Atheism and the Church

[mpb74]

I am not well read on evolution but I do have a question. Has a direct link from one species to humanity, or a direct link from “Cave man” to modern human ever been found? If it has can it stand up to scientific scrutiny 100%. If it has, please inform me
Dan

 

[Sixtus]

Thank you!

Do you actually have a question for us? [Asked a record THIRD time…]

I find the ‘Do you actually have a question for us’ sinister. Sorry but that is how I discern it.

No offence intended. Who is the ‘us’?

In all things may the most Holy the most Just and the most Lovable Will of God be done praised and exalted now and forever! Amen

 

[WildEyedAtheist]

I asked you several questions.

You’ve evaded them till now - oh and I do appreciate the trivia about nested dolls coming from Japan. Anything to avoid those questions, eh?

Right. Let’s look at those questions, shall we?

In post #15 you asked a for a most in-depth analysis.

“I don’t get it.” you said. (Not a question)

“You have a post with a link to another post with another link to another post with another link. Does it just go on forever? Is it circular?” (A question, but nothing to do with the subject. Did you wish for an apology for not linking correctly?)

“Or is this like a debating version of a Matryoshka doll?” (A question, but not an original one; simply the same question asked in a different manner.)

I’m not sure what these questions have to do with the subject under discussion at the moment (that being Atheism and the Church; clearly labeled on the thread), but I am sure your razor-edged intellect will point it out to all of us.

Oh, and your answer to someone else’s question was amazingly insightful and said nothing - you’re basis is the same basis as all morality.

Which, of course, has nothing to do with Christ, Christianity nor Catholicism, which after all, was my point. I am sure you will make a point soon (hopefully.)

You may have missed the comments I made after this - I cited two commentators. You’ve made no reply.

Your “commentary” is only useful if it is used to support your argument. Since you have yet to ask a question, you are in essence, simply throwing out quotes.

Where exactly is your question to us (a record fifth time…)?

So, when I ask you questions you avoid them. When I post INTERESTING commentary, you remain silent.

You have yet to ask a question about the subject of this thread, and your “commentary” (from an evolutionist and a Christian Apologist) may be interesting to you, but has absolutely no bearing on the question you have yet to ask.

All we are asking (continually) is that you pose a question to one of us (or all of us) pertaining to Atheism or Catholicism.

It SEEMS an awfully simple thing to ask for. Everyone else seems to be able to grasp the concept.

 

[Montalban]

Right. Let’s look at those questions, shall we?

Is that a question?

Here’s what I asked, #15
"Montalban:

I don’t get it. You have a post with a link to another post with another link to another post with another lin. Does it just go on forever? Is it circular?

Evidentally giving people more information is very difficult for you as you have refused to answer this, but have instead given me some awfully interesting information on the nature of Matryoshka dolls!

Let me put it more plainly. You post a link to another post that has a link that goes to another post that has a link.

I asked you what was the point of this? Are you simply wanting people to go around in circles? It’s an attempt to see from you what it is you want. Instead you’ve avoided this all this time.

Where exactly is your question to us (a record fifth time…)?

I hope you understand, by now.

You have yet to ask a question about the subject of this thread,

This is where you’re wrong. I have.

and your “commentary” (from an evolutionist and a Christian Apologist) may be interesting to you, but has absolutely no bearing on the question you have yet to ask.

Actually both are pertinent to the issue of the basis of morals. You must have missed that. You gave a little post about the origins of your own morals, this goes to directly to that. You’ve missed that too!

All we are asking (continually) is that you pose a question to one of us (or all of us) pertaining to Atheism or Catholicism.

Who’s ‘we’

It SEEMS an awfully simple thing to ask for. Everyone else seems to be able to grasp the concept.

Emotive appeal here! Very interesting play

 

[Montalban]

The source or sources from which one derives information does not invalidate its legitimacy.

Don’t be such a poor loser.

So much anger!

