Are atheists morally unaccountable?

[Guy Incognito 0]

One more thing, Chadd... I don't understand why your explanation could not be offered in the first place, without the dark overtones- that's all.

Anyway, there is merit in argument or discussion when you don't attack others. Because there are people who decide to hate religion as a whole doesn't make it any better than hating one religion in particular. If usahockey wants to call out the entire Catholic religion, how is that any different than insulting Jews, maybe making fun of them "being cheap" or snide comments about persecution? Because they experienced evil Germany? You are all classifying religion as a whole, saying "Well, Catholic preists molested children so that means all Catholics are molesters." Is that not what you are saying? If not, then what ARE you saying? What do bad apples have to do with religion as a principle? What do I have to offer to you as a comparison to priests who hurt people?

[Allsmokenopancake 0]

I don't understand why your explanation could not be offered in the first place, without the dark overtones.

Mine? or are you addressing someone else. I didn't think I had dark overtones in my response, at least, that was not my intent

[Chadd 916]

One more thing, Chadd... I don't understand why your explanation could not be offered in the first place, without the dark overtones- that's all.

Anyway, there is merit in argument or discussion when you don't attack others. Because there are people who decide to hate religion as a whole doesn't make it any better than hating one religion in particular. If usahockey wants to call out the entire Catholic religion, how is that any different than insulting Jews, maybe making fun of them "being cheap" or snide comments about persecution? Because they experienced evil Germany? You are all classifying religion as a whole, saying "Well, Catholic preists molested children so that means all Catholics are molesters." Is that not what you are saying? If not, then what ARE you saying? What do bad apples have to do with religion as a principle? What do I have to offer to you as a comparison to priests who hurt people?

I'm sure he will respond with his exact meaning but I did not assume his comment to be an attack at all catholics and frankly, I can't see how anyone could read it that way. If you are that overly sensitive, you might want to just avoid this topic. The catholic church (as an organization or corporation) knowingly did vile things in the way it handled the pedophiles in their midst. I can't fathom how anyone could those actions. Unless you were involved in covering up the acts of those priests or shuffling them around the country, there is no reason for you to be offended.

[Guy Incognito 0]

Am I "that overly sensitive" or am I raising questions some of you don't want to answer because you can't? Because you have developed thought enough to base your standards for religion and acceptance of other beliefs?

My defense of the Catholic religion is because it's been targeted three times without merit. I am not defending the actions of ill people; I am pointing out that, if you want to discuss religion as a whole, any one single religion should not be judged based on what fanatics do to embarrass the religion. Are you telling me that you, who have called out the Catholic church, hate all Muslims as well? Did they not ruin the lives of thousands of people on September 11th? Should I hate all of them for the actions of few? Did it disgust you to see random Muslims being assulted shortly after those events? Or are they just idiots for believing in Allah? You who have exemplified an entire group based on the actions of few demonstrate shallow and uneducated approaches.

[Allsmokenopancake 0]

One more thing, Chadd... I don't understand why your explanation could not be offered in the first place, without the dark overtones- that's all.

Anyway, there is merit in argument or discussion when you don't attack others. Because there are people who decide to hate religion as a whole doesn't make it any better than hating one religion in particular. If usahockey wants to call out the entire Catholic religion, how is that any different than insulting Jews, maybe making fun of them "being cheap" or snide comments about persecution? Because they experienced evil Germany? You are all classifying religion as a whole, saying "Well, Catholic preists molested children so that means all Catholics are molesters." Is that not what you are saying? If not, then what ARE you saying? What do bad apples have to do with religion as a principle? What do I have to offer to you as a comparison to priests who hurt people?

Thats a ridiculous argument.

The catholic church, from the top right down to the bottom did NOTHING to stop the cycle of molestation, while not encouraging molestation, certainly made it easy as balls for a priest to become a repeat sex offender with no consequences.

I was a fairly devout catholic until a friend of mine was affected by this. So I am pissed at the church. They are meant to be preaching the word of the lord, and the word of Jesus Christ

Blessed are the poor, the hungry, those persecuted for seeking righteousness, the meek, the merciful, the pure of heart, the peacemakers and those who mourn.

Now, take what I have bolded.

