Atheism and the Church

[WildEyedAtheist]

“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

Cool! The Quote Game again!

An early example is St. Paul’s Epistle to Philemon. St. Paul appears to tolerate slavery, but he also warned slave masters that they too have a Master in Heaven who would judge them (Col. 4:1)

catholiceducation.org/articles/history/world/wh0013.html

In short, most U.S. clergy lacked the respect that slaver Marshall professed to have for God. Rev. Fee saw that “ninety-nine hundredths of the Christian ministry in our land claim that it [slavery] is at least tolerated by the Bible” (Sinfulness of Slavery, 1851), p 3.

 

[Montalban]

Cool! The Quote Game again!

You’re against quotes?

An early example is St. Paul’s Epistle to Philemon. St. Paul appears to tolerate slavery, but he also warned slave masters that they too have a Master in Heaven who would judge them (Col. 4:1)

The key to that is ‘appears to’ as opposed to actually

Paul wasn’t concerned for, or against slavery but for the next world.

 

[Montalban]

In short, most U.S. clergy lacked the respect that slaver Marshall professed to have for God. Rev. Fee saw that “ninety-nine hundredths of the Christian ministry in our land claim that it [slavery] is at least tolerated by the Bible” (Sinfulness of Slavery, 1851), p 3.

By the way, who wrote this?

And is the book about Slavery being Sinful?

 

[Texas_Roofer]

…The key to that is ‘appears to’ as opposed to actually

Paul wasn’t concerned for, or against slavery but for the next world.

Actually the key is to understand Atheists continually point to religion on all matters of morals. Which causes the debate as to whether there are any real atheist.

 

[Montalban]

It seems you said YOU decide your morals and indirectly imply each of us decides our own morals. We maintain God decided all morals. Which is to say you may have undermind all your cohorts. They usually deny being their personal moral compass, this is due to the implications of such.

Even if he were right, then what’s his complaint about church massacres? Who then is he to judge?

 

[WildEyedAtheist]

it is just
Existence is a matter of faith
Nonexistence is a matter of faith

So the evaluation is faith vs faith

Please define for me how my existence (or that of my dog’s) is a matter of faith.

 

[Montalban]

Actually the key is to understand Atheists continually point to religion on all matters of morals. Which causes the debate as to whether there are any real atheist.

As noted above, if he believes morals are wholly subjective, then who is he to judge what actions the church has done?

 

[Montalban]

Please define for me how my existence (or that of my dog’s) is a matter of faith.

I did this for you when I quoted earlier about chemicals.
As British biologist J. B. S. Haldane wrote in 1927, “If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose my beliefs are true . . . and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms.”
orthodoxytoday.org/articles6/GilderEvolution.php
Your perceptions too must just be chemicals.

 

[Montalban]

In short, most U.S. clergy lacked the respect that slaver Marshall professed to have for God. Rev. Fee saw that “ninety-nine hundredths of the Christian ministry in our land claim that it [slavery] is at least tolerated by the Bible” (Sinfulness of Slavery, 1851), p 3.

The only place I could find this on-line is here : Roman Catholic Church Opposition to Slavery

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Please define for me how my existence (or that of my dog’s) is a matter of faith.

to help you leave the moral subject?

Proof I have your dog exists = none
Proof I have your dog does not exist = none

evaluation is none vs none So any opinion I have on the existence of a dog which is yours is based on my faith in the printed words of this website.

Can we explore your morals now?

 

[Texas_Roofer]

As noted above, if he believes morals are wholly subjective, then who is he to judge what actions the church has done?

That is not the issue. The issue is to distract from his or any atheist moral base.

BTW the Church did not kill, misguided members of the Church may have killed

 

[WildEyedAtheist]

The fundamentals of Catholicism explain the moral compass of Atheist.

In what way? And why only Catholicism? What about Christianity? Judaism? Islam? Buddhism? Hinduism?

One of the great ironies is the way Atheists affirm the Catholic teaching, and simultaneously deny the teaching as correct.

Again, in what way?

If you are saying that we, as humans, agree with some of the common sense teachings of the Church, then yes, of course.

Why? Because they make sense. But we do not need a god to tell us that.

Those “teachings” were written by men.

So if you want to deny the Church’s teaching what is the explanation?

Who says we want to deny ANY teachings from ANYWHERE. When we learn something, or experience something new, we weigh that against our moral/ethical structure. If it feels right, we adopt it into our structure, if it doesn’t, we eliminate it.

Simple.

What is the base for morals or ethic in a truly atheist society?

You keep asking this, we keep answering this, you keep rejecting it.

