Can atheists do "good?"

[Freddy]

Freddy:

(not you @Hume, the original one)

Rest assured that your posts are always worth reading.

 

[o_mlly]

Funny how religious moral abuses exist everywhere except in the self reports of religious organizations. Sources maintained by the perpetrator are not to be taken seriously. Seems like you lack an ability to use Google.
Perfect example of this is how racism exists everywhere except in police reports and the how the police organizations systematically cover it up and shuffle around bad cops.

No, it’s not funny when one leaps from healthy skepticism to paranoia.

Pretty much any teaching of the Catholic Church is ignored by at least some Catholics out there. So in your words, “why bother” calling yourself Catholic?

The baseline requirement to belong to the Catholic church is to be a self-acknowledged sinner in need of a hospital. Yes, the people in the hospital are sick but none confuse their particular sicknesses as something that is normal, to be accepted as normal, to be professed as normal.

---

And then along comes Fred with his usual strawman trick:

What you are actually saying …

Not only are you denigrating everyone …

You obviously don’t appreciate …

Your claims that their sense of morality is frivolous …

And wraps up this particular vicious strawman rant with …

All I see from you is contempt.

No, Fred. You’re looking in the mirror.

 

[Freddy]

And wraps up this particular vicious strawman rant…

A strawman fallacy is exhibited by deriding an argument by attacking the person making the argument. That isn’t the case here. You have made arguments that have some validity. I don’t agree with them.

What is being pointed out is your attitude.

 

[Dan123]

The baseline requirement to belong to the Catholic church is to be a self-acknowledged sinner in need of a hospital. Yes, the people in the hospital are sick but none confuse their particular sicknesses as something that is normal, to be accepted as normal, to be professed as normal.

There are plenty of Catholics who use birth control on an ongoing basis and feel the Church’s position on the subject is incorrect. What I was responding to is the suggestion that non-Christian morality systems are meaningless as they can change. My position is simply that all evidence suggests Christian morality is no different.

 

[o_mlly]

A strawman fallacy is exhibited by deriding an argument by attacking the person making the argument. That isn’t the case here. You have made arguments that have some validity. I don’t agree with them.

What is being pointed out is your attitude.

No, Fred; that’s the ad hominem fallacy.

A straw man fallacy occurs when one takes another person’s argument, distorts it or exaggerates it in some kind of extreme way, and then attacks that extreme distortion as you just did in this thread by telling me what I actually mean, etc.

I’ve called you out on this tactic many times in these forums encouraging you to use the quote facility to avoid the fallacy. You refuse use to do so and as long as you do, I will continue to call you out.

What is being pointed out is your attitude.

Really, Fred? Why’s that, too much sarcasm for you? Pot meet kettle. Heal yourself, friend.

I tolerate everyone who posts a response. But I don’t tolerate bad behavior.

There are plenty of Catholics who use birth control on an ongoing basis and feel the Church’s position on the subject is incorrect.

Feel? That’s always a problem. If they think the Church’s position is incorrect then argue an alternative position. I can’t argue with the way someone else feels.

What I was responding to is the suggestion that non-Christian morality systems are meaningless as they can change. My position is simply that all evidence suggests Christian morality is no different.

All evidence? Examining the example you offer, show us where the Catholic church has changed its teaching on the use of contraceptives.

 

[Dan123]

Feel? That’s always a problem. If they think the Church’s position is incorrect then argue an alternative position. I can’t argue with the way someone else feels.

They feel, think, and even believe it to be incorrect. Some quite vocally.

All evidence? Examining the example you offer, show us where the Catholic church has changed its teaching on the use of contraceptives.

I didn’t say it did, but then the Church also isn’t a moral agent capable of making decisions. It’s a collective of human beings. Even them that isn’t who I’m talking about, I’m talking about all the Catholics walking around. Their moral opinions are varied and nuanced, often aligning with but frequently diverging from, and sometimes directly opposing church teaching. That is the basis for my original statement that someone describing themselves as Catholic doesn’t do very much towards telling me what their actual positions on moral questions are.

 

[o_mlly]

I’m talking about all the Catholics walking around. Their moral opinions are varied and nuanced, often aligning with but frequently diverging from, and sometimes directly opposing church teaching. That is the basis for my original statement that someone describing themselves as Catholic doesn’t do very much towards telling me what their actual positions on moral questions are.

The Church’s teachings are well evidenced in easily accessible writing: Papal encyclicals, Ecumenical Council documents, Synodal publications, various catechisms. Not everyone who describes themselves as catholic is Catholic.

 

[Dan123]

Not everyone who describes themselves as catholic is Catholic.

As I said,

You can try for the no-true-Scotsman thing if you like

You tried to paint people with secular moral systems as changing their thoughts day to day, despite that not being what anyone observes in the real world. I was simply pointing out the range of moral beliefs one can hold while calling themselves Catholic seems no less varied. Yet neither group is changing their position on major issues on a daily basis.

 

[o_mlly]

You tried to paint people with secular moral systems as changing their thoughts day to day

Nope. I acknowledged the logical extension of Damian243’s post:

Damian243:

Atheists’ reference point of the good can literally be anything …

Yes. If one’s reference point for the good can be anything then it is no thing.

They can literally have any world view …

Ditto.

Is Damian243 correct?

If one appeals to their own authority as opposed to a transcendent authority as the grounding for their moral system then their system is as whimsical as their personal opinions.

 

[Dan123]

If one appeals to their own authority as opposed to a transcendent authority as the grounding for their moral system then their system is as whimsical as their personal opinions.

I don’t agree with Damian’s wording, it’s sloppy.

