D
DavidHume
Guest
If you read again, I wrote “dependent on its mother’s bodily functions.”
- Status
J
jam070406
Guest
I think David has given a good glimpse of atheism as described by a wise Priest I know:
"A psalm says, “The fool says in his heart: there is no God” (Ps 14:1). St. Paul also says that those who deny not only the existence of some god, but the one true God, are “without excuse” (Rom 1:20). Any honest thought on the question will leave the atheist with the conundrum that there can’t NOT be a God. Cause and effect, finality, degrees of perfection, the motion of all things, etc. all demand the existence of an ultimate First and ultimate Last, who can only be God.
"A psalm says, “The fool says in his heart: there is no God” (Ps 14:1). St. Paul also says that those who deny not only the existence of some god, but the one true God, are “without excuse” (Rom 1:20). Any honest thought on the question will leave the atheist with the conundrum that there can’t NOT be a God. Cause and effect, finality, degrees of perfection, the motion of all things, etc. all demand the existence of an ultimate First and ultimate Last, who can only be God.
Code:
Now, one could deny that Jupiter exists without asserting his existence in the first place. One could do the same with Saturn and Hera and the whole team of pagan gods.
Therefore, it is impossible to reject God’s existence without asserting it in the first place, but if and only if one has a truly reasonable concept of God, that is, that God who is absolute being and the cause of all beings. Because if God is being, and we say he “is” not, one starts with the “is,” and if anything “is,” then God must also therefore be. The “God who is absolute being” is, of course, the philosophical God and as yet an incomplete concept of the whole truth about Him. Yes, He is the same as the Christian God but just looked at from the point of view of reason without the light of divine revelation.
But, I think, if one has a defective concept of God, it is not necessarily true that one must posit is existence before negating it.
To those who say there is no God, I simply say, “prove it.” If they are honest, quickly they discover that they cannot. If they are dishonest, they insult me, walk away and leave the challenge unanswered. Given the chance, I then I go into St. Thomas Aquinas’ five ways. (There are books and internet articles in abundance on this topic, I leave it for your exploration without repeating the whole of the five arguments here.) This leaves the poor fellow in the situation where I have irrefutable proofs for God, and he has no proofs for God’s non-existence.
**The real problem of atheism is therefore rarely purely mental. It’s often moral. The pride which will not bow before a God, or which will not go the way of all other men who do believe in God out of an arrogant sense of self-superiority. Some reject God because they suffer. Others reject God because they enjoy some sin, such as lust or chemical dependencies (alcohol, narcotics) or greed. **
And such persons not rarely find ways to ignore their loudly objecting consciences, for which an abundance of television, movies and pop music provide very entertaining means."
D
DavidHume
Guest
But what’s north of the north pole?
I already beat this dead horse in the philosophy forum. I won’t say more about it here.
D
DavidHume
Guest
K
kalt
Guest
You’ve given us your opinion on the matter, but what moral principle are you working with that leads to the opinion that a fetus that is dependant on its “mother’s bodily functions” is exempt from the moral principle (which you believe in, no doubt) of the inherent value of all human life?
J
James924
Guest
Thats the 3rd time you’ve repeated that. Funny.
Now please tell us what logical reasoning lead you to believe that a human that relies on its mother’s bodily functions does not have the right to life? I say again, tell us the reasoning that brought you to that, because it doesn’t make sense all by itself.
Also, a human in the womb is NOT dependent only on its mother’s bodily functions. It is also dependent on its mother’s decisions. Everything from her health and nutrition related decisions to much more profound decisions.
You yourself said the reason you have the blessing (sorry, the “chance”) at life outside of the womb was because of your mother’s generosity, her DECISION not to kill you for the sake of convenience. How can you admit that and then say that in the womb you only relied on someone’s bodily functions?
It seems as though you aren’t thinking these things out very well…
J
jam070406
Guest
O
oneGODoneCHURCH
Guest
Other than for food the baby depends on the mother for nothing it is a self contained. it is no more dependent on her inside than it out side of her. so what bodily functions are you talking about. warmth and food is all it receives.
D
DavidHume
Guest
The same reasoning that says that someone with a rare disease that requires a transfusion or transplant, one for which you are the only possible donor, doesn’t have the right to force you to provide one.
I didn’t say I only relied on her bodily functions – I said that was the difference between a two-week-old embryo and you or me that affords different treatment.
D
DavidHume
Guest
Since pretty much every bodily function is engaged in providing the warmth and food… all of them.
I really don’t want to take this thread off its topic… someone challenged me for some differences between my moral principles and Christian ones, and I provided some.Perhaps you would like to continue your interrogation in a new thread.
J
James924
Guest
Now you’re not making sense. Do you or do you not acknowledge that in the womb a person is not only dependant on their mother’s bodily functions but also on her decisions such as the decision to eat and to not get an abortion? Do you or don’t you?
Also, the comparison of the the blood transfusion doesn’t hold water. The person who is being asked for the transfusion did not choose to bring the needy person into the world and therefor is not responsible (at least sylogistically) for the other person. You’re acting as though people have sex by accident. A mother who partook in creating a human in her womb is not comparable to a random guy being asked for a blood transfusion.
