You Lost One - Atheist Converts

[Ecurb Noselrub]

http://www.cnn.com/video/?hpt=hp_c2#/video/bestoftv/2012/06/24/intv-atheist-catholic.cnn

[Stevil]

From another link
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/06/19/12299214-atheist-blogger-leah-libresco-converts-to-christianity?lite

She said she struggled with moral law, exploring where it comes from and what's behind it. As an atheist, she states that friends told her that her philosophy was unsustainable.
"I was ready to admit that there were parts of Christianity and Catholicism that seemed like a pretty good match for the bits of my moral system that I was most sure of, while meanwhile my own philosophy was pretty kludged together and not particularly satisfactory," she wrote.

She goes back to the night before Palm Sunday, where after a debate on religion she then had a discussion with a friend about morality.

After a back-and-forth where her friend asked her to make an argument about where moral law comes from, she couldn't think of any. She then realized that it had to come from something like a person or being.

I can certainly see the problem from a "morality" perspective. I also think most Atheists are philosophically inconsistent.
I overcome the problem by realising that morality doesn't exist.

But regardless, if one decides there must be an author of morality, how do they then decide Catholicism is it? Did she spin a roulette wheel?

[Sandra Craft]

Eh, we lose one here, pick another one up there.  I just hope she doesn't end up ping-ponging around like Anne Rice -- deconvert, reconvert, deconvert.  After a while, you lose all credibility.

Personally, I don't see where there's any atheist inconsistency with morality.  Morality does exist, we created it.  Where's the problem?

[Stevil]

Eh, we lose one here, pick another one up there.  I just hope she doesn't end up ping-ponging around like Anne Rice -- deconvert, reconvert, deconvert.  After a while, you lose all credibility.

Personally, I don't see where there's any atheist inconsistency with morality.  Morality does exist, we created it.  Where's the problem?

If we created it then it is just a bunch of arbitrary rules, there is no absolute right and wrong associated with it. One person's opinion is no more valid than the next. So maybe what you call morality, I would call the governing law. Problem with that is, how do you disagree with the government, based on a moral standpoint? They define the rules of society (morality???).

[Asmodean]

What exactly do "we" lose that "we" shouldn't be glad to see the back of?

Frankly, I consider adult atheists who "find" some form of "god" so far beneath me intellectually that I lose all interest in them if I had any to begin with.

Being raised to believe in fairy tales and holding on to it is one thing, giving up the magic and then re-integrating it into one's life is quite another (As for never-theists, I do not know of any converts from that group who stayed converted for any prolonged period of time)

[xSilverPhinx]

I think we created morality and projected into onto society, thus objectivising it in away. Other than that, it's purely subjective and mentally-based, still human though.

[Recusant]

"One of the most prominent atheist bloggers on the internet" ??? By whose estimation, I wonder? I don't consider this to be a case of "You Lost One," because I've never considered atheism to be a cohesive entity to which I or anyone else "belongs." This young woman has apparently been convinced for some time that objective morality exists, now she has a god-shaped peg to hang it from. Good for her. I did a search and found her "I'm now a convert" blog post. (I honestly had never heard of her, and had never read one of her blog entries before her conversion.) "This is my last post for the Patheos Atheist Portal" Meh

[Stevil]

I think we created morality and projected into onto society, thus objectivising it in away. Other than that, it's purely subjective and mentally-based, still human though.

Its why I am keen to distinguish the difference between personal values, governing laws, social norms and the concept of morality. Morality is so confusing, people don't even agree on what it is. I can see it driving people towards religion, looking for an author.

[Sandra Craft]

If we created it then it is just a bunch of arbitrary rules, there is no absolute right and wrong associated with it.

That's what I see when I look around at the way things run.

One person's opinion is no more valid than the next. So maybe what you call morality, I would call the governing law.

Maybe, maybe not.  Determining that is part of the on-going struggle of any society in constantly making itself.

Problem with that is, how do you disagree with the government, based on a moral standpoint? They define the rules of society (morality???).

It's called voting, when we get a chance.  It's called civil disobedience when we don't.  But then we're lucky in that regard.  At least we are for now.

[Genericguy]

Maybe I should have clicked the link before I posted this, but I don't care about anyone converting to anything enough to press a button...

I understand people do convert, but I wonder how often people are just claiming to convert in order to manipulate or take advantage via web traffic/book sales. It seems people care intensely about atheist converts and I can see how some might try to take advantage.

[Sandra Craft]

I think we created morality and projected into onto society, thus objectivising it in away. Other than that, it's purely subjective and mentally-based, still human though.

Its why I am keen to distinguish the difference between personal values, governing laws, social norms and the concept of morality. Morality is so confusing, people don't even agree on what it is. I can see it driving people towards religion, looking for an author.

I'm not really sure you can distinguish between personal values, governing laws, social norms and morality -- I think there's a lot of bleed-thru in all of those and in any case, they all have the same problem of people not agreeing on what they are or should be. 

Frankly, I sometimes wonder if the distaste for the word "morality" is due to its being tainted with religious zealotry?  I can understand that, but I'd hate to let a group of nut jobs co-opt a perfectly good word.

[Stevil]

I'm not really sure you can distinguish between personal values, governing laws, social norms and morality -- I think there's a lot of bleed-thru in all of those and in any case, they all have the same problem of people not agreeing on what they are or should be.  

Frankly, I sometimes wonder if the distaste for the word "morality" is due to its being tainted with religious zealotry?  I can understand that, but I'd hate to let a group of nut jobs co-opt a perfectly good word.

Personal Values
A set of personal opinions, accepted by the owner as being personal, used for guiding the self, cannot be used to judge others. Cannot make public claims (judgements) such as "that is immoral!". Owner of personal opinion knows they are voting based on personal preference. e.g. A person may choose to not eat meat because they value animal life.

Governing Laws
A set of enforceable rules based on supporting a functional society. The laws can be limited to functioning society and exclude the concept of "morality", they need to be inclusive of people within society, e.g. cultures, races, beliefs, religions etc. e.g. Laws are required to prevent vigilante justice.

Social norms
Unwritten social rules, not enforced by government. May or may not be related to a perception of morality. People get to choose to adhere or not, but their might be some social backlash, simply because that is the way people behave. e.g. Going shopping in your pajamas is seen as socially unacceptable. People can vote based on social norms, but do they want government having that level of authority, do they want a Nanny State?

Morality
A set of objective rights and wrongs, applies to the self as well as to all others. Actions are moral, immoral or neutral, there doesn't have to be a reason. People are simply expected to know the difference between right and wrong. With morality a person can make a public claim (judgement) to something being immoral. They don't need to qualify this judgement as to why something is immoral. It is just immoral. People can vote based on moral understanding as long as they agree that the governing law does not define morality. Hence there must be some authority of morality above government. Be it a god, or written in DNA or something else

[AnimatedDirt]

What exactly do "we" lose that "we" shouldn't be glad to see the back of?

Frankly, I consider adult atheists who "find" some form of "god" so far beneath me intellectually that I lose all interest in them if I had any to begin with.

Being raised to believe in fairy tales and holding on to it is one thing, giving up the magic and then re-integrating it into one's life is quite another (As for never-theists, I do not know of any converts from that group who stayed converted for any prolonged period of time)

At one time they were intellectual equals...but now they are "so far beneath me intellectually..."

Most interesting.

[Asmodean]

At one time they were intellectual equals...but now they are "so far beneath me intellectually..."

No.

[AnimatedDirt]

At one time they were intellectual equals...but now they are "so far beneath me intellectually..."

No.

Oh.  It's clear now.