As I said, there were people in the town who were persecuted by the parish as a whole for speaking out about the church hiding the abuse (this particular priest had been relocated twice previously for indescretions of this sort), where was the church to protect these people.

Blessed are the merciful, I didn't hear any other priests speak out against the condemnation of the parish against the families of the molested kids.

How pure of heart is a multiple sex offender who keeps getting put into positions to molest again.

For your analogy to ring true, it would have to be people feeling sorry for the Nazis, and there are not too many of those about, and those who are, are rightly ridiculed.

[Chadd 916]

Am I "that overly sensitive" or am I raising questions some of you don't want to answer because you can't? Because you have developed thought enough to base your standards for religion and acceptance of other beliefs?

My defense of the Catholic religion is because it's been targeted three times without merit. I am not defending the actions of ill people; I am pointing out that, if you want to discuss religion as a whole, any one single religion should not be judged based on what fanatics do to embarrass the religion. Are you telling me that you, who have called out the Catholic church, hate all Muslims as well? Did they not ruin the lives of thousands of people on September 11th? Should I hate all of them for the actions of few? Did it disgust you to see random Muslims being assulted shortly after those events? Or are they just idiots for believing in Allah? You who have exemplified an entire group based on the actions of few demonstrate shallow and uneducated approaches.

I have no problem answering questions, it just seems like your reactions are going to end up in this topic being locked.

There is a huge difference in citing the example of a church violating laws as well as their own professed moral code and saying that one hates every follower of a religion. I don't hate anyone, it's an emotion that usually complicates a situation and rarely results in a resolution.

If I was going to beat on the catholic church I would have detailed the inquisition, the avignon anti-popes, the blind eye to the slave trade during the exploration and founding of America, the church's involvement in Nazi Germany and helping many of those being sought for war crimes find their way to South America.

Please note, none of those subjects implicate every person who follows the religion. Simply that some people do vile things, regardless of their religious beliefs.

[Guy Incognito 0]

Thats a ridiculous argument.

The catholic church, from the top right down to the bottom did NOTHING to stop the cycle of molestation, while not encouraging molestation, certainly made it easy as balls for a priest to become a repeat sex offender with no consequences.

I was a fairly devout catholic until a friend of mine was affected by this. So I am pissed at the church. They are meant to be preaching the word of the lord, and the word of Jesus Christ

Blessed are the poor, the hungry, those persecuted for seeking righteousness, the meek, the merciful, the pure of heart, the peacemakers and those who mourn.

Now, take what I have bolded.

As I said, there were people in the town who were persecuted by the parish as a whole for speaking out about the church hiding the abuse (this particular priest had been relocated twice previously for indescretions of this sort), where was the church to protect these people.

Blessed are the merciful, I didn't hear any other priests speak out against the condemnation of the parish against the families of the molested kids.

How pure of heart is a multiple sex offender who keeps getting put into positions to molest again.

For your analogy to ring true, it would have to be people feeling sorry for the Nazis, and there are not too many of those about, and those who are, are rightly ridiculed.

You prove my point and my method for demonstrating fallacies and indiscretions within what people are trying to label a "constructive argument." You summarize and detach from the Catholic religion based on human "leaders." This is no longer a discussion about alternative belief/religion, this has become an attack on anyone who believes anything without justification. This is an attack on Mr. Such and Such because he does not believe in Jesus as a Savior (Jewish) or does (Catholic/Christian). You media fools generalize everything and learn nothing. You don't think there are baptist ministers in Georgia raping children? Or is it not as common knowledge because Baptist isn't as mainstream of a label or as easy a target? MEDIA: "Maybe if we target the Baptists they will think we are targeting the black community... we don't want that. Let's get the Muslims."

By the way, saying "You media fools" isn't a direct attack on you, pancake, just a thought process among those who do not have the intellect to think for themselves.

[Allsmokenopancake 0]

Thats a ridiculous argument.

The catholic church, from the top right down to the bottom did NOTHING to stop the cycle of molestation, while not encouraging molestation, certainly made it easy as balls for a priest to become a repeat sex offender with no consequences.

I was a fairly devout catholic until a friend of mine was affected by this. So I am pissed at the church. They are meant to be preaching the word of the lord, and the word of Jesus Christ

Blessed are the poor, the hungry, those persecuted for seeking righteousness, the meek, the merciful, the pure of heart, the peacemakers and those who mourn.

