What IS good, and how do we determine it?

[Catholic_Lady]

... Something else to add - if morality comes from trying to do what is best for society so that our species survives, what will it mean when/if overpopulation of humans becomes a major problem? ...

I don't think that morality is a question of what is best for society so that our species survives.  But if it were, it would mean that you Catholics should stop breeding like rabbits because overpopulation is a serious problem.  It is YOUR morality that is a problem.  Atheism is not a source for such immorality.

You might want to look back at what I stated earlier that you previously seemed to like.

It may also be worth mentioning that atheism is not a doctrine, it is the lack of a belief in a god (or, for strong atheism, it is the belief that there is no god).  There is no universal agreement among atheists about morality, and I certainly would not endorse the idea that morality must further the survival of the species (which must, in any case, be a futile thing, as humanity will eventually perish regardless of what anyone does).

Now, it may be that evolution gave rise to empathy, but it does not follow from that that empathy has a specific goal.

If god is added to the equation, it changes nothing as far as morality is concerned.  People who believe that morality is merely following what god says are grossly mistaken.

Hi Pyrrho.

I have read a couple of posts here claiming that morality is based on what is good for society so that our species can survive. So what I was saying was, how will this change if overpopulation ever becomes a big problem? If morality is based on our need to survive as a species, and the need to survive becomes more about being sure we have enough resources in a world with way too many humans, does that mean that we would no longer have a moral obligation to be sure others didn't get killed, etc?

I know none of this applies to you at all, since you never said this was what morality is based on, and you wrote a well thoguht about post about morality earlier. I just wanted to make sure you understood where I was coming from when I made that statement.

I also wanted to address one thing regarding you statement above, and something one of those pictures said. In your statement above, you said "atheism is not a doctrine, it is the lack of a belief in a god."

I agree with you there. All atheism means is that you don't believe in God. That's it. So then why does that last picture say "learn more about atheism?" If atheism is just "I don't believe in God", then what is there to learn?

It does seem sometimes, ironically enough, that some atheists will treat their non-belief in God as a religion. Obviously, there is no God involved so it's not really a religion, but sometimes it just seems like it gets treated that way by atheists themselves. And what I mean by "like a religion" is that sometimes it seems like atheism is a "group" of people with the same set of philosophical ideals who like to talk about how wrong everyone else is and about how they hold the right answer. And while that's ok, it just seems strange to me because all atheism is supposed to be is just a disbelief in God, and yet it seems like more than that sometimes.

And I'm really sorry if that last paragraph came out sounding rude. I do not mean to be rude or condecending at all. It's just that this has been my observation and I wanted to share it with you here and see what your thoughts are.

[The Grand Nudger]

It's not rude, so much as unoriginal.

[Longhorn]

You know what? I will own up to that.

Well, partially anyway. It goes much deeper than just "because God says", but I will agree that God plays a big role in my views regarding sexual morality. I cannot divorce God from my views of sexual morality.

Fair enough

Well first of all, since the Church already teaches that premarital sex is immoral, it doesn't really matter whether a couple who is not married uses contraception or not. The Church doesn't say people who aren't married shouldn't use contraception. The Church says people who aren't married shouldn't have sex lol. It's a moot point.

But you mentioned STDs and unplanned pregnancies as the negative results of premarital sex. Contraception takes care of that. So the catholic church teaches that it's immoral for no reason other than because bible says so.

Second, contraception is widely available and accessible. Yet unplanned, out of wedlock pregnancies still happen all the time. The fact that contraception exists and is available and and easily accessible unfortunately has not taken care of the problem. Either because people don't use it properly, don't use it at all, or it simply fails to work.

Just because it doesn't have a 100% success rate does not mean it doesn't work at all.

I'd still say the far superior method of avoiding out of wedlock pregnancy is to just not have sex until marriage.

Abstinence doesn't work. It's a fact.

To date, 11 states have evaluated the impact of their abstinence-only-until-marriage programs. None has been shown to reduce teen sexual activity.

