Non-theistic foundation of morality?

[PRmerger]

You should try harder, because so far you failed. There is a guy called Lee Strobel who wrote a few books titled “The Case for…” He proudly stated that he used to be an atheist, and he will interview prominent apologists and present them “hard” questions from the atheist standpoint.

No question about it, he presented the problems very well. The problem was that the apologists gave really lame answers, and instead of pointing out the problems with those answers, he simply “folded” his cards. “Wow, he said, that is a good answer…”. So he came across as an “uneducated ATHEIST”. Just like you.

That is a very admirable back-pedaling. (NO sarcasm!) Previously you said something very different. You said that only Christians are capable of “REAL agape”, of sacrificing their life for a total stranger. You affirmed that this is a “FACT”, not a belief. Of course you never gave a “proof” of this “fact”. Instead you tried to turn the tables in “REAL” PRmerger style.

Now you backpedaled. You only say that you “don’t believe… unless…”. That is perfectly fine. So here is some evidence for you. Ever since the dawn of time soldiers sacrificed their lives defending their tribe / country / whatever. The overwhelming majority of those soldiers were NOT Christians… since they lived before Christianity was even invented or established. So now you can either say that non-Christians and atheists ARE able to perform self-sacrifice for others, or you can downplay their self-sacrifice as insignificant. “Yeah, they gave their life… but that does not count, because it was not REAL agape” (which would be a blatant example of the “No true Scotsman” fallacy).

After all that is what you tried to establish: “Well, atheists can be heroes, can perform some good acts, but they NEVER, under ANY circumstances can be as self-giving as a Christian can.” So no matter that some atheists try become good people, they are always behind the Christians.

I will leave you alone.

If and when you will understand the difference between “reasonable expectation” and “blind faith”, and the difference between “preference for okra” and “preference against rape” check back, and I will continue to talk to you. I certainly learned a lot “about” you, even though I did not learn anything “from” you.

In the meantime I will wish the best for you.

Shoot.

Again I return to CAFs and lament the fact that someone who needs to be here and in dialogue with knowledgeable Catholics has not learned how to charitably continue with educated and articulate arguments for his positon.

Anyhoo…not sure what Lee Strobel has to do with the dialogue here on this thread.

I will say that it still remains unchallenged: there is no atheist equivalent of the magnificent men and women of faith, who gave their lives out of love for complete strangers.

 

[PRmerger]

If and when you will understand the difference between “reasonable expectation” and “blind faith”, and the difference between “preference for okra” and “preference against rape” check back, and I will continue to talk to you. I certainly learned a lot “about” you, even though I did not learn anything “from” you.

In the meantime I will wish the best for you.

And this ^^, I cannot leave unaddressed.

“Preference against rape”.

IOW: It is my preference not to rape.

Is there anyone here who can endorse this???

Is it not the assertion of EVERY MORALLY SANE person to say: rape is wrong. Period. It is NOT a preference.

 

[e_c]

Whattt???

Actually what is?

You are saying I actually did make the quote whose authorship is not clear?

This is something no one should respond to.

#nonapologyapologies

I meant “misquote.”

And no, it “actually is” what our popes have said. Phones…

 

[PRmerger]

I meant “misquote.”

Ah. Ok.

:tiphat:

And no, it “actually is” what our popes have said. Phones…

Then can you please explain how Pope JP2 could call Jews our “elder brothers in the faith”?

If they are our…brothers…and we, the baptized, are…children…then logic dictates that Jews are children of God as well.

Yes?

 

[e_c]

Ah. Ok.

:tiphat:

Then can you please explain how Pope JP2 could call Jews our “elder brothers in the faith”?

If they are our…brothers…and we, the baptized, are…children…then logic dictates that Jews are children of God as well.

Yes?

Okay. First of all, we are now dealing with an age of tweeting popes.

Secondly, I want to draw attention to the subtlety I introduced: “strictly speaking.”

With that in mind, it’s not hard to see JP2 is A okay.

Old Testament - New Testament
Jews - Christians

They have the Faith of the Patriarchs and Prophets, and we do too. We just have the New Covenant in addition, which is kind of a big deal.

We don’t want to stretch these kinds of statements to their extremes…

And we surely don’t want to say that baptism ISN’T what makes us children of God… That would be contrary to CCC #1213, #1243, #1244, etc.

I was recently at a mass with Cdl. Burke where his homily slammed the overly inclusive use of that language. FWIW. We are children of wrath until we are baptized - otherwise, what’s the point? For a nice photo? Because it’s family tradition? Because your mother-in-law won’t stop complaining? Take away the urgency for several decades, and this is the mindset you now have to deal with in baptismal prep classes. Been there, done that.

 

[PRmerger]

Okay. First of all, we are now dealing with an age of tweeting popes.