Now, take what I have bolded.

As I said, there were people in the town who were persecuted by the parish as a whole for speaking out about the church hiding the abuse (this particular priest had been relocated twice previously for indescretions of this sort), where was the church to protect these people.

Blessed are the merciful, I didn't hear any other priests speak out against the condemnation of the parish against the families of the molested kids.

How pure of heart is a multiple sex offender who keeps getting put into positions to molest again.

For your analogy to ring true, it would have to be people feeling sorry for the Nazis, and there are not too many of those about, and those who are, are rightly ridiculed.

Points quoted below...

No I am not.

You summarize and detach from the Catholic religion based on human "leaders." This is no longer a discussion about alternative belief/religion, this has become an attack on anyone who believes anything without justification.

Absolutely false. I said I am pissed at the catholic church. It is the church through their structure and set up, which granted is man made, but still the operational front for the religion as a whole that allowed continued abuse to occur.

I never attacked anyone who believes in the catholic church, and went so far as to illustrate that my mother is still a hardcore catholic, and "more power to her".

This is an attack on Mr. Such and Such because he does not believe in Jesus as a Savior (Jewish) or does (Catholic/Christian).

No, I said my issue is with the hirearchy that represents the church. How can I have faith in something, when I can't even have respect for the leaders of such a chuch. That is not to say that ALL church leaders are like this, but molestation has been a global issue within the church, with little to no recourse by the leaders of the faith itself.

That is not an attack on anyone who believes in the message of the church, it's an opinion as to why people criticize the church.

You media fools generalize everything and learn nothing. You don't think there are baptist ministers in Georgia raping children? Or is it not as common knowledge because Baptist isn't as mainstream of a label or as easy a target? MEDIA: "Maybe if we target the Baptists they will think we are targeting the black community... we don't want that. Let's get the Muslims."

I have no idea what you are talking about here, I'm thinking it's because you want the thread closed or something, but it's not a matter of going after one religion or another. The catholic church claims 1.1 billion members, and is by far the largest christian denomination in the world. With that, the percentages rise, in terms of people affected by scandals and number of scandals.

There are approximately 90 million baptists worldwide, thats over a billion less than there are catholics, you do the math.

I have not attacked you personally, nor do I think any less of you for your beliefs.

But, look at it from a non catholic view.

If this were a business, and you found out that several of your financial officers from different branches were fiddling the books, would you as a stockholder, feel confident in the ability of the company to successfully maintain operations profitably if they shipped these guys who messed with the books to other branches, and turned a blind eye to the books again, and didn't tell the local office they were sent to that they have fiddled with the books.

[donkey87 0]

To me the problem with religion today is that most "religious" people are only really religious one day a week. I see a lot of people who describe themselves as Christians who only bother to actually put their beliefs into practice on Sunday mornings. The rest of the week they act any way they want.

I have a question for all the atheist who have posted in this thread. What is it the compels you to be a moral person? It seems that if there is no "supreme being" then it really doesn't matter if you live a moral life or not. If you don't have to worry about pleasing God, then why not live your life any way you choose? Why worry about morality? Why worry about whether or not other people think that your are moral? Any insight that can be provided would be greatly appreciated.

[Allsmokenopancake 0]

To me the problem with religion today is that most "religious" people are only really religious one day a week. I see a lot of people who describe themselves as Christians who only bother to actually put their beliefs into practice on Sunday mornings. The rest of the week they act any way they want.

I have a question for all the atheist who have posted in this thread. What is it the compels you to be a moral person? It seems that if there is no "supreme being" then it really doesn't matter if you live a moral life or not. If you don't have to worry about pleasing God, then why not live your life any way you choose? Why worry about morality? Why worry about whether or not other people think that your are moral? Any insight that can be provided would be greatly appreciated.

I'm not an athiest, but being an athiest does not mean that you don't have a moral compass.

Being an athiest means you don't believe in a supreme being, not that you like acting like a dick.

People can be moral without being religous.

Many of todays laws are based on religious teachings, so people often equate morals and socially acceptable behaviour with religious identity.

People are influenced by those around them, and the structure in their life.

My parents were strict catholics, and their upbringing would have had an effect on my upbringing, and their morals would have been instilled into me.