Regardless, you’re appealing to your belief and understanding of a transcendent authority. Unless you have perfect understanding of morality from God you can only ever act on your own best understanding of it. That means you’re using your own mind, and it’s no different than Damian’s.

 

[o_mlly]

Regardless, you’re appealing to your belief and understanding of a transcendent authority. Unless you have perfect understanding of morality from God you can only ever act on your own best understanding of it.

Nope. I accept the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church as the authoritative word of God on matters moral.

 

[Dan123]

Nope. I accept the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church as the authoritative word of God on matters moral.

YOU accept. That’s the point. That someone else accepts for example secular humanism doesn’t make their morality flighty and subject to daily whims.

 

[o_mlly]

That someone else accepts for example secular humanism doesn’t make their morality flighty and subject to daily whims.

Where can I read the precepts of the authoritative moral system called secular humanism?

 

[Dan123]

You can do your own research. It’s a philosophical system and framework not authoritative dictates.

 

[o_mlly]

You can do your own research.

Usually, that response indicates that you don’t have an answer.

There is no authoritative system if one cannot be named. Secular humanism is whatever anyone who calls himself a secular humanist thinks it could be. Like Peter Singer, perhaps?

 

[Dan123]

There is no authoritative system if one cannot be named. Secular humanism is whatever anyone who calls himself a secular humanist thinks it could be. Like Peter Singer, perhaps?

I never said there was an authoritative system and that’s the second time you’ve tried to say I did.

As I pointed out above, Catholicism is also whatever anyone who calls themselves a Catholic is as well, as for nearly any belief you can find someone who disagrees with that teaching. I wonder what you’ll believe is moral tomorrow?

Having variations in the finer points of morality makes perfect sense in non-authoritative systems. You’d have bellcurves of opinions trending towards those opinions that work best for society, which would change and evolve over time, dispelling things like slavery which were once accepted. And that’s what we see. What we don’t see is perfectly uniform ideas of morality that remain unchanged through history.

 

[o_mlly]

I never said there was an authoritative system and that’s the second time you’ve tried to say I did.

Nope. Only asked you once for the authoritative source for this “philosophical system and framework” that you claim prevents morality from being “flighty and subject to daily whims”.

As I pointed out above, Catholicism is also whatever anyone who calls themselves a Catholic is as well …

And, as I pointed out, you are dead wrong.

Having variations in the finer points of morality makes perfect sense in non-authoritative systems.

Like what? Would that be the finer points of, say, allowing infanticide?

 

[o_mlly]

Pope Benedict XVI: The pontiff, speaking to journalists on his flight, said the condition was “a tragedy that cannot be overcome by money alone, that cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which even aggravates the problems”.

And what change in moral teaching do you think is being made?

Philippeans’ HIV epidemic: The country’s growing HIV epidemic has been fueled by a legal and policy environment hostile to evidence-based policies and interventions proven to help prevent HIV transmission. Such restrictions are found in national, provincial, and local government policies, and are compounded by the longstanding resistance of the Roman Catholic Church to sexual health education and condom use. Government policies create obstacles to condom access and HIV testing and limit educational efforts on HIV prevention. - Found on the Human Rights Watch website

Please provide the link. And, again, what change in moral teaching do you think this report evidences?

In May 2011, the Vatican sponsored another international conference with the theme of “The Centrality of Care for the Person in the Prevention and Treatment of Illnesses Caused by HIV/AIDS”, during which church officials continued teaching that condoms were immoral and ineffective"

Diito.

Website (Nature.com ): The Vatican’s well-known opposition to condoms stirred fresh controversy when Roman Catholic leaders announced on television that HIV is small enough to pass through condoms. The World Health Organization (WHO) and others have been furiously trying to counter the messages, saying the Vatican’s stance is contributing to the spread of the AIDS epidemic.
“[The Vatican is] going to need to come up with scientific proof,” says HIV expert Thomas Quinn of the Infectious Diseases Society of America. “There is a multitude of publications that show that the virus cannot pass through the latex of the condom.”

Your link does not take one to the article. Ditto on evidence of the Church changing its teaching in morality.

Bernard Francis Law - Boston rape scandal - FYI child rape in catholic orphanages is documented in almost every country on earth.
Bernard Francis Law - Wikipedia(November%204,of%20the%20Roman%20Catholic%20Church.&text=One%20priest%20alone%20was%20alleged,than%20going%20to%20the%20authorities.

Torture was legalized by the pontiff during the counter reformation - finally apologized for in 1995.

Ditto.

 

[o_mlly]

The first treaty Hitler ever signed was a concordat with the Catholic church, giving the church religious monopoly over education in Germany in exchange for the dissolvement of the catholic center party. German catholic churches celebrated Hitler’s birthday at the pulpit every year until he died.

Mousalini’s first treaty signed was also with the catholic church

Catholic Jozef Gašpar Tiso head of the nazi puppet state of Slovakia was a priest in holy orders.

Croatian fascist nazi puppet state of Ante Pavelic’ was operating under full clerical protection of the church

As was the regime of General Francisco Franco and the Portuguese dictator António de Oliveira Salazar all with clerical protection officially from the catholic church.

Murder and forced conversions of Serbians christians during the WW2

Pope Joseph Ratzinger - commented, after the apology for the massacre during the forced conversion of indigenous people in Brazil, “Before we arrived to convert them, these people were silently awaiting the arrival of the church.” - This is not an apology or taking responsibility of massacre of people in any sense.

FYI - this literally took 10 minutes on google to find this information.

Ditto to your post, as well. What moral teaching changed?

 

[pohandes]

They can, but they don’t.