Secondly, I want to draw attention to the subtlety I introduced: “strictly speaking.”

With that in mind, it’s not hard to see JP2 is A okay.

Old Testament - New Testament
Jews - Christians

They have the Faith of the Patriarchs and Prophets, and we do too. We just have the New Covenant in addition, which is kind of a big deal.

We don’t want to stretch these kinds of statements to their extremes…

And we surely don’t want to say that baptism ISN’T what makes us children of God… That would be contrary to CCC #1213, #1243, #1244, etc.

I was recently at a mass with Cdl. Burke where his homily slammed the overly inclusive use of that language. FWIW. We are children of wrath until we are baptized - otherwise, what’s the point? For a nice photo? Because it’s family tradition? Because your mother-in-law won’t stop complaining? Take away the urgency for several decades, and this is the mindset you now have to deal with in baptismal prep classes. Been there, done that.

So Jews are or are not children of God?

I’m not sure exactly what you’re saying here.

 

[PRmerger]

Okay. First of all, we are now dealing with an age of tweeting popes.

I’m not 100% certain of this, but I’m pretty sure that JP2 did NOT tweet.

And that’s what we’re talking about–Pope JP2’s statement that Jews are our elder brothers.

 

[Tomdstone]

And that’s what we’re talking about–Pope JP2’s statement that Jews are our elder brothers.

IMHO, this is something that should be taken in a loose metaphorical or figurative sense and not literally because for one thing about 50% of all Jews are women, so they would not literally be the brothers of Catholics.

 

[PRmerger]

Actually it is…

Sorry for the most.

Also, I hope you haven’t forgotten about my question regarding atheistic martyrs.

You gave a link for atheists in foxholes.

Not sure what relevance that had, as none of the ones I saw (perhaps there was another page?) was deceased.

 

[e_c]

So Jews are or are not children of God?

I’m not sure exactly what you’re saying here.

Then I will be perfectly explicit: Jews are not children of God. The Catechism says baptism makes one a child of God. Jews are not baptized. So there ya go.

There is no point to baptism if we’re all virtuous children of a loving Father, because then everyone goes to Heaven without that Sacrament, making the words of Christ meaningless, the action meaningless, the Church meaningless, etc. We aren’t all children of God. Baptism makes you a child of God. Period. Read anything before the Age of Ecumenism that speaks on the topic. Child of God, child of wrath. That’s the distinction.

This is not to say that God forgets the old promises (or doesn’t love xyz persons), but the old covenants and laws (which were once the path to salvation, mind you) are a shadow of what now stands in the light of the glory of God on Earth. When circumcision was all there was, nobody called God Father. Jesus taught us (Christians) that. So there ya go again.

Regarding the foxhole thing, it’s just unreasonable to think that there has not been a single misguidedly heroic atheist in world history. Come on.

 

[PRmerger]

Then I will be perfectly explicit: Jews are not children of God.

Then you are correcting Pope JP2?

Can I ask what your qualifications are? Do you have any type of degree in theology?

Are you a priest? Or, perhaps a bishop?

 

[PRmerger]

Regarding the foxhole thing, it’s just unreasonable to think that there has not been a single misguidedly heroic atheist in world history. Come on.

Misguidedly heroic? Huh?

And, again, I will be happy to entertain the idea that I am wrong, provided that evidence is given for this atheist.

Otherwise, I… won’t believe in his existence…until…

evidence is given…

for his existence.

 

[PRmerger]

There is no point to baptism if we’re all virtuous children of a loving Father,

How about because it gives us sanctifying grace, removes original sin, and provides an indelible mark upon our soul?

Those sound like good reasons to me to be baptized.

because then everyone goes to Heaven without that Sacrament,

This is a nonsequitur.

Everyone being a child of God does NOT equate to “then everyone goes to Heaven”.

We aren’t all children of God

This is horrible to hear a Catholic say this.

From Catholic Apologist extraordinaire, Jimmy Akin (emphasis mine):

1. What about the “We are children of God” part? Aren’t only Christians children of God by virtue of their baptism?

No. There are different senses in which one can be a child of God:
Jesus is the Son of God in a unique sense shared by no one else.
Christians are children of God by their baptism.
Other people are children of God in other senses.

Read more: ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/pope-francis-on-gods-universal-fatherhood/#ixzz4Dgw6hHg0

 

[PRmerger]

Then I will be perfectly explicit: Jews are not children of God.

Not only are you contradicted by Pope JP2, you have been corrected by Jimmy Akin and…
Pope Francis.

I had forgotten that Pope Francis, too, had declared all of humanity to be children of God.

And that includes Jews, of course.

