Being raised Catholic I have a lot of problems with the Catholic Church, especially with the sex abuse stuff. This mostly boils down to human beings involved in the Catholic Church, and not what I was taught as a Catholic child.
Like most things, it is good to ask the question of “Compared to What?”.
The simple answer a lot of atheists don’t want to address is that Christianity has been the driving force that pushed Western European civilization out of barbarity and into the present day, where we are so tolerant that we don’t immediately shackle and imprison people who suggest that young children ought to be instructed that they might be, can be and even should be members of the opposite sex.
If religion does not inform our laws, morals and values, why does America have a wildly different set of laws, social customs and shared values than, say, Saudi Arabia? What great moral achievements can we attribute to societies who successfully unburdened themselves from monotheism?
How did American society arrive at the conclusion that guiding children into a life of sterility, depression and confusion is a moral choice? It wasn’t through Christianity that we’ve arrived at one of the great evils of our time.
1 Like
I don’t think anything about the Catholic doctrine contributed to the rape, but I do think that things about the doctrine contributed to the massive, institution-wide coverup and protection of the rapists. Specifically, In persona Christi, because the idea that God was raping children through the instrument of the priests would be really bad PR for their religion.
Good comment. I would never deny that religion influences our laws and culture in both positive and negative ways.
There are many examples of cultures which have “escaped barbarity” without monotheistic religion being the driving force. However, the fact that Christianity was historically useful in shaping our society in a positive direction is almost undeniable. I just also believe that it is currently responsible for shaping our society in a negative direction. That said, modern secularism doesn’t offer much of value to replace the good parts of religion with, so I understand why so many people are skeptical of letting go of it.
Christianity walked so secular humanism could run. Should of crippled christianity before we got the 1000 gender situation tbh lol
Are you Ahlus sunnah wal jamaa?
I would have concurred in my early 20’s, 20 years ago, when I first realized I was an atheist. I found Sam Harris’ The End of Faith to be very compelling and it definitely reinforced my lack of firm belief in my childhood teachings. To this day I see no compelling evidence for an omnipotent deity who loves me.
To bring this back on-topic, Catholicism keeps knocking at my door in my early 40’s. Not because I’m finding some convincing evidence for a benevolent God, but because I’m finding a lot of evidence that what I was taught as a child was mostly very true in very meaningful ways.
I’m definitely seeing a lot of evidence for Satan and Demons today in 2023.
2 Likes
The recent cultural fixation on transgenderism and gender non-conformity is very odd to me. Why does everyone seem to care so much about this all of a sudden?
I consider myself Sunni, I don’t know much about Shia, I haven’t studied the divide
Ahlus Sunnah yes
I’m not sure what the wal Jama’a part means or would mean specifically in theory or in practice
I probably am, in practice, subconsciously - just not sure
1 Like
I see how religion could offer a lot of value to a smart, fundamentally good person. Community, reverence, and a sense of deeper meaning and purpose are all depressingly hard to come by in our current society. If that’s what people get from religion, I get it.
How would you define this and what informs your definiton?
I think it’s something you can only determine after the fact. If you use your religiosity as a reason to burn down schools or protect pedophiles: bad. If you use it as a reason to volunteer at a soup kitchen and be nicer to your neighbors: good.
Sam Harris appealed to me too and its honestly a major source of embarrassment for me now. His argument we can arrive at objective morality through science is maybe the most retarded and widely lampooned position in philosophy.
Not to mention his completely uneducated positions on Islam, Judaism and poltiics. He might be one of the worst culprits in modern times for peddling bad philosophy. Google him over at bad philosophy and be ready to laugh at the threads with actual Philosophers in dunking on him lol. Only worse offender amongst the new atheists is lawrence krauss.
Good person is completley subjective from an atheistic perspective. This is whats so funny about this conversation. Apriori ethical positions that can’t be substantiated without God, are taken for granted, yet secularism in the west hinges on christian ethics. Its so funny.
What do you believe the underpinnings of morality are?
Why is it morally good to listen to God?
Because if God exists he is the only objective rooted source of morality.
What do you mean? What makes that true, or how can I know that thats true?
If God exists by definition he is omnipotent, all knowing, he is the source of all things including morality etc.
You’re starting with the assumption that morality exists, which is the same assumption you criticize atheists for making. Why is it okay for you to start with that assumption but not atheists?
1 Like