The atheists best argument?

[Peter_Plato]

You have 20K posts on CAF

You can sure feel unto yourself that these things seem good. More power to you.

But there is not even a slight bit of question as to “The Church endorses” or teaches on any of these things.

In fact the church is so opposite of everything you said it is not even comprehensible how someone on CAF with 20K posts came to that conclusion.

The Church isn’t “opposite” of everything Tony said. Each point is subject to qualification. Which neither makes Tony wrong or you right, necessarily.

The Church endorses the principle of choosing the lesser evil.

Perhaps Tony misspoke, but the Church does endorse the principle of double effect, which, "provides specific guidelines for determining when it is morally permissible to perform an action in pursuit of a good end in full knowledge that the action will also bring about bad results.” sites.saintmarys.edu/~incandel/doubleeffect.html

While it is true that Catholics may not CHOOSE any evil. None — period. There is that principle in moral theology — double effect — which, under certain clearly defined conditions, permits Catholics to perform an act that has both a good and an evil effect, but there isn’t the possibility for directly choosing evil. However, if a situation forces the moral agent to choose one of only two options, both with evil consequences, then choosing the lesser of the two could be morally legitimate.

A classic example would be the case of the operator responsible for triggering a missile launch that would destroy an airliner hijacked by a terrorist and flying toward a building with a large number of innocent people in it. The forced choice between shooting (and killing several hundred innocent passengers) and refraining (and permitting the killing of several thousand innocent people) would mean that a legitimate choice exists and that choice permits only two possible outcomes. The lesser of the two evils would seem the only morally supported one.

If a couple cannot afford to have another child they are justified in choosing the most effective method of birth control in their particular circumstances.

“Most effective method” assuming that illegitimate or immoral methods (ABC) are not in consideration. From the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church:

232 The family contributes to the social good in an eminent fashion through responsible motherhood and fatherhood, the spouses’ special participation in God’s work of creation[519]. The weight of this responsibility must not be used as a justification for being selfishly closed but must guide the decisions of the spouses in a generous acceptance of life. “In relation to physical, economic, psychological and social conditions, responsible parenthood is exercised both in the duly pondered and generous decision to have a large family, and in the decision, made for serious reasons and in respect of the moral law, to avoid for a time or even indeterminately a new birth”[520]. The motivations that should guide the couple in exercising responsible motherhood and fatherhood originate in the full recognition of their duties towards God, towards themselves, towards the family and towards society in a proper hierarchy of values.

1. Concerning the “methods” for practising responsible procreation, the first to be rejected as morally illicit are sterilization and abortion[521]. The latter in particular is a horrendous crime and constitutes a particularly serious moral disorder[522]; far from being a right, it is a sad phenomenon that contributes seriously to spreading a mentality against life, representing a dangerous threat to a just and democratic social coexistence[523].

Also to be rejected is recourse to contraceptive methods in their different forms[524]: this rejection is based on a correct and integral understanding of the person and human sexuality [525] and represents a moral call to defend the true development of peoples[526]. On the other hand, the same reasons of an anthropological order justify recourse to periodic abstinence during times of the woman’s fertility[527]. Rejecting contraception and using natural methods for regulating births means choosing to base interpersonal relations between the spouses on mutual respect and total acceptance, with positive consequences also for bringing about a more human order in society.
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html#The%20universal%20destination%20of%20goods%20and%20private%20property

It is also the Church’s teaching that our ultimate authority is our conscience…

CCC1782 Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. "He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters.

CCC1790 **A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. **If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.

 

[Bradski]

Whatever some Catholics may say that’s different from what other Catholics may say has nothing to do with the matter. It’s what the Church says that matters.

Do as I say, not as I do? Well, I take the sum total of all Catholics to represent Catholicism. If it’s a religion that has it right, then I expect to see that reflected in the laity. Just as I take Muslims to represent Islam.

If people keep getting robbed and beaten by police, then it’s the police department that is corrupt. It’s no good any given supporter complaining that the codes of conduct and regulations and laws are correct as a defence.

I’m less interested in what you are supposed to believe as I am in your attitudes and behaviour in the real world. What you and everyone else on this forum says reflects on your religion and is, in part, how I perceive it.

