Morality without God?

[PRmerger]

No, it’s not like that at all. If the legal age for driving was 18, you’d tell your child that she wouldn’t be allowed to drive until she was that age and that you agreed completely with the law as it stood. You’d say that there are rock solid reasons for making it that age. Then the law is changed overnight and she can drive when she’s 16.

We’re talking about my family rules, Bradski. Not the legal limits of driving.

And I’ve actually said this. One child was allowed to drive at 16. The other child could not drive when she turned 16.

You are telling me that I can’t do this as a mom?

http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/enh...4/anigif_enhanced-buzz-8403-1361476000-14.gif

 

[davidv]

No, it’s not like that at all. If the legal age for driving was 18, you’d tell your child that she wouldn’t be allowed to drive until she was that age and that you agreed completely with the law as it stood. You’d say that there are rock solid reasons for making it that age. Then the law is changed overnight and she can drive when she’s 16.

Nothing has changed except someone has decided to drop it a couple of years. Are you immediately convinced that there is now no reason to allow her behind the wheel at 16? What happens to all your arguments backing up the age limit being 18? Are they now simply forgotten?

If the church says something is wrong, then you use the same arguments as the church to justify your acceptance of the position. You are telling me you know it’s wrong as well as the church saying it is so. But if the church were to change its position then you are telling me that you would simply change your mind as well.

Don’t you see that I am not therefore convinced that you, personally, really believe that it’s correct. You are simply repeating the church’s line. PR is not trying to tell me something is wrong. PR is simply telling me that the church believes it to be wrong. You may as well quote the relevant catechism and be done with it.

I think you misread PR’s argument. The Church teaches what is true. It is not true because the Church teaches it. The Church teaches what it does, because it is true. You incorrectly declared the position as an argument from authority. It is not. If the teaching is true, it cannot change because the true just is.

 

[PRmerger]

If the church says something is wrong, then you use the same arguments as the church to justify your acceptance of the position. You are telling me you know it’s wrong as well as the church saying it is so. But if the church were to change its position then you are telling me that you would simply change your mind as well.

I would do what Calculus students do: accept that the professor has the right answer to the problem, and then work it out in my head until I came to the same answer as the professor.

Don’t you see that I am not therefore convinced that you, personally, really believe that it’s correct. You are simply repeating the church’s line. PR is not trying to tell me something is wrong. PR is simply telling me that the church believes it to be wrong. You may as well quote the relevant catechism and be done with it.

Yep. You can quote me on this: I personally do not think it’s wrong to divorce and re-marry.

But Jesus (and the Church) said this is adultery.

I don’t exactly understand why I can’t go and celebrate with my friends who have found love a second time around, but I do try to work it out. I get that a sacramental marriage can never be dissolved by any civil ceremony. So I get that part. But it’s just the next step which I just can’t get to of my own accord: therefore if someone divorces an a**hole and finds true love, why can’t I go to their wedding?

But, guess what, Bradski? Even if I don’t fully agree, I don’t go to my friend’s wedding.

I get that the problem is with me, and not with Jesus’ teaching.

So, yes, if the Church were to hypothetically change its position on something, then I would conform my view to the Church’s.

And to do otherwise would be to create a god in my own image, wouldn’t it? For clearly if God exists, he’s going to proclaim things that just don’t fit into my paradigm.

So, see, Bradski? I’ve given you some great offensive material you can offer to any Believer who will tell you, “No, I wouldn’t change my morality if the Church says otherwise!”. You can then counter with: well, don’t you think that your God is going to say things that differ from your own perspective? How is it that you’ve created this God that happens to agree with everything that you personally agree to?

And you would be so right in asking this!

 

[PRmerger]

I think you misread PR’s argument. The Church teaches what is true. It is not true because the Church teaches it. The Church teaches what it does, because it is true. You incorrectly declared the position as an argument from authority. It is not. If the teaching is true, it cannot change because the true just is.

Exactly right, david.

But we are speaking hypotheticals here. Something that would never happen.

It’s kind of like the position that atheists take in dialogue here. They assume/cede this point “God exists” simply for the sake of the dialogue. They are not actually acknowledging that God exists, but are only positing, “IF God does exist, then how can you say [fill in the blank]?”

Similarly, I do not believe that the Church, which teaches what is true not because she defines it, but because she discerns it, could EVER change its position on a moral teaching, but I assume/cede this position in order to pursue the dialogue.

 

[Bradski]

I think you misread PR’s argument. The Church teaches what is true. It is not true because the Church teaches it. The Church teaches what it does, because it is true. You incorrectly declared the position as an argument from authority. It is not. If the teaching is true, it cannot change because the true just is.