What about naturalists (not the nudist variety!!!) who believe in the power of nature, and being good to the earth, but not in a specific god or diety, yet they are kind to animals, good to people, tend their lives the same as anyone with morals instilled by religion?

People reflect society, and an absence of religion does not equate a presence of chaos

[Guy Incognito 0]

ASNP, your CEO is not the Pope. Your CEO is God and those who commit the heinous acts will be judged in time. You need to remember your faith and why you believe it. No matter your religion. My whole reason for diving into this conversation was because I felt some people were attacking religion as a whole, and partly Catholicism. You did understand my final point, because you, unprovoked, pointed out that the Catholic faith is the largest in the world. In turn, it will be the most targeted by those who choose to buy into media stupidity. Bottom line is, "Are atheists morally unaccountable?" Some are, some aren't. Atheism is not supremacy because you choose not to believe in religion. Each position/particle/person has reasons for believing what they do. Religion, no matter the name, is in most cases a guidance trail for those who want direction. Some feel they don't want that, and there is nothing wrong with that either. In the end, a good soul will be saved. Although that may conflict with a portion of my religion (or lack thereof? You decide :) ), I stand by that as a guiding principle for me. Not you Datsyukiandeek, Vapor, or usahockey22.

[Allsmokenopancake 0]

ASNP, your CEO is not the Pope. Your CEO is God and those who commit the heinous acts will be judged in time.

I get that reference, but I would argue that God is the entire company, and the CEO is who god appoints to run the day to day business operations.

My whole reason for diving into this conversation was because I felt some people were attacking religion as a whole, and partly Catholicism

The reason Catholicism gets attacked is because, in its base and core, like any religion, it has a powerful and uplifting message, but in its administration, it, like any religion, (or any organized groups, you could substitute unions, sports leagues etc)gets corrupted by humans. While you say that human representation is not a reflection of the message of the church, essentially, you are right, but in reality, people judge things based on what they see, and what they see are inconsistencies with the treatment of the congregation and the parish. Attempted absolution of a partner in the sin of adultery (see bishop casey in Ireland) is a case for automatic excommunication in the catholic church, but a priest can repent and be relocated after molesting a child.

There are double standards at work.

[Guy Incognito 0]

My whole reason for diving into this conversation was because I felt some people were attacking religion as a whole, and partly Catholicism

The reason Catholicism gets attacked is because, in its base and core, like any religion, it has a powerful and uplifting message, but in its administration, it, like any religion, (or any organized groups, you could substitute unions, sports leagues etc)gets corrupted by humans. While you say that human representation is not a reflection of the message of the church, essentially, you are right, but in reality, people judge things based on what they see, and what they see are inconsistencies with the treatment of the congregation and the parish. Attempted absolution of a partner in the sin of adultery (see bishop casey in Ireland) is a case for automatic excommunication in the catholic church, but a priest can repent and be relocated after molesting a child.

There are double standards at work.

Agreed. Whole-heartedly. But as you mentioned, it's a universal issue with one constant- corrupt and immoral beings with an unsophisticated audience. However, I can't rescind the principle of religion or non-religion is something that should be judged in haste.

[Chadd 916]

To me the problem with religion today is that most "religious" people are only really religious one day a week. I see a lot of people who describe themselves as Christians who only bother to actually put their beliefs into practice on Sunday mornings. The rest of the week they act any way they want.

I have a question for all the atheist who have posted in this thread. What is it the compels you to be a moral person? It seems that if there is no "supreme being" then it really doesn't matter if you live a moral life or not. If you don't have to worry about pleasing God, then why not live your life any way you choose? Why worry about morality? Why worry about whether or not other people think that your are moral? Any insight that can be provided would be greatly appreciated.

Actually, it seems like a lot of people are turning to religion as more of a social club or activity center. I know people who go several times a week for services, movies, clubs, etc... I believe it creates a problematic lack of balance in their lives/personalities that gets worse over time. Those people tend to withdraw from the outside world and eventually end up associating only with those who have done the same thing.

While not an atheist, I don't live by the dogma of any particular faith. Doing the "right" thing is what drives my actions. You could say that it comes from Eastern religions and their philosophies on self improvement/enlightenment, the bible or even the following quote from Samuel Clement;

Always do the right thing. This will gratify some people and astonish the rest.

