by just one percent of the population.

The wealth of the one percent richest people in the world amounts to $110 trillion. That’s 65 times the total wealth of the bottom half of the world’s population.

The bottom half of the world’s population owns the same as the richest 85 people in the world.

Seven out of ten people live in countries where economic inequality has increased in the last 30 years.

The richest one percent increased their share of income in 24 out of 26 countries for which we have data between 1980 and 2012.


I would also remind you that about 27 million people are living in modern day slavery and that aside from dictatorships, the US and the world's largest democracy India still retain capital punishment.

I respect your entitlement to your views and I hope you also respect the fact that others are entitled to their beliefs without being ridiculed. I do agree with you that the way we live our lives is of prime importance - as G.K.Chesterton put it "Just going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in your garage makes you a car." Therefore despite disagreements, we should share common values of respect, compassion, love and forgiveness which ought to be at the heart of every human being regardless of religious differences.

[AeolianHarp]

I can assure you I certainly don't look on the past with rose tinted spectacles and it is also easy to see the present through rose tinted spectacles

Well I can, so it is good to remind myself of the improvements of a modern age.

as these statistics point out:

Almost half of the world’s wealth is now owned by just one percent of the population.

The wealth of the one percent richest people in the world amounts to $110 trillion. That’s 65 times the total wealth of the bottom half of the world’s population.

The bottom half of the world’s population owns the same as the richest 85 people in the world.

Seven out of ten people live in countries where economic inequality has increased in the last 30 years.

The richest one percent increased their share of income in 24 out of 26 countries for which we have data between 1980 and 2012.

Yes, I know that - I am well aware of the NWO, Illuminati global elite etc, but this has always been so since civilisations arose- they had even more wealth and power hundreds of years ago when you compare how the poor lived and how many were poor.

I would also remind you that about 27 million people are living in modern day slavery and that aside from dictatorships, the US and the world's largest democracy India still retain capital punishment.

Yes, of course. I was not talking about those countries, I was talking about the West.

I respect your entitlement to your views and I hope you also respect the fact that others are entitled to their beliefs without being ridiculed.

Where have I ridiculed you? I don't do that sort of thing unless one of those street evangelists is insulting me, telling me I'm going to hell! Then I'll say something like, "See you there then..don't be daft.."

I do agree with you that the way we live our lives is of prime importance - as G.K.Chesterton put it "Just going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in your garage makes you a car." Therefore despite disagreements, we should share common values of respect, compassion, love and forgiveness which ought to be at the heart of every human being regardless of religious differences.

Of course- that is the tenet of Buddhism. But I do have to say that the only religious group who have tried to shove their beliefs onto me, and told me I am sinful or inadequate have been Christians ( protestant types not Catholics- never had any issues with Catholics). Not even Muslims have done this, and these get a bad press for being extreme!

I do think such groups need to stop trying to force their beliefs on others and being so derisive of anyone who does not want to join their group. I had a man come to my next door neighbour's fence yesterday trying to give us leaflets about Jesus (I was in her garden as she'd asked me to come and help her with a computer issue). Whilst he wasn't rude he kept asking us if we wanted the leaflets when we had already politely said, "No thank you." In the end I told him I was atheist to get rid of him. There are churches all over this suburb- why do they have to come to my home? If I was interested I'd be going to one. As I am not interested I am not going to one. And people wonder why I have a locked gate. Personally if I was PM I would make it illegal to proseyltise in the streets and go to peoples' houses uninvited.

[Peter]

Yes, I know that - I am well aware of the NWO, Illuminati global elite etc, but this has always been so since civilisations arose- they had even more wealth and power hundreds of years ago when you compare how the poor lived and how many were poor.
Yes, of course. I was not talking about those countries, I was talking about the West.

Doesn't the rest of the world count? The US is in the West - when it comes to slavery, much trafficking goes on in Europe, the US and right here in the UK. In Europe, criminals are pocketing around $2.5 billion per year through sexual exploitation and forced labour.

Where have I ridiculed you? I don't do that sort of thing unless one of those street evangelists is insulting me, telling me I'm going to hell! Then I'll say something like, "See you there then..don't be daft.."

I was speaking generally. It is inevitable when religion is discussed especially on a forum like this which is why I was reluctant at first to engage. However a very deliberate attack specifically on the Catholic Church (not from you directly) needed responding to.

We used to have Jehovah's Witnesses knock at the door - my mother though not sharing their views would always engage politely and courteously.

[AeolianHarp]

Doesn't the rest of the world count? The US is in the West - when it comes to slavery, much trafficking goes on in Europe, the US and right here in the UK. In Europe, criminals are pocketing around $2.5 billion per year through sexual exploitation and forced labour.

I was talking about Europe specifically in how the improvements have occurred in modern secular times. Noone could argue that despite the problems that we still have, now is generally far more preferable a time to live, than say 1400 AD.

The issues you raise above regarding trafficking and exploitation were on a far larger scale hundreds of years ago than today- slavery was in the institutions, thousands of women had to sell themselves for a loaf of bread and thousands of people, children included, worked in factories on 15 hour days, 6 days a week for a few pence and lived on bowls of porridge. These things were not illegal back then ( except prostitution), but now they are, and they do not go on to the scale they did a few hundred years ago.

I was speaking generally. It is inevitable when religion is discussed especially on a forum like this which is why I was reluctant at first to engage. However a very deliberate attack specifically on the Catholic Church (not from you directly) needed responding to.

I am not attacking the church. I have got a close friend who is Catholic, l and had one at university who was on my archaeology courses- she was studying human evolution like me! One of the other students on our courses called her Holy Mary behind her back, and I didn't like that and told the other woman not to call her that.

We used to have Jehovah's Witnesses knock at the door - my mother though not sharing their views would always engage politely and courteously.

If they knock at my door they will get the water pistol. ( but the locked gate prevents intruders coming in)
Had enough of their rubbish as a child.

[Peter]

I was talking about Europe specifically in how the improvements have occurred in modern secular times. Noone could argue that despite the problems that we still have, now is generally far more preferable a time to live, than say 1400 AD.

The issues you raise above regarding trafficking and exploitation were on a far larger scale hundreds of years ago than today- slavery was in the institutions, thousands of women had to sell themselves for a loaf of bread and thousands of people and children worked in factories on 15 hour days for a few pence. These things were not illegal back then ( except prostitution), but now they are, and they do not go on to the scale they did a few hundred years ago.

Yes but I'm talking globally - it is too narrow to restrict this to the comfy west which has exploited the poorer countries (and still does) in order to enjoy all the benefits you refer to. Nor am I seeking to make a comparison with the past, but as there are now far more of us than say 100 years ago, so in terms of numbers are more people suffering. We are far too complacent and turn a blind eye to all this - I'm speaking generally not personally!

I am not attacking the church. I have got a close friend who is Catholic, l and had one at university who was on my archaeology courses- she was studying human evolution like me! One of the other students on our courses called her Holy Mary behind her back, and I didn't like that and told the other woman not to call her that.

I accept that and didn't accuse you of it - I don't mind criticisms being made, they need to be and the Church has a lot to apologise for, but it at least acknowledges that. I think your remarks here have been fair and balanced.

If they knock at my door they will get the water pistol. ( but the locked gate prevents intruders coming in)
Had enough of their rubbish as a child.

Well I suppose it's only water - mind you don't waste it!