That’s not how I’m reading it. And I appreciate it’s difficult sometimes dealing in hypotheticals, but they can get to the truth behind the facts.

The church says that barrier contraception is morally unacceptable. If the new Pope says that is not the case, then it immediately becomes morally acceptable.

The fact that he is almost certainly not going to say that or even the fact that it will never happen does not matter. Simply by making ther undeniable statement that contraception would be morally acceptable should the Vatican say so shows that it is indeed an argument from authority.

You personally have no say in the matter whatsoever. Neither does PR or anyone else who is a Catholic. You cannot decide for yourself whether it is acceptable or not. You can certainly decide whether to obey the church on the matter, but you cannot tell yourself that you are acting morally by using contracption. It’s not your call.

 

[PRmerger]

It’s not your call.

Exactly.

That’s above our paygade, Bradski.

We don’t get to determine what’s moral. We only get to discern what’s moral.

 

[Bradski]

Three conversations:

A: What do you think about contraception?
C: I think it’s morally wrong because the church says it’s morally wrong.
A: So do you use it?
C: No.

I don’t get that.

A: What do you think about contraception?
C: I think it’s morally wrong and the church says it’s morally wrong.
A: So do you use it?
C: No.

I get that.

A: What do you think about contraception?
C: Personally I can’t see a problem with it although the church says it’s morally wrong.
A: So do you use it?
C: No.

I get that as well.

 

[davidv]

That’s not how I’m reading it. And I appreciate it’s difficult sometimes dealing in hypotheticals, but they can get to the truth behind the facts.

The church says that barrier contraception is morally unacceptable. If the new Pope says that is not the case, then it immediately becomes morally acceptable.

That is exactly true. However why would the new Pope, in any era declare this?

The fact that he is almost certainly not going to say that or even the fact that it will never happen does not matter. Simply by making ther undeniable statement that contraception would be morally acceptable should the Vatican say so shows that it is indeed an argument from authority.

You personally have no say in the matter whatsoever. Neither does PR or anyone else who is a Catholic. You cannot decide for yourself whether it is acceptable or not. You can certainly decide whether to obey the church on the matter, but you cannot tell yourself that you are acting morally by using contracption. It’s not your call.

 

[PRmerger]

Three conversations:

A: What do you think about contraception?
C: I think it’s morally wrong because the church says it’s morally wrong.
A: So do you use it?
C: No.

I don’t get that.

Think of it this way. If you believe God exists, and you believe that Jesus is God, and you believe that Jesus told you [A], even if you don’t understand [A]…doesn’t it logically follow that you’re going to say…“Ok, Jesus. I don’t understand. But if that’s what you said, then I will accept it on faith until I can accept it on reason.”

Do you get that part at least?

 

[InJesusItrust]

It is not a scientific fact that a “person” begins at conception. The genetic materials are present at conception for the biological construction of a Living person. The construction begins at conception, but it is not evident that person-hood begins at conception as Catholics understand the word. From a secular standpoint a foetus is potentially a person; that’s as far as the evidence leads. I don’t see the point of distorting facts to suite a Catholic concept of person-hood. It will only win distrust of your position.

In order to find abortion “complicated,” you have to say, “Sure, human biology tells us a new life is created, but that new life is not a ‘person.’” Why not? “Well, because it does not fit our invented definition of ‘person,’ that’s why!”

lifesitenews.com/news/abortion-a-very-complicated-issueor-is-it

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Linux

It is not a scientific fact that a “person” begins at conception.

Does the DNA of a human being begin at conception?

If yes, is a “person” not a human being?

In other words, aren’t a human being and a person the same thing when they share the same DNA?

 

[Tyrion]

Think of it this way. If you believe God exists, and you believe that Jesus is God, and you believe that Jesus told you [A], even if you don’t understand [A]…doesn’t it logically follow that you’re going to say…“Ok, Jesus. I don’t understand. But if that’s what you said, then I will accept it on faith until I can accept it on reason.”

A perfect example of a line of thought, which is LOGICAL, yet not REASONABLE. You had about 2000 years to figure out the reason behind that idea. You failed. If there is no rational underpinning for an idea then the “faith” you employ is blind faith.

After all this is not rocket science. Contraception does not hurt anyone. Conception is not expected not wanted every time people engage in sex. To say that if one does not want conception to happen, then one should abstain is absurd, since in this case the UNITIVE aspect is negated. A typical example of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

 

[Tyrion]

If yes, is a “person” not a human being?

It only goes one way. A person is a human being, but the human being is not necessarily a person. Look at a lobotomized human… he is not a person any more. To paraphrase Forrest Gump: “person is as person does”. If we would ever meet an alien, who would exhibit the characteristics of a sentient being, that being would have to accepted as a “person”, regardless the the DNA. You guys are funny to “deify” the DNA.