Humanism.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

The only place I could find this on-line is here : Roman Catholic Church Opposition to Slavery

There is a lot more to this issue, many threads exist on the subject, lets move back to atheist and morals

 

[WildEyedAtheist]

That old chestnut.

I’ve met that one before.

And used it before, only slightly modified.

For such people ‘proof’ can only be established through science…

Wrong.

Take me to god, let me shake his hand. Have him show me, say…how he heals an amputee.

Hell, I don’t even have to meet him OR shake his hand. Just show me how he regenerates a leg!

Whew! I’ll believe!

No scientific proof needed.

All to keep things nice and comfortable as atheists don’t like real challenges.

Oh, challenge me O’ Great and Wise One.

 

[WildEyedAtheist]

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.

Right.

And if you all had irrefutable PROOF that heaven and hell did not exist, you wouldn’t lose 3/4 of your membership overnight.

Right. That’s believable.

 

[dolphinlove]

And used it before, only slightly modified.

Wrong.

Take me to god, let me shake his hand. Have him show me, say…how he heals an amputee.

Hell, I don’t even have to meet him OR shake his hand. Just show me how he regenerates a leg!

Whew! I’ll believe!

No scientific proof needed.

Oh, challenge me O’ Great and Wise One.

Just a note, such sarcasm has been known to get people banned…

 

[WildEyedAtheist]

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

What is incorrect about it? Don’t tell me that you don’t know about the Massacre of the Cathars in Beziers(sp?) in 1209 at the behest of Pope Innocent III?

And of the Roman Catholic inhabitants of the city who were granted the freedom to leave unharmed, yet most refused and opted to fight alongside the Cathars?

And of the papal legate Arnaud-Amaury, Abbot of Cîteaux’s famous line, “Kill them all, the Lord will recognize His own.”?

Nor of his letter to Innocent III after the slaughter, “Today your Holiness, twenty thousand heretics were put to the sword, regardless of rank, age, or sex.”?

TR, you simply must read up on your church history.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

In what way? And why only Catholicism? What about Christianity? Judaism? Islam? Buddhism? Hinduism?

As far as I know they all agree on this issue

Again, in what way?
If you are saying that we, as humans, agree with some of the common sense teachings of the Church, then yes, of course.
Why? Because they make sense. But we do not need a god to tell us that.
Those “teachings” were written by men.

This is a strange question given the past statements concerning the Church. The Church teachs all atheist are God’s children indwelled with a Christain heart. These people simply use free will to deny their longing… Your welcome to accept that position though it opposes Atheism

Who says we want to deny ANY teachings from ANYWHERE. When we learn something, or experience something new, we weigh that against our moral/ethical structure. If it feels right, we adopt it into our structure, if it doesn’t, we eliminate it.

Simple.

The Church teaching does appear to fit well, which would mean you are not a real atheist

You keep asking this, we keep answering this, you keep rejecting it.

Humanism.

Does Humanism = God? at least to you

 

[Texas_Roofer]

What is incorrect about it? Don’t tell me that you don’t know about the Massacre of the Cathars in Beziers(sp?) in 1209 at the behest of Pope Innocent III?

And of the Roman Catholic inhabitants of the city who were granted the freedom to leave unharmed, yet most refused and opted to fight alongside the Cathars?

And of the papal legate Arnaud-Amaury, Abbot of Cîteaux’s famous line, “Kill them all, the Lord will recognize His own.”?

Nor of his letter to Innocent III after the slaughter, “Today your Holiness, twenty thousand heretics were put to the sword, regardless of rank, age, or sex.”?

TR, you simply must read up on your church history.

I guess you need a distraction? We could discuss this later unless you simply must distract the issue of your moral base. remember you said it was “right” then “empathy” and now “humanism” but isn’t humanism really another name for God?

 

[WildEyedAtheist]

It seems you now wish to separate yourself from the issue?

No. I just think that we are not on the same page. I THOUGHT that I explained my stance by using Humanism as my base of moral philosophy. I do not seem to have made myself clear.

Let me try again, this time using MY understanding of YOUR base?

As I see it, you believe that you are “bequeathed” your morals all at once by your god “before” you were born. Correct me if I am wrong here, because I am no expert on Catholicism!

We believe that our moral code comes from evolution.

For example, as an infant, we believe we have no concept of right and wrong. We learn this separation of “correct” and “incorrect” behavior from our parents, our teachers, by observing the world around us, etc.

When we become a child, we “develop” a moral starting point that evolves all throughout our lifetime, but the “base”, the foundation we learned from our parents, is always there.

“Learned Ethics” (so-to-speak) to fall back on or to “gauge” whether something is right or wrong when held up to the moral code taught to us as children.

Does this help to explain it more to you?

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?

This should help!

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism_%28life_stance%29