Hello Athiests!

[jam070406]

No, and here’s why. Atheism does not make a claim of having access to a transcendental, perfect, and ultimate moral authority.

Yes, Moral relativism.

The RCC does claim to have access to a transcendental, perfect, and ultimate moral authority.

Yes, the RCC does. And just because people commit actions against that authority does not make that authority false.

So if we see morals from atheistic groups shifting over time, even committing atrocities, we cannot conclude that atheism has made a false claim about its source for morals.

No, we can conclude that it NEEDS an absolute authority and it rejects an absolute authority in order to justify a morality that is only relative to that individual atheist.

On the other hand, if we see the Church’s moral outlook changing over time it casts doubt on the claim that it has access to a transcendental, timeless, ultimate moral authority.

But it hasn’t changed, only the opinions and actions of individuals, relating to that individual or group of individuals going against Church Teaching and not in line with absolute Truth.

That is all well and good, and I will agree with you here. However, it does leave the central question unresolved. It leaves it unresolved because these guidelines do not cover all moral issues. For instance, my wife and I used IVF to have children. According to the hierarchy of the RCC, we have done something that was morally incorrect. My point is: Says who?

Jesus left the authority to bind and loose with His Church. I’m not going to comment on your sensitive situation other than, it is done and God is a forgiving and loving God who seeks you to return to Him. NO sin is greater then His mercy.

What gives the earthly hierarchy of the Church the right to say this is moral, this is not?

Do I really need to answer this?

They claim it is because they have access to a transcendental, perfect, ultimate moral authority. Not only is that suspect, their history casts serious doubt on the claim.

The Truth has not changed.

 

[happilycatholic]

1. I don’t claim that there is no higher power. I dispute human claims that there are good reasons to conclude so.
2. I’m not using proof of God as a standard of proof for the question at issue. I’m not sure you’ve been following the thread long enough to have the context. It seems like you may be picking out the later posts without going back to look at the question at issue. I’m using evidence of changing outlooks on morality as disproof of the notion that there is a discernible universal moral standard applied by the Church.

Okay, perhaps I am confused. I read that you are of the opinion that the Church’s authority to be guided by the Holy Spirit (here you call it some other things, we of course call this God) is called into question when given it’s history.

We’re not discussing doctrine. We’re discussing morality.

I’m sorry, when did canon as applied to morality cease to be doctrine?

I am not a Protestant here to bash the infallibility of the Pope. I am aware of the limitations placed on its use, and it really is of no concern to me.

You referenced the infallibility of the Church. It is of concern to you when you use it as a standard of proof: The church cannot be guided by [the Holy Spirit] when it has proven to be fallible as demonstrated by historical atrocities committed by the Church. (paraphrasing like crazy)

Why do so many religious people assume that atheists must not know the basics about various religions? Did it occur to you that many former priests and pastors are atheists too, or that many atheists have studied these matters in great detail in their quest to decide whether to leave a particular religion?

It’s not your atheistic aquaintance that causes me to assume you must not know the basics about catholicism. It’s the lack of knowledge readily availible to you in the Catechism and the way you choose to ignore it. Anyone who knows anything about the Church, knows that dogma cannot be changed. Doctrine can. Of course the Church will change it’s doctrine from time to time. Including those doctrines on things such as social relationships and ecumenical relationships. Also, doctrine on things such as birth control, marriage and other such matters.

It’s a living part of Christ, not some facility or club. It is a living, breathing part of Christ’s Body and subject to change and evolve just like any other living body.

Really? You think that Papal Bull after Papal Bull calling for systematic persecution of Jews for example, that was carried out over centuries by large bodies of Roman Catholic followers of the Pope is “willy-nilly”.

Let me tell you what I do think it is. It is a very grave misunderstanding of God’s will. Obviously, this happened in the time of Christ as well, such as with Judas.

I’m not holding the Church to any standard at all. I’m claiming that its moral outlook has changed. I see that as a good thing. I see no problem with that. Apparently some here do.

I’m not sure how to interpret your last comment. You appear to be saying that if the Church were indeed lead by the [Holy Spirit] then it wouldn’t have had a part in the events in history that you mention (the crusades).

If that’s not a standard of proof, what is it?

 

[happilycatholic]

1. I don’t claim that there is no higher power. I dispute human claims that there are good reasons to conclude so.

You seem to restate your beliefs a lot. Atheism by definition has nothing to do with human interpretation. Atheism is the belief that there is no God or gods. If you are going to include interpretation or proof you are moving into agnosticism.