 

[Montalban]

I am not well read on evolution but I do have a question. Has a direct link from one species to humanity, or a direct link from “Cave man” to modern human ever been found? If it has can it stand up to scientific scrutiny 100%. If it has, please inform me
Dan

Evolutionists would say that some ‘cave men’ is simply modern man, but without the technology (depending upon what exactly you are meaning by with ‘cave man’)

However the rise of races within modern man is something that is problematic.

There’s at present two mutually exclusive theories;
the “Out of Africa” model and the “Multi-regional” model (aka “Diregional” model)

 

[WildEyedAtheist]

People who do not reference their morality to God are capable of doing absolutely anything in the name of helping people. This includes eugenics, medical experimentation, euthanasia, farming fetuses, and abortion - just to name a few. All of these things came from a twisted, but earnest, desire to make people’s lives “better”. All of these things were advocated by people who considered themselves moral and ethical.

Let’s revisit that statement, exchanging organizations, shall we?. Then you defend it.

The Roman Catholic Church who reference their morality to God are capable of doing absolutely anything in the name of helping people. This includes incalculable torture, the unmerciful massacre of men, women, children and infants, the burning (alive) of men and young women, genocide, and regicide - just to name a few. All of these things came from a twisted, but earnest, desire to make people’s lives “better”. All of these things were advocated by people who considered themselves moral and ethical.

 

[Montalban]

Let’s revisit that statement, exchanging organizations, shall we?. Then you defend it.

The Roman Catholic Church who reference their morality to God are capable of doing absolutely anything in the name of helping people. This includes incalculable torture, the unmerciful massacre of men, women, children and infants, the burning (alive) of men and young women, genocide, and regicide - just to name a few. All of these things came from a twisted, but earnest, desire to make people’s lives “better”. All of these things were advocated by people who considered themselves moral and ethical.

The difference is we can measure their doings against their claims.

They claim “X” is immoral. And if they do “X” we can say “Ah-ha, you’re being hypocritical!”

For you we can’t because you can suddenly make anything you want ‘moral’… because you are your own judge.

 

[WildEyedAtheist]

Well, if you like these definitions we could dismiss ethics as it is being defined as a subset of morals. However defining morals as good may be a problem. We could simply say what then constitutes good? This may be a problematic approach because I personal do not believe good and moral are synonymous. Example: Ice cream may be on the good list but absent on the moral list. How about

Ethics = the principle of treating others with an equal or slightly superior respect than one’s self.

Moral (theist) = the principles indwelled in man by God through both innate design and infuse of human characteristics.

Moral (non-theist) = ??
And thus the problem, if you feel comfortable with your earlier definition we could proceed anyway?

FYI concerning Natural Law it involves the innate principles dwelling within us.

I can accept that. But we are not discussing “good”, either as an animate or inanimate thing. The posits are “right” and “wrong.”

I’ll take the morals quote I posted as the terminology for the non-theist.

I presume that you are familiar with John Locke and Thomas Hobbes (re: Natural Law)?

 

[Montalban]

I presume that you are familiar with John Locke and Thomas Hobbes (re: Natural Law)?

Is that the same John Locke who supported slavery?

He didn’t think he had a moral right to interfere with a person’s private property

 

[Montalban]

“Inferiority was assumed by Thomas Jefferson, Voltaire, and even John Locke …(who) did not hesitate to defend slavery in his draft of the Fundamental Constitution of Carolina.”, Carroll, V & Shiflett, D “Christianity on Trial: Arguments against anti-religious Bigotry”, p31
Specifically, one rule says:
“CX: Every freeman of Carolina shall have absolute power and authority over his Negro slaves, of what opinion or religion soever.”
(users.cyberone.com.au/myers/locke.html
“…echoed in Liberal John Locke’s defence of slavery as “Property.”

Thus if we all had a belief in only relative morality, slavery would probably still exist in the US

 

[WildEyedAtheist]

Now having said the above please try to understand there is a real core issue here. I do not know the answers to the core issue. On what do an atheist/ non-theist build a moral base?

I already answered this question TR. And you cannot have an argument of unknown vs. unknown, unprovable vs. unprovable.