I do suggest reading "God is not Great" by Christopher Hitchens, regardless of your feelings on issues like this. If you are an atheist, you will find it entertaining and enlightening. If you are devout, it will give you a greater understanding of how/why some people choose not to believe. I will say that by and large, those who are agnostic, deist or atheist tend to have a better grasp of the opposing side of this debate.

[chk hrd 164]

I have a question for all the atheist who have posted in this thread. What is it the compels you to be a moral person? It seems that if there is no "supreme being" then it really doesn't matter if you live a moral life or not. If you don't have to worry about pleasing God, then why not live your life any way you choose? Why worry about morality? Why worry about whether or not other people think that your are moral? Any insight that can be provided would be greatly appreciated.

My simple answer, Because I need to look at myself in the mirror.

[Vapor 0]

I dont get the argument that you need a supreme being to act morally. Thats pretty ridiculous. It just shows how weak of a person you are and that you cannot do something for yourself or because it is just the right thing to do.

I would also like an explanation from the christians out there: Why in the old testament is god vengeful and full of wrath and then magically in the new testament he is all kind and forgiving? The Bible is the word of God, why did it magically change when it had new authors?

[Chadd 916]

I dont get the argument that you need a supreme being to act morally. Thats pretty ridiculous. It just shows how weak of a person you are and that you cannot do something for yourself or because it is just the right thing to do.

I would also like an explanation from the christians out there: Why in the old testament is god vengeful and full of wrath and then magically in the new testament he is all kind and forgiving? The Bible is the word of God, why did it magically change when it had new authors?

You made a good point that was on-topic, let's not go down that other road. It has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

[ag12 0]

I dont get the argument that you need a supreme being to act morally. Thats pretty ridiculous. It just shows how weak of a person you are and that you cannot do something for yourself or because it is just the right thing to do.

I would also like an explanation from the christians out there: Why in the old testament is god vengeful and full of wrath and then magically in the new testament he is all kind and forgiving? The Bible is the word of God, why did it magically change when it had new authors?

If you pickup a Bible and read in Genesis you will read that Eve was tempted by Satan to partake of the Tree of Good and Evil. She chose to and that is why you and I today have the choice to believe or not believe. Believing what the Bible says doesn't show any weakness at all, rather it helps one to understand what this life is all about if you really read it. That is of course if you so choose to believe, otherwise it's labeled a fable by the doubters and skeptics. The Bible has been attacked for hundreds of years, yet it still exists and is the most purchased book in the world every year and doesn't have any book promotion tours. The Bible is a mystery to millions of people, and there is a reason for that. I don't even understand everything in it, probably never will, but that's the way it's supposed to be.

[Vapor 0]

Yes I know the story. And I never attacked anything the Bible said. I said people who only act one way because they are afraid of the wrath of a supreme being are weak people.

[usahockey22 0]

However, you don't want to allow others to make the same decision you want the right to make- since of course it is different than yours and you are all-knowing and call my God, "Santa."

I'm the one that used the word "santa", and I wasn't referring to *your* God when I said it. I just was trying to imply that I think it would be helpful if all people questioned their religious beliefs, and actually put some effort into analyzing those beliefs, rather than simply following whatever Jesus/Muhammad/Your Priest says.

If usahockey wants to call out the entire Catholic religion,

Chill out, we're not all trying to attack you here. I'm not "calling out" the entire Catholic Religion, that is ridiculous. I'm calling out the damn clergy, as MANY OTHERS before me have done, in light of the many scandals that have gone down. Frankly, it's about time someone calls them out (the aristocracy). They know for a fact that priests have been abusing young children...if you read the bible, you will see where Jesus says that children are to be held as the most precious, innocent, beings in our world. These Priests, who day in and day out, forgive people of THEIR sins, are getting it on with 10 year old boys. It's F-ing disgusting, and entirely hypocritical. The fact that NOTHING WAS DONE within the hierarchy of the church to bring these people to justice is completely outrageous. And in my mind, that is proof of corruption within the church at the highest level.