 

[aileron]

Yes, the RCC does. And just because people commit actions against that authority does not make that authority false.

It is quite clear that these people thought or convinced themselves they were doing the right thing. They thought that it was their obligation to save the souls of Jews, Muslims, pagans, and other “enemies of Christ” by bringing them to Christianity. In the quest to do so, they employed tactics that we today find immoral.

No, we can conclude that it NEEDS an absolute authority and it rejects an absolute authority in order to justify a morality that is only relative to that individual atheist.

First, I’ve been through this elsewhere. Moral relativism does not necessarily mean personal (only rarely in fact). This is a misinterpretation being spread by a small but vocal religious minority.

plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-relativism/

'Nuff said and moving on…

But it hasn’t changed, only the opinions and actions of individuals, relating to that individual or group of individuals going against Church Teaching and not in line with absolute Truth.

“Thus saith the Lord” is for an atheist at best an unproven assertion. I’m talking about the people of the Church and their moral outlook. If you claim that God has a constant moral outlook, I see no point in arguing that until we agree that God is proven to exist. What I will argue is that one of the following is true:

A) There is no objective morality
B) If there is an objective morality, we cannot discern a complete set of moral principles based on it so it is pointless to invoke it as an argument to support x, y, or z as moral or immoral based on some objective morality.

So when people label atheists as “moral relativists” as some kind of insult, it’s really a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

Jesus left the authority to bind and loose with His Church.

Mmmm… I’ll let the Protestants argue that one – I don’t really need to take a position one way or the other.

I’m not going to comment on your sensitive situation other than, it is done and God is a forgiving and loving God who seeks you to return to Him. NO sin is greater then His mercy.

Eh… I’m not so much worried about God’s forgiveness because even I believed in Christianity I wouldn’t accept the RCC’s official position on IVF. The reasons they provide are either medically incorrect or based on wild supposition. Apparently many lay Roman Catholics don’t agree with this position because of the numbers of Catholics using IVF.

Do I really need to answer this?

No.

 

[PennitentMan]

P.S. Did you read my response to you in the other thread? If not, I’ll copy and paste it here. God bless.

Why, oh why did you copy over a previous thread’s argument/debate into this one? You hijacked your own thread and it makes following this one like pulling teeth.

 

[PennitentMan]

God exists because (insert magic words here that make everyone believe).

“God exists because I can feeeel him and I hear his voice and it makes me fuzzy all over. That should be enough evidence for any person to believe. (Popular rely from many Christians when asked for proof.)

 

[happilycatholic]

“God exists because I can feeeel him and I hear his voice and it makes me fuzzy all over. That should be enough evidence for any person to believe. (Popular rely from many Christians when asked for proof.)

meanie

 

[aileron]

You seem to restate your beliefs a lot. Atheism by definition has nothing to do with human interpretation. Atheism is the belief that there is no God or gods. If you are going to include interpretation or proof you are moving into agnosticism.

First of all, I don’t like the term atheist. In a sense, the atheist label has more utility for believers than non-believers.

What I mean by this is that believers often are interested in getting a quick, rough idea of what a person believes. Descriptive labels such as Jewish, Methodist, etc. help to give some idea. Agnostic really doesn’t give much of an idea what a person believes or doesn’t believe. An agnostic may be someone with quiet nagging doubts who may well turn to Christianity. An agnostic is someone with serious doubts, but if going anywhere it may be back to Islam or Judaism. An agnostic may also be someone who rejects the reasons people think there is a personal god, seriously doubts any better are forthcoming, and if they were inclined to believe would likely believe in a deistic or pantheistic god. Many people would call the last example an atheist, and atheists groups argue that it properly belongs in that category. For me, I don’t much like the term anyway.

So on a Roman Catholic forum, I don’t want to confuse the issue. I don’t want to present myself as someone who needs help deciding – I want to respect people’s time and energy. Is it possible that some revelation I read here organically may turn me to God? I suppose it’s possible, but I seriously doubt it and I don’t want people to spend the time under false or ambiguous presences.

 

[PennitentMan]

meanie

Sorry, I couldn’t resist

 

[jam070406]

It is quite clear that these people thought or convinced themselves they were doing the right thing. They thought that it was their obligation to save the souls of Jews, Muslims, pagans, and other “enemies of Christ” by bringing them to Christianity. In the quest to do so, they employed tactics that we today find immoral.