In other words, aren’t a human being and a person the same thing when they share the same DNA?

Obviously no.

 

[davidv]

A perfect example of a line of thought, which is LOGICAL, yet not REASONABLE.

These two word are synonyms making this is a self-contridictory statement.
dictionary.com logical:

1. according to or agreeing with the principles of logic: a logical inference.
2. reasoning in accordance with the principles of logic, as a person or the mind: logical thinking.
3. reasonable; to be expected: War was the logical consequence of such threats.
4. of or pertaining to logic.

You had about 2000 years to figure out the reason behind that idea. You failed.

False claim. The reasons are based on the nature of the human person. Pope John Paul II’s Theology of the Body explores this in depth.

If there is no rational underpinning for an idea then the “faith” you employ is blind faith.

There are rational underpinning, so the faith is not blind.

After all this is not rocket science. Contraception does not hurt anyone.

Another false claim. Contraception harms the ones practicing it.

Conception is not expected not wanted every time people engage in sex. To say that if one does not want conception to happen, then one should abstain is absurd, since in this case the UNITIVE aspect is negated. A typical example of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Conclusions based on false premises.

 

[PRmerger]

If there is no rational underpinning for an idea then the “faith” you employ is blind faith.

Right. If there is no rational underpinning for an idea.

This, again, is very Catholic of you to say.

 

[PRmerger]

After all this is not rocket science. Contraception does not hurt anyone.

Oh, I beg to differ, friend.

You can see the rotten fruits of contraception every day when the majority of folks conclude that they have the right to have sex with whomever they want, whenever they want, without a baby ever entering the picture.

Look at the divorce rate of folks who contracept vs the divorce rate of folks who don’t.

And look at the rates of adultery which have skyrocketed since the Pill became available, and the fear of pregnancy is removed as a barrier to engaging in fornication.

Robert T. Michael, “Why did the U.S. Divorce Rate Double Within a Decade?” Research in Population 6 (JAI Press, 1988) 361-399; see also his “Determinants of Divorce,” Sociological Economics ed. by Louis Levy-Garboua (London: SAGE Publications, 1979) 223-254 and his “The Rise in Divorce Rates, 1960-1974: Age-specific Components”, Demography 15:2 (May 1978) 177-182.

Not to mention that, save condoms and sterilization, all contraception may destroy a new life because it doesn’t actually prevent conception, but rather implantation.

So, yeah, contraception pretty much hurts a lot of folks these days. :sad_yes:

 

[PRmerger]

To say that if one does not want conception to happen, then one should abstain is absurd, since in this case the UNITIVE aspect is negated.

How is it negated?

 

[PRmerger]

It only goes one way. A person is a human being, but the human being is not necessarily a person. Look at a lobotomized human… he is not a person any more.

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

Do you include folks who are undergoing anesthesia also as not being persons?
Sedated folks?
Sleeping folks?

And, I am trembling as I write this for I dare not imagine your answer: severely disabled folks? They are not persons, in your view?

 

[Tyrion]

How is it negated?

Ah, the lack of understanding. If sex is “unitive” and one abstains, then THAT unitive effect is missing.

You can see the rotten fruits of contraception every day when the majority of folks conclude that they have the right to have sex with whomever they want, whenever they want, without a baby ever entering the picture.

Only according to your value system. Apart the “super-conservative” catholics, everyone saw the “pill” as a Godsend, to allow people to enjoy sex without the unwanted side-effect of pregnancy. The majority of the catholics in the US have no problem with contraception. Bully for them.

Look at the divorce rate of folks who contracept vs the divorce rate of folks who don’t.

What? Those who do not contracept are also forbidden to divorce. DUH!

Not to mention that, save condoms and sterilization, all contraception may destroy a new life because it doesn’t actually prevent conception, but rather implantation.

So what? the majority of the zygotes get flushed out from the women’s system. What does it matter, if a few more do not get implanted? But you are missing a few more excellent methods. Wonderfully unitive sex without vaginal penetration… maybe you heard of them… but again, maybe not.

 

[Tyrion]

Do you include folks who are undergoing anesthesia also as not being persons?
Sedated folks?
Sleeping folks?

And, I am trembling as I write this for I dare not imagine your answer: severely disabled folks? They are not persons, in your view?

Are you really unable to comprehend that I said exactly what I meant? If the higher functions of the brain are permanently and irreversibly gone… then there is no person left there. Only the vegetative shell remains. See poor Terry Schiavo. It is not a coincidence that it is called a “permanent vegetative state”.