You already know this.

There is no way to prove that god DOES exist.

There is no way to prove that god DOES NOT exist.

So, where do you go from there? It’s like butting you head on a concrete wall. The wall will always win.

Morals is yet another unprovable theory.

We believe in our theory, you believe in yours. It is still a wall.

Discussing the two theories is one thing, but demanding proof? That will never happen, FOR EITHER SIDE.

 

[Montalban]

Several advocates of negro freedom were Christians; William Wilberforce (in Britain) and William Lloyd Garrison (USA) were able to appeal to a sense of ‘good’ beyond themeslves.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

It seems you may be impling religion is the root of all evil?

This is a little too simplistic for me.

People have and will do things in the name of “GOD”, that are horrific and dreadful. Once people have “GOD” on their side(or at least think they do), they are capable of absolute atrocities. We have a lot of examples of this and saying “well they aren’t REALLY following God” is to ignore these people’s beliefs that they really ARE doing what is asked of them.

The type of God people believe in, pretty much defines who THEY are, and describes very little about the nature or reality of God him/herself regardless of the religion.

Just as people are capable of bad or evil “in the name of god” they are also capable of bad or evil “In the name of man”.

This is what humans do and until we truly accept that, we will blame religion or lack there-of for what is going wrong with the world instead of taking a good look at ourselves.

It does reward us, simply not with a “place” in heaven.

now it seem you imply Atheist are the only moral people?

For a simple example, one might say if we choose not to steal, then we are trying to create a community of trust and sharing. This is a much better way to live than stealing…since if we steal, other’s can steal from us as well. Do we REALLY want to spend our time simply protecting what we have?

I agree with the Golden rule, I just don’t think it comes from a God, but rather from human beings that have to a degree determined what makes us live together in a way that is beneficial for us and the world around is.

From a deeper perspective, thinking well, and trying to live well makes us stronger and more competant in life, which in turn enables us to help create an even better home life, community life and human society in general.

Now a reverse

I AM a selfish human being. I’ll accept that. I want a world that is nurtured by man and not destroyed by us and I will selfishly do what I can to try and achieve that, even if it means delaying gratification and choosing to give up things I really want.

Now back to the religion is root of evil theme

I have seen friends of mine, fundamentalists, who will do what their “church” tells them because of a reward they are promised to recieve. I see very little thought put into what they are actually doing. When I ask other christians about it, they say “well he isn’t really christian” and wipe their hands of it.

I think if you are honest with yourself, you will at least admit that “believing” in a God, does NOT make a person a good person, nor does any one religion, or denomination within that religion. Even within Catholisism, people venemently disagree with one another.

Now back to the purity of atheism

And a non-believer , can be a decent human being without a belief, and we can read things like “sermon on the mount” and agree with it’s basic message. We don’t need a God, to recognize what is good.
Human nature is SO incredibly complex. Just because we don’t alway’s understand one another, doesn’t mean we have to make-up the answers so that we can keep a solid world-view in front of us.

Perhaps you can simply say “you don’t understand where the athiest moral compass comes from” instead of denying it actually exists.

Maybe I should communicate better to you. The fundamentals of Catholism explain the moral compass of Atheist. Now you and I can accept or reject that. One of the great ironies is the way Atheists affirm the Catholic teaching, and simultaneously deny the teaching as correct. So if you want to deny the Church’s teaching what is the explanation? What is the base for morals or ethic in a truly atheist society?

I do not wish to offend you. I suspect your thinking while you’re writing, however it does not seem you are answering. How about explaining how a world without theist operates in regard to moral or ethical issues. What is their base? What is your base?

 

[Montalban]

I already answered this question TR. And you cannot have an argument of unknown vs. unknown, unprovable vs. unprovable.

You already know this.

There is no way to prove that god DOES exist.

That old chestnut.

I’ve met that one before.

For such people ‘proof’ can only be established through science, which they then limit to being only that which can test for material things, thus establishing a test that could not, of its nature, prove what it is they’re demanding we prove. All to keep things nice and comfortable as atheists don’t like real challenges.