I have addressed this multiple times in my post about it, because I knew people would still come back and say "but bad stuff can still happen in marriages!" I did not specify "matrimonial frauds," but I did address that marriages aren't always a guarantee of anything, but tend to be the best bet nonetheless. I also addressed the committed relationship thing specifically, in a post shortly afterwards. I've got my hands full now and can't dig it up for you, but would recommend you go look if you are still interested.

Alright, must've missed it, I'll dig for it later

I apologize, I did not mean to ignore you.

I do agree that there are 2 ways of going about teaching children sexual morality. Just like everything else, there is a right way and a wrong way of going about doing this.

The decision itself of saving sex for marriage is not bad or harmful in and of itself, and neither is it bad or harmful to teach others the great benefits of doing so. It's the way it is done that can be harmful, just like with everything else as I mentioned above.

I agree that it is an important subject that must be handled with care. Not to instil guilt or fear into people who have or eventually do fall into it, is key. I was taught to wait until marriage, and so was my husband. We have many Catholic friends who also waited and are happily married, lovely people. It has worked really well for us and I am so happy that I was taught what I was taught. I feel like perhaps I could've faced some negative consequences that would have complicated my life if I had slept with other men before my husband. It's definitely something I will pass on to my children.

You know, that's great

Thank you for the compliment!

I understand and appreciate your concern, but I think you may have been led to believe a bit of an exaggeration, though you don't realize it. This doom and gloom you speak of above has not been my experience at all. And I am saying this as a Catholic who grew up in the Catholic Church. I have a Catholic family, I went to Catholic school, I was involved in my family parish, etc. I cannot relate at all to what you say above. I'm not saying no one has bad experiences, but I do think you're making it out to be far more than it is.

I was raised catholic. I wish I was exaggerating.

Abstinence does not work. And when combined with forbidding contraception, it causes entire STD outbreaks.

[Catholic_Lady]

Careful tickling that ones martyr knob Cath....you don't know where it's been.  Ever get around to digging up that response you mentioned?
(the one that explains the moral distinction between monogamous heterosexual sex within a marriage...and monogamous homosexual sex within a marriage?)

Hi Rhythm, I am sorry I forgot to get back to you. I did look through the last several pages and couldn't find it. The thread has moved so fast today, I think it was just too far back by the time I got around to looking for it, either that or I missed it amongst all the posts. I apologize.

[The Grand Nudger]

I have a different theory.  You haven't actually explained the distinction. The opportunity exists regardless, as always.

[Crossless2.0]

It's not rude, so much as unoriginal.

Instead of saying 'Learn more about atheism', the last part of the caption in the third picture should say 'Learn more about Christianity's feeble excuses'.

Then perhaps believers would have one less reason to trot out the tiresome 'atheists act like they are part of a religion' talking point.

[Cyberman]

@ Catholic Lady:

What I'm trying to get at is - if you had never heard of xtianity in your whole life, let alone cat-hole-icism ( ), what would possibly lead you to think that Jesus was a god at all (leaving aside the very real question over his historical existence) and how would you make the connection to the Abrahamic god? What are you using as a source for determining what your god wants and how it thinks and feels?

[Catholic_Lady]

Abstinence doesn't work. It's a fact.

Just to clarify, I wasn't referring to abstinence only programs, I was referring to abstinence itself. Assuming you have all the right parts intact, not having sex is the only for sure way to avoid pregnancy. You can't get pregnant if you don't have sex.

[Crossless2.0]

Abstinence doesn't work. It's a fact.

Just to clarify, I wasn't referring to abstinence only programs, I was referring to abstinence itself. Assuming you have all the right parts intact, not having sex is the only for sure way to avoid pregnancy. You can't get pregnant if you don't have sex.

Tell that to Mary. 

[Catholic_Lady]

I was raised catholic. I wish I was exaggerating.

I am really sorry you've had such a bad experience and I'm really sorry the Church has failed you.