 

[e_c]

You are being extremely unreasonable and quarrelsome. My suggestion is to read the Catechism paragraphs mentioned, my posts, and the Akin quote again. The difficulty will be cleared for you.

 

[IWantGod]

The dilemma was specified by another poster, who made it a rule that no one on the boat is allowed to volunteer to sacrifice his own life.

Cool.

Even if someone said that in real life, I hope i would ignore them. Its not a realistic scenario in a world with freewill. If it is impossible for them to sacrifice their lives then obviously it is impossible to save the person. Its kind of like killing a child to save the world. At least for me, In that case, i would accept that the world is going to end because there is no justification for it beyond self preservation. It certainly not a loving act which is why we were created, to participate in the kind of sacrifice that can only be found in love, and only in this kind of world can a human person become a sacrificial saint. But if one has no freewill but to pull the trigger, then the person doing the killing is not morally guilty.

After mulling it over, there is a third option to the full boat scenario. Everyone in the boat can hold on to the person in the water. Another option is to tie cloths around his body and let him hold on to the side, and that way he has a fighting chance for survival at the very least!

 

[PRmerger]

You are being extremely unreasonable and quarrelsome. My suggestion is to read the Catechism paragraphs mentioned, my posts, and the Akin quote again. The difficulty will be cleared for you.

Would you mind using the “quote” icon so folks can know exactly to whom you are responding, ec?

And I am being no more quarrelsome than you.

This is a forum, BTW, and the nature of a forum is that someone posts, another refutes, and another responds, and so on and so on.

That’s what we do here.



Now, you have been contradicted by 2 popes, as well as a very, very good, orthodox Catholic apologist, as well as myself.

We are ALL children of God.

Some of us have been baptized into the Body of Christ, making us, yes, children of God in a fuller and more profound way.

But there is NO DENYING that ALL OF HUMAN CREATION can be called children of God.

To do so is to contradict 2 popes.

2 popes, ec.

 

[inocente]

Then I will be perfectly explicit: Jews are not children of God.

The God of the Hebrews begs to differ.

*You are the children of the Lord your God. - Deuteronomy 14

If I had spoken out like that, I would have betrayed your children. - Psalm 73

Bring my sons from afar and my daughters from the ends of the earth - Isaiah 43

But you are our Father - Isaiah 63

Do we not all have one Father? - Malachi 2*

 

[inocente]

The bomber’s intended good is mitigating an unjust aggressor’s capability to wage war. The unintended, proportionate and tolerated evil is the killing of the enemy’s commanders. Notice that CCC 2268 specifies “intentional killing” which is specified as unintended in the bomber and lifeboat cases.

Err, no. Planting a bomb in a cinema to kill soldiers is, kind of by definition, intentional killing. In the same way that pushing someone overboard and preventing them getting back is intentional drowning. Just because there’s a time delay between the action and the death doesn’t make it unintentional. There’s a time delay between a bullet leaving the muzzle and hitting someone in the head, but that doesn’t change the intention.

• Rape and torture are intrinsically evil and never permitted regardless of intention. Bombing or torpedoing are not intrinsically evil as previously shown.

Well, we don’t know what the aggressors reaction would be but, if I were the bomber, and foresaw the town’s massacre as an additional probable evil effect then the proportionate goodness of mitigating the unjust aggressor war making capability may well be eliminated and the act not permitted.*

So you’re using consequentialism to calculate the utility (enemy soldiers killed minus collateral damage).

But then you say it’s intrinsically evil to waterboard one enemy soldier to find out where to plant the bomb to maximize enemy soldiers killed, although not intrinsically evil to actually plant the bomb and kill those soldiers.

Previously I’ve debated a Catholic who was adamant that torture is permitted, for instance when interrogating a terrorist suspect to try to find out where a bomb was planted in an effort to save lives.

I mean fine if you (and he) are each following your consciences, but that’s indicating that morality is opinion however it’s founded, and you’re each using differing interpretations of the CCC, PDE, etc.

Does the Holy Spirit get a say? The Spirit tells me that torture and deliberate killing are always categorically wrong. Can’t point to any specific verse or logical argument or teaching, just seems right to me. Another opinion I guess.

As in the down the staircase? Unintentionally, of course.

Didn’t think of that spin.

 

[inocente]

Even if someone said that in real life, I hope i would ignore them. Its not a realistic scenario in a world with freewill.

Agreed but the idea of a moral dilemma is to only allow choices we don’t like, so we’re forced to think about why we don’t like them and decide which we find least objectionable. Supposedly that way we learn about ourselves and others’ thought processes.

After mulling it over, there is a third option to the full boat scenario. Everyone in the boat can hold on to the person in the water. Another option is to tie cloths around his body and let him hold on to the side, and that way he has a fighting chance for survival at the very least!

I like your solutions, very ingenious.