Catholics need to sharpen our debating skills...and increase our charity

  • Thread starter Thread starter Neithan
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Neithan said:
One important point is that instead of reacting quickly to arguments, which often ends up being a response to a caricature or “straw man,” we should first try to understand the argument as the other person does, to see how it has convinced them — to “steel man” the argument and aspire to re-state it in such a way that supporters of it would admire how succinctly we can articulate it. Then we can critique it.
Click to expand...
Woah back up, a straw man is a logical fallacy. The point being is the way you present your point and the logic you use to apply it is flawed at it’s core.

In a straw man you are creating something of a hypothetical effigy that’s like the thing you are arguing about then burning that effigy down. You then point out the similarities between the strawman and your opponents point of view. You distort the point your opponent makes.

Example:
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

It’s a fallacy and should never be used. You can’t Iron up a strawman and make it a good thing.
 
Wozza said:
I disbelieve all the arguments put forward for His existence.
Click to expand...
I’ve heard many honest people, who say they are atheists, say the same thing. Even the most outspoken, like Bill Maher and Penn Jillette, leave the tiniest crack of the door open in case they might be wrong. But I’ll say again what I offered to one gentleman here who worried that he may wind up in heaven while those he loves most do not. What I assured him of was that his loved ones had not rejected “god”, but, just like in your statement above, only the ideas of God they had been presented with. And in all fairness, I would have to say I reject them all too. Yet I remain a devout Christian, even though some of my more conservative Evangelical friends might say I’m more on the fringes of the faith than anything.

I agree with at least one prominent biblical scholar, whose name escapes me, that we ought to do away with the word “god” for several generations to let the default images die away. What most of us are presented with from a young age are arguments for a Deity which we later realize are easily refuted. But for me it has become immensely easy; the universe is powered by enormously massive, unmeasurable energy. If this energy has produced a species of animal which is conscious, aware, and able to reason, then it is no great stretch to feel that the energy itself is conscious, aware, and able to reason. We can call it what we are comfortable with. But the word “god” just no longer works among a growing segment of unconvinced people.
 
Last edited:
I’m a materialist. On a universal level, genocide is neither right nor wrong, because right and wrong are human concepts designed to address human issues.

There are no universal right and wrong, things just are. However, humans don’t operate on a universal level. We are mortal and finite and therefore have concerns. We create and develop ideas and strategies to address our issues.

This is where the concepts of right and wrong come into play. So one can very much be a materialist, but also, as a human, engage in making ethical judgements.

Different rules for different playing fields. Just like we have a variety of different rules, laws, and expectations for behavior in different areas of life, we recognize that the universe is not bound or subject to the limitations we are.

Things don’t have to be wrong in all places at all times in order to be wrong in some places at some times.
 
CelticWarlord said:
40.png
Wozza:
I disbelieve all the arguments put forward for His existence.
Click to expand...
I’ve heard many honest people, who say they are atheists, say the same thing. Even the most outspoken, like Bill Maher and Penn Jillette, leave the tiniest crack of the door open in case they might be wrong. But I’ll say again what I offered to one gentleman here who worried that he may wind up in heaven while those he loves most do not. What I assured him of was that his loved ones had not rejected “god”, but, just like in your statement above, only the ideas of God they had been presented with. And in all fairness, I would have to say I reject them all too. Yet I remain a devout Christian, even though some of my more conservative Evangelical friends might say I’m more on the fringes of the faith than anything.
Click to expand...
And I’ll add Dawkins to your list. Who suggests that he’s only a 7 out of 8 in regard to belief. Which is way more accepting of the possibility than I am (he’s a cultural Anglican as well). In passing, I always felt it odd that he picked a number out 8 rather than a percentage or ‘9 out of 10’. The only other use of 8 being the top figure I know of is when meterologists use it for cloud cover. Anyway…

Maybe we shouldn’t be teaching God to children in the first place. It has to be simplified to the point where it becomes meaningless and you end up with Sunday School versions of biblical events which all to easily sow doubts into young minds as they start questioning things. It becomes a house built on sand.

Notwithstanding that an all too depressingly large number of people never leave those stories behind and build a belief system on them. Which is again all too easily dismantled. By people like Dawkins, who is an anti-fundamentalist rather than an anti-theist.
 
Last edited:
Calliope said:
So one can very much be a materialist, but also, as a human, engage in making ethical judgements.
Click to expand...
Good luck getting that fact up and running in these parts, Call. The usual response is along the lines: ‘Bags of chemicals can’t make ethical judgements’.
 
Marxist thought and manipulation are the order of the day. That quote from Archbishop Chaput was helpful. Those who thought they overthrew everything in the 1960s were not and will not be ultimately successful. Catholics with any skill/calling need to rebuild from the inside out, and be full of hope.
 
edwest211 said:
Those who thought they overthrew everything in the 1960s were not and will not be ultimately successful. Catholics with any skill/calling need to rebuild from the inside out, and be full of hope.
Click to expand...
I’d guess all those people doing all that overthrowin’ are probably more worried about their hip replacement ops rather than Marxism these days. But your continued calls for a return to the heady pre 60’s days when all women knew their place seems to get those ol’ buzzards riled up and full of spit ‘n’ vinegar again.
 
Wozza said:
But your continued calls for a return to the heady pre 60’s days when all women knew their place seems to get those ol’ buzzards riled up and full of spit ‘n’ vinegar again.
Click to expand...
And yet… the immigrants are coming. They’re coming from Latin America in the New World, from Eastern Europe, Africa and Asia in the old. They are coming from majority Catholic, Orthodox and Islamic countries. They actually believe their faith. And that includes, especially, the women. And they reject everything secularism has to offer, not because they “know their place,” because they do not buy the cultural Marxism upon which the sexual revolution was based (and many, especially those from the East and South, actually lived through Communism and know Marx when they see him).