Yes, they thought, and they thought wrong. They applied tactics that were ALWAYS immoral, whether they were ignorant, misguided or hardened of heart.

First, I’ve been through this elsewhere. Moral relativism does not necessarily mean personal (only rarely in fact). This is a misinterpretation being spread by a small but vocal religious minority.

plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-relativism/

'Nuff said and moving on…

k…

“Thus saith the Lord” is for an atheist at best an unproven assertion. I’m talking about the people of the Church and their moral outlook. If you claim that God has a constant moral outlook, I see no point in arguing that until we agree that God is proven to exist. What I will argue is that one of the following is true:

A) There is no objective morality
B) If there is an objective morality, we cannot discern a complete set of moral principles based on it so it is pointless to invoke it as an argument to support x, y, or z as moral or immoral based on some objective morality.

So when people label atheists as “moral relativists” as some kind of insult, it’s really a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

So what you are really saying is because every detail is not in the Bible we cannot discern a complete set of moral principles. I would say, that is why Jesus left a Church. This gets into a whole area of the Church and it’s role for mankind on Faith and Morals. I’ll leave you to study that on your own.

I didn’t mean moral relativist as an insult, sorry if you took that way.

Mmmm… I’ll let the Protestants argue that one – I don’t really need to take a position one way or the other.

k…

Eh… I’m not so much worried about God’s forgiveness because even I believed in Christianity I wouldn’t accept the RCC’s official position on IVF. The reasons they provide are either medically incorrect or based on wild supposition. Apparently many lay Roman Catholics don’t agree with this position because of the numbers of Catholics using IVF.

Hmmmm, well you’ve just proven my point all along. You would go against Divinely revealed Truth, as guided and protected by the Church, based on your own personal reason, objective, will or desire etc., much like those that you stated:
“They thought that it was their obligation to save the souls of Jews, Muslims, pagans, and other “enemies of Christ” by bringing them to Christianity. In the quest to do so, they employed tactics that we today find immoral.”

No.

 

[aileron]

“God exists because I can feeeel him and I hear his voice and it makes me fuzzy all over. That should be enough evidence for any person to believe. (Popular rely from many Christians when asked for proof.)

Actually, this is not the worst attempt at proving God’s existence. A Baptist minister once argued to me that the many prophesies from the OT fulfilled in the NT prove God’s existence. I told him that all it proves is that the NT writers could read the OT. He thought about it for a few seconds and got a look like he was ready to punch me in the teeth.

 

[happilycatholic]

First of all, I don’t like the term atheist. In a sense, the atheist label has more utility for believers than non-believers.

What I mean by this is that believers often are interested in getting a quick, rough idea of what a person believes. Descriptive labels such as Jewish, Methodist, etc. help to give some idea. Agnostic really doesn’t give much of an idea what a person believes or doesn’t believe. An agnostic may be someone with quiet nagging doubts who may well turn to Christianity. An agnostic is someone with serious doubts, but if going anywhere it may be back to Islam or Judaism. An agnostic may also be someone who rejects the reasons people think there is a personal god, seriously doubts any better are forthcoming, and if they were inclined to believe would likely believe in a deistic or pantheistic god. Many people would call the last example an atheist, and atheists groups argue that it properly belongs in that category. For me, I don’t much like the term anyway.

So on a Roman Catholic forum, I don’t want to confuse the issue. I don’t want to present myself as someone who needs help deciding – I want to respect people’s time and energy. Is it possible that some revelation I read here organically may turn me to God? I suppose it’s possible, but I seriously doubt it and I don’t want people to spend the time under false or ambiguous presences.

Well, I think I’m going to faint. As true an atheist as I have come across. Thank you for your honesty. I can’t promise that I won’t [try] to convert you. (insert *evil grin here)

But carry on. The arguments are interesting.

 

[kalt]

Actually, this is not the worst attempt at proving God’s existence. A Baptist minister once argued to me that the many prophesies from the OT fulfilled in the NT prove God’s existence. I told him that all it proves is that the NT writers could read the OT. He thought about it for a few seconds and got a look like he was ready to punch me in the teeth.

LOL

 

[jam070406]

“God exists because I can feeeel him and I hear his voice and it makes me fuzzy all over. That should be enough evidence for any person to believe. (Popular rely from many Christians when asked for proof.)