Yes, I am attacking the church, as an institution, organization, or business. The people who run it at the top are corrupt, in my opinion, and many will agree with me. I am not attacking any religion. I think that the underlying messages and teachings in almost all religions are good, and among the highest work of art/philosophical insight that you can find in this world. But, people are free to believe whatever they want, myself included.

There, you can disagree with me, but I guess you care more about defending the catholic religion (even though I never attacked any religion), than protecting children from sexual abuse. Leaving the punishment for these criminal/sinner priests up to God is a convenient way out, and ignores the bible scriptures where it quite clearly states to obey the laws of the land, and that you will be held accountable to man and God.

"And if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a large millstone tied around his neck." -Mark 9:42

"As soon as we lose the moral basis, we cease to be religious. There is no such thing as religion over-riding morality. Man, for instance, cannot be untruthful, cruel or incontinent and claim to have God on his side." - Ghandi

[hockeydoc 0]

Chadd says, "those who are agnostic, deist or atheist tend to have a better grasp of the opposing side of this debate."

Then:

I would also like an explanation from the christians out there: Why in the old testament is god vengeful and full of wrath and then magically in the new testament he is all kind and forgiving? The Bible is the word of God, why did it magically change when it had new authors?

Ignorant irony...LOL

[Allsmokenopancake 0]

Agreed. Whole-heartedly. But as you mentioned, it's a universal issue with one constant- corrupt and immoral beings with an unsophisticated audience. However, I can't rescind the principle of religion or non-religion is something that should be judged in haste.

But thats my point, you think christianity/catholicism is being unfairly criticized, but you admit the wards of the church are human, and prone to fault.

However, people who criticize the church often only have the face of the church, and the messages they send by covering up abuse.

It you see flaws with the people delivering the message, then the message itself become obfuscated. I know people say don't shoot the messenger, but if the messenger has proven to be untrustworthy in the past, on a global scale, it's hard to "get" the message

As for Vapor, he represents athiests who are more interest in picking fights with people of faith because he thinks they are wrong. I have no beef with anyones faith, I don't pick fights with people or tell them to justify their faith or religion.

I've just been outlining why I think criticizing facets of religion isn't the same as indicting the entire religion or their believers.

[Jason Harris 31]

I'm guessing Vapor's quote was meant to be rhetorical.

One way in which the non-religious seem to have a better grasp of the opposing side is we realize how important religion is to adherants. It's one reason you've probably never heard someone tell you out of the blue, "Well, I'm an atheist." We realize that some people will take our lack of belief as being an an indictment on their belief. (It's actually similar to people I've met who don't seem to like when other people aren't drinking along with them.) Other than in a philosophical discussion, in which both sides are just presenting why they believe the way they do, atheists tend to keep their beliefs quiet. In some cases, it took me years to learn that some of my friends are atheists, too.

That's what I mean by the non-religious having a better grasp. We generally keep silent so others feel better about their beliefs, but those with beliefs don't seem to consider that, at most, one-sixth of the world agrees with their beliefs and are not necessarily looking for change from their religion or non-religion. I can't tell you the number of people I've met who want to help me become happier than I already am.

[acollette49 0]

These arguments are always interesting.

I have a few thoughts to add. These are not personal attacks, so don’t take them as such.

This is something that bothers me to no end...anarchy does not mean chaos and destruction. It means, literally, no government. I realize that to most peoples thinking, the absence of government means chaos. If you were to look at anarchist movements through history, you'd see that anarchy is the purest form of democracy. Everyone votes. On everything. There are rules and laws...just no hierarchical governmental system.

This, I think, tells us something of the nature of people...most people don’t want the burden of creating their own social structure or, in the case of the religious, their own morality. It is much easier to use the pre-set structures and systems; it takes too much effort to fight. Especially something so deeply entrenched in our society as the idea of god. Why fight it? Why question the people who say they are in charge? Too many people take, what I consider, the easy way out. I have no desire to live forever, to be amongst the chosen few. The promises of the church hold no appeal to me…so I question the motive.

Ill leave it at this.

[ag12 0]

Yes I know the story. And I never attacked anything the Bible said. I said people who only act one way because they are afraid of the wrath of a supreme being are weak people.

What you say are 'weak' people can be also stated as having a healthy fear of that supreme being. Also, there is no difference between the God of the Old Testament and the New; He still allows bad things to happen on this earth, but that's as far as I'll go with that one.