 

[Montalban]

Dameedna:

It does reward us, simply not with a “place” in heaven

People who do good in Christ do it because it is good, not because of a reward.

Your reward would be a feeling of smugness.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Let’s revisit that statement, exchanging organizations, shall we?. Then you defend it.

The Roman Catholic Church who reference their morality to God are capable of doing absolutely anything in the name of helping people. This includes incalculable torture, the unmerciful massacre of men, women, children and infants, the burning (alive) of men and young women, genocide, and regicide - just to name a few. All of these things came from a twisted, but earnest, desire to make people’s lives “better”. All of these things were advocated by people who considered themselves moral and ethical.

This appears terribly incorrect. I’ll post an objection now but hope to delay visiting this issue until more current issues are explored.

 

[WildEyedAtheist]

Maybe it would be better if I made a statement to allow many of these irrelevant off shoot issues to be dismissed.

I agree!

. Now if you try to simply drop God out of the above you have several problems 1) how did the moral become indwelled?

Once again you are asking for concrete proof to both the unknowable and unprovable (for either side). You can argue this point until the day you die and still be no closer to the answer than you were when you started.

1. Since he now either violates nothing, or violates a non-binding agreement, then who does he injure?

It depends on his morality (as we have defined it.) If his wife and children are important to him, he may feel a sense of loss, hopelessness, helplessness, abandonment, failure, etc. or any combination of these.

Whether or not he believes in a god or not do not change the way a human being will react in this situation. We ALL can experience these feelings throughout our lives, at any time and in any manner.

Your worshiping a god or an empty coffee can does not change this fact.

Did he owe it to his children to raise them, if so how?

That is a cultural question, not a moral one.

He can not violate a social or human contract, this is play on words, a contract requires several things to exist, and these things are clearly not present.

In what way? Give me an example.

Is he violating empathy?

Empathy is commonly defined as one’s ability to recognize, perceive and feel directly the emotion of another. How do you perceive him violating this? Is it possible?

Well the problem then is his injure must be confined to himself because by definition empathy is generated within him.

Whoa. You’ve lost me on this…

So the children can not suffer from his empathy.

Empathy is innate. It cannot be shared or bequeathed to another. Only his actions can hurt the children.

I hope that helps others understand the reason I asked the earlier question

Questions like these make for interesting discussion!

 

[Texas_Roofer]

I can accept that. But we are not discussing “good”, either as an animate or inanimate thing. The posits are “right” and “wrong.”

I’ll take the morals quote I posted as the terminology for the non-theist.

I presume that you are familiar with John Locke and Thomas Hobbes (re: Natural Law)?

I have read different versions of Natural Law I do not recall a complete work from Locke however I do believe it was a standard reference, concerning Hobbes I have no real memory reference.

**So can you now answer where or how your moral base is generated? **

I already answered this question TR. And you cannot have an argument of unknown vs. unknown, unprovable vs. unprovable.

You already know this.

There is no way to prove that god DOES exist.

There is no way to prove that god DOES NOT exist.

So, where do you go from there? It’s like butting you head on a concrete wall. The wall will always win.

Morals is yet another unprovable theory.

We believe in our theory, you believe in yours. It is still a wall.

Discussing the two theories is one thing, but demanding proof? That will never happen, FOR EITHER SIDE.

It seems you now wish to separate yourself from the issue? Empathy is self centered so as mentioned earlier it seems extremely short as an answer. I recall humanism. Which I believe is defined as an imaginary god like feature atheist use to replace god solely for the purpose of declaring atheism as correct. Did I get that correct?

 

[WildEyedAtheist]

Of course it matters. IF I believe something is right, and you wrong, but it’s neither right nor wrong per se but simply relatively right or wrong - depending on which chemicals are affecting us then you have no real ‘right to’ tell me I’m wrong, and vise versa.

Uh…yeah.

You are going to have to elaborate on that convoluted statement.