And unlike white Anglo-Saxon post-Protestants, they do not have sub-replacement fertility.

If the pre-60s days were so bad for women, why do all the female immigrants want to bring them back by staying home and raising large God-fearing families?

You can question your WASPP prejudices, or you can go down with the ship and watch your culture get replaced by those who do. This is not the outcome I want to see for the West. I want to see the old Western cultures renewed and not replaced by immigrants. But as I help my diocese to help the immigrants, I accept that I have more in common with them than my WASPP brethren who share my skin color and nothing else.

I’m leaving you with one final plea. Atheism, materialism, Marxism… it’s all excuses for not wanting to love and respect your neighbor. As the Bible says, true religion consists of love of the other. Choose love, choose life, or see your culture become obsolete and replaced according to the very natural selection you claim as your vindication.

I hope you choose wisely.
 
MarysLurker said:
I’m leaving you with one final plea. Atheism, materialism, Marxism… it’s all excuses for not wanting to love and respect your neighbor.
Click to expand...
I’m an atheist, a materialist and what you might certainly describe as a socialist. It appears you don’t know anyone at all who holds any of those positions.
 
Wozza said:
I’m an atheist, a materialist and what you might certainly describe as a socialist. It appears you don’t know anyone at all who holds any of those positions.
Click to expand...
Just to be clear: socialism is not loving your neighbor. It is another name for political/economic Marxism. Specifically, it is outsourcing your duty to love your neighbor to the government, while giving the government frightening powers to infringe human rights to forcibly impose what the vanguard culture considers to be equality. In the UK, the current example of IngSoc presently consists of white English judges compelling a black Catholic immigrant to kill her baby because that is what their culture judges to be in her quote-unquote best interest.

If THAT is what you call loving your neighbor, you’ve proven my premise that there is no point in dialogue with a Marxist and upon realizing your dialogue partner is one, it’s time to stop dialogue, add them to your prayer intentions, and sail for other shores. Which is what I’ll respectfully do for you.
 
Last edited:
MarysLurker said:
40.png
Wozza:
I’m an atheist, a materialist and what you might certainly describe as a socialist. It appears you don’t know anyone at all who holds any of those positions.
Click to expand...
Just to be clear: socialism is not loving your neighbor. It is another name for political/economic Marxism. Specifically, it is outsourcing your duty to love your neighbor to the government, while giving the government frightening powers to infringe human rights to forcibly impose what the vanguard culture considers to be equality. In the UK, the current example of IngSoc presently consists of white English judges compelling a black Catholic immigrant to kill her baby because that is what their culture judges to be in her quote-unquote best interest.
Click to expand...
Ah, perhaps you didn’t know that the judiciary is separate from the executive (the government) in the UK. Maybe it’s different where you live.
 
MarysLurker said:
Just to be clear: socialism is not loving your neighbor. It is another name for political/economic Marxism. Specifically, it is outsourcing your duty to love your neighbor to the government, while giving the government frightening powers to infringe human rights to forcibly impose what the vanguard culture considers to be equality. In the UK, the current example of IngSoc presently consists of white English judges compelling a black Catholic immigrant to kill her baby because that is what their culture judges to be in her quote-unquote best interest.
Click to expand...
That decision appears to have been overturned.

www.christiantoday.com

Court's ruling mandating abortion of mentally ill woman's baby is overturned

Pro-life groups are demanding answers after three appeal judges overturned a hugely controversial judgement passed down just days ago permitting doctors to terminate the baby of a woman with a learning disability.
www.christiantoday.com www.christiantoday.com
 
Last edited:
Elf01 said:
That decision appears to have been overturned.
Click to expand...
Thank God! Hopefully the initiative to investigate the NHS to find other forced abortion cases will go forward.
Wozza said:
Ah, perhaps you didn’t know that the judiciary is separate from the executive (the government) in the UK. Maybe it’s different where you live.
Click to expand...
… Except that the abortion was requested by doctors from the NHS (the UK socialized medicine agency), which is not part of the judiciary but rather the executive.
edwest211 said:
Marxist is very specific.
Click to expand...
It’s not as specific as you may think. Graduate school philosophy instruction nowadays is mostly centered on the critical theories, which are in turn based on Marxism. In Western education, critical theory is basically the default philosophy of sociology, along with materialism which is the default philosophy in other fields. Hence the generic post-Millennial Westerner is forced into Marxism and materialism by the power of the gradebook. You used to be able to assume your dialogue partner was a Protestant. Not anymore.

The Alinsky style tactics of “othering” the opponent, dehumanizing them and attacking the speaker instead of their ideas are likewise taken from Marxism.
 
Last edited:
Mr. Alinsky believed in something that is still promoted today: “radical social change.” There are things that work and continue to work, but by burying good ideas under ‘I can change what I want into what everybody should want’ leads to destruction.
 
Wozza said:
Maybe we shouldn’t be teaching God to children in the first place. It has to be simplified to the point where it becomes meaningless and you end up with Sunday School versions of biblical events which all to easily sow doubts into young minds as they start questioning things. It becomes a house built on sand.
Click to expand...
When’s the last time you’ve been to Sunday School? I’ve got kids, do you (asked in a non-accusatory, curious and very non-pejorative manner - pardon please if I offend)?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top