I know you aren’t thinking these out very well because you’re pumping them out within 1 or 2 minutes of eachother, probably very frustrated and that explains why you’re not making sense, you’re ignoring questions, and you’re contradicting yourself in some of the answers you give.
Calm down, breath, and try to make some sense, man.
J
James924
Guest
If you’re going to get your feelings hurt by people asking you to clarify your statements, perhaps you shouldn’t post them.
J
jam070406
Guest
It’s really quite simple when you get to the core. Lets’s just cut to the chase. People with this argument pose this sort of morality because they wish to have whatever kind of lustful sex with whoever they want without dealing with any sort of consequence.
That is why David doesn’t agree with the Church on moral issues of birth control and promiscuity. Therefore when birth control fails, abortion is the solution for the unwanted, unplanned child. They just want the sex! So in order to ease, or deaden, their own conscience, they have to convince themselves that a fetus is not a human, therefore killing it has no moral implication.
D
DavidHume
Guest
All I said was that I didn’t want to pull this thread off topic.
J
James924
Guest
No, you called our questions an interrogation. Meaning that they were unwelcome and not appreciated. This thread has already jumped between about a dozen topics. You’ve seen it and already participated in it. I’m sure you’re weren’t just worried about getting off the topic from post #1.
P
planten
Guest
Thanks to all. I read with much interest some of the latest posts from Cathloic friends. I was much impressed by the posts of kalt and jam07** and James. Thanks to all. May we ask the atheist about the soul?. Does he/she believe in anything such as a soul?? Does he/she have any soul?? That may lead us to some useful conclusion.**
O
oneGODoneCHURCH
Guest
ON this topic there is nothing to debate you are wrong. The Killing of the unborn child is wrong and there is no justifiable reason to do this. I have no respect for anyone that condones it.
L
Lazy8
Guest
No, this just means that you were a Catholic only in name. When you were a child, you thought as a child. But now you’re a man … I guess some people never grow up.That’s probably because so many of us come from Catholic upbringing…
Again, I’ve been to other forums, and the antagonism is always rooted in ignorance of the true Church, it’s history in context, and the ministry of Jesus. Almost all arguments against Christianity have to do with fundamentalist beliefs, or the Old Testament. I’ve never actually seen an athiest argue the message of Jesus himself. Isn’t that interesting? I guess you are not only ignorant of the Catholic faith, but also the typical athiest agenda in forums like this. Of course, maybe ignorance, correctness, or logic doesn’t matter to you. Maybe you are typical in that you’re only point in being here is to be antagonistic for the fun of it. That’s OK. You have every right to demonstrate how shallow you really are. After all, that’s all you’re really doing.
A little off the subject, I’ve visited websites devoted to Richard Dawkins. Boy does that man have a religeous following! Talk about a blind devoties. I’ve concluded that Dawkins knows as much about religion as the average 8th grader knows about evolutionary biology. He takes all people of all religions, and throughout the entire spectrum of each and lumps them all into the same basket. It’s kind of sad to see such an example of how bigotry can make a person dillusional and irrational.
A common thread that one sees in atheism is arrogance. The kind of arrogance that makes atheist feel that they are intellectually superior, and even morally superior. But again, I have yet to hear an argument against the message of compassion, peach, grace, faith, and love that Jesus taught. Even Jesus argued against the use of the Old Testament, when used in a purely legalistic manner. In truth, atheist who choose to pollute religeous forums are little different than the fundamentalist that they target. They are just as fanatical, and just as narrowminded.
That God exist is all around us. That the universe has mysteries is an absolute and undestood by both true scientist and the Catholic faith. Of course it will always be the case that there will always be some that are blind to truth, even when obvious. That’s actually understandable and OK, provided that thier inability to see doesn’t makes them feel that they can tell others that what they know is false.
I personally welcome all atheist to discuss matters of faith, but I have little respect for those who only wish to be antogonistic. It demonstrates emptyness and a lack of the spirit of love. It’s simply childish.
One last and important point. I don’t have a problem discussing my faith, or anyone elses. It’s just that I’ve observed over time that such antagonism for the sake of antagonism rarely bares any real fruit. It’s purely negative, and not in the spirit of God. I like the saying, “The source of all creation is love.”. There’s no love in antagoism.
D
DeoSalvatoreMeo
Guest
True. But with God’s grace, some of those people have come to realize, later in their life’s journey, that they left a Church they never really knew. That’s why the Catholics Come Home apostolate has been so successful, in just the short time that it has been active.
If you’re unfamiliar with CCH:
catholicscomehome.org/epic/epic120.phtml
J
josie_L
Guest
Please don’t be so hard on him, he is still on his journey whether he realizes this or not.
P.S. I just visited an atheist forum today, and yes, the things they were saying were hateful and cruel, especially with regard to Christianity. I won’t even bother stating what they said but suffice it to say when I hear atheists complaining on this forum of the “level of hatred” coming from christians I have to laugh, I guess they’ve never been on an atheist forum.
- Status