What WOULD be an acceptable form of proof for you? (sincere question)

 

[aileron]

Hmmmm, well you’ve just proven my point all along. You would go against Divinely revealed Truth, as guided and protected by the Church, based on your own personal reason, objective, will or desire etc., much like those that you stated:
“They thought that it was their obligation to save the souls of Jews, Muslims, pagans, and other “enemies of Christ” by bringing them to Christianity. In the quest to do so, they employed tactics that we today find immoral.”

I’m not sure I understand completely. Are you claiming that the Church (i.e. the human leaders in the RCC) has standing to call IVF immoral by virtue of divinely revealed truth?

 

[jam070406]

I’m not sure I understand completely. Are you claiming that the Church (i.e. the human leaders in the RCC) has standing to call IVF immoral by virtue of divinely revealed truth?

I honestly know nothing about IVF and the Church’s stance or reasonings, so perhaps someone more learned can answer.

 

[PennitentMan]

Actually, this is not the worst attempt at proving God’s existence. A Baptist minister once argued to me that the many prophesies from the OT fulfilled in the NT prove God’s existence. I told him that all it proves is that the NT writers could read the OT. He thought about it for a few seconds and got a look like he was ready to punch me in the teeth.

Oh Dude, that is Awesome!

 

[aileron]

What WOULD be an acceptable form of proof for you? (sincere question)

This is a fair question. I’ve got to run, but I’ll give you a fair answer later when I can. Suffice it to say for now, it’s open ended but I can provide examples.

 

[happilycatholic]

I’m not sure I understand completely. Are you claiming that the Church (i.e. the human leaders in the RCC) has standing to call IVF immoral by virtue of divinely revealed truth?

Can I interject here?

Okay, I’m not sure why we are arguing that the Church does this because God says so when you don’t believe in God, but okay…

Pope John Paul II wrote the most beautiful Encyclical on the Sanctity of Life. In which he explains that all life is created by the Creator, God. No man is endowed with the authority to interfere in any way. Meaning, IVF, birth control, the death by execution, etc.

Because you can’t take one position on creation (life) as it relates to birth, so you cannot take another position on creation as it relates to death. They are one and the same. Life and death as we know it are human concepts of creation, not divine ones.

And because the Church considers life a divine creation, not a human one, the Church has the authority to guide us on these matters. As I stated, these doctrines could change if the Church interprets that which is held in the Deposit of Faith differently, although that is doubtful. I would think priestly celebacy is more open to interpretation than the Sanctity of Life.

Even if you do not follow the Church or Christianity, the Encyclical is a beautiful read as I stated before. It is the biggest deciding factor in my becoming catholic.

**Edit: I’m definitely not more learned, I just happened to have read this and know through catechism the Church’s standing on this particular matter.

 

[Nebogipfel]

You can’t use a mythical creature to debunk belief in God.

I think you missed the point of the essay.

Of course, atheists don’t accept miracles…

Not quite. For me it would be more accurate to say that as a sceptic, I recognise that claims without objective evidence are merely anecdotes, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence to substantiate them.

I’m certainly open to the possibilty of extraordinary events. I have seen men walking on the Moon, and my physical body has flown across oceans at hundreds of miles per hour. These are certainly extraordinary events; 500 years ago, such feats would certainly have been regarded as “miracles” (or possibly “witchcraft”). The fact that today, they’re regarded as “engineering” does not make them any less extraordinary.

The problem with supernatural explanations for extraordinary claims is that the world is full of people who claim that they can perform extraordinary feats by supernatural means; clairvoyants, psychics, faith-healers, prognosticators, speakers-to-the-dead; you can see them just about every week on TV. The evidence that any of these people can really do what they claim to be able to do, is nil, while the evidence that they are mistaken, or deluded, or out-and-out charlatans is considerable. So for the next apparently inexplicable event - whether it’s an account of alien abduction, or the appearance of a religious figure in a pot of marmite - the odds that this time it’s the real deal are very long indeed.

With regards to Guadalupe - I hadn’t heard of that one. From Wikipaedia, I understand that the cloth had been analysed in the 1930’s or so, and it was concluded that the image consisted of “no known pigment”. This begs a whole load of questions - how was the investigation controlled? Was it reproducible? Were the results peer-reviewed and replicated? And - something that seems to indicate an astonishing lack of curiosity in a scientist - having discovered a substance which was"no known pigment", didn’t anyone think it worthwhile trying to find out what it actually was? Materials science has moved on a bit since the 1930’s. Isn’t any one now curious to find out about it now?

There might be a supernatural explanation for how the image was formed, but there are so many natural explanations which are so much more likely.