 

[LethalMouse]

Do as I say, not as I do? Well, I take the sum total of all Catholics to represent Catholicism. If it’s a religion that has it right, then I expect to see that reflected in the laity. Just as I take Muslims to represent Islam.

**If people keep getting robbed and beaten by police, then it’s the police department that is corrupt. **It’s no good any given supporter complaining that the codes of conduct and regulations and laws are correct as a defence.

Wait so in any group whatsoever if ONE person does something it condemns them all?

I’m less interested in what you are supposed to believe as I am in your attitudes and behaviour in the real world. What you and everyone else on this forum says reflects on your religion and is, in part, how I perceive it.

SO if for example a Catholic, Jew, or Muslim said they are such but believe in Thor and Loki… you would say all Abrahamic religions are actually pagan?

In fact then as a atheist and member of the rational rat pack you MUST believe in all that EVERY atheist and member believes.

And is PRMEGER not a member and also a theist? SO you MUST be simultaneously a Catholic and Atheist.

Also YOU MUST be like Stalin

I could go on and on on what you must be up to and including the myriad of things that are dead contradictions as the theist/atheist…

I usually find your posts at least fairly logical even if I disagree, you disappoint me on this one

 

[Wesrock]

We hold that the Catholic Church is, in a sense, supernatural. What it actually is and how it is instantiated by its individual members and human institutions isn’t going to be one-to-one. An atheist won’t be able to see it that way and will judge it as any other purely human institution only by the common practices he sees.

 

[goout]

Do as I say, not as I do? Well, I take the sum total of all Catholics to represent Catholicism. If it’s a religion that has it right, then I expect to see that reflected in the laity. Just as I take Muslims to represent Islam.

If people keep getting robbed and beaten by police, then it’s the police department that is corrupt. It’s no good any given supporter complaining that the codes of conduct and regulations and laws are correct as a defence.

I’m less interested in what you are supposed to believe as I am in your attitudes and behaviour in the real world. What you and everyone else on this forum says reflects on your religion and is, in part, how I perceive it.

I would echo Lethal Mouse. Your posts that I have read in my short time are logical even though I personally don’t agree with them. This one does not follow.
The one good point you do make is that we are all responsible for representing the faith well or others will have bad impressions about the content of the faith.

Catholicism has an objective revealed content and it is specifically expressed. Because human beings are fallible we do not all live it perfectly. The fallibility does not change the content.
One thing for sure: because Christianity takes firm stands it is easy to criticize. Belief systems that hold no specific theologies or moral precepts can simply dodge and say no. There is no meat to pounce on.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Do as I say, not as I do? Well, I take the sum total of all Catholics to represent Catholicism. If it’s a religion that has it right, then I expect to see that reflected in the laity. Just as I take Muslims to represent Islam.

If people keep getting robbed and beaten by police, then it’s the police department that is corrupt. It’s no good any given supporter complaining that the codes of conduct and regulations and laws are correct as a defence.

I’m less interested in what you are supposed to believe as I am in your attitudes and behaviour in the real world. What you and everyone else on this forum says reflects on your religion and is, in part, how I perceive it.

So you accept that jihadists are representative of Islam AND Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, et al, are representative of atheism?

Do you accept that every act a human being undertakes is necessarily a “human” act? So words like “humanism” and “inhuman” are meaningless or even self-contradictory?

 

[Bradski]

Wait so in any group whatsoever if ONE person does something it condemns them all?

Did someone say that somewhere? I’m pretty certain that I didn’t, explicity or implicitly. In fact I said that the sum total of Catholics represent Catholicism.

So if one Catholic was OK with, for example, SSM and all others against it, then I would say that ‘Catholics are against SSM’. If one Catholic used contraception and all the others didn’t, then I would say ‘Catholics do not use contraception’.

So what do I say if a majority support SSM and a majority use contraception?

Again, I am not interested in the Catechism or dogma or pronouncements from the chair (unless they specifically form part of a discussion). I am interested in what you say. What others on the forum say. What Catholics say in news articles. What Catholic friends have to say. What Catholics write in the newspapers. What Catholics say in various polls.

All these people represent Catholicism. My impression of Catholicism comes from these people. From all of you.

And before any counter argument that all atheists can likewise be used as a measure of atheism, the only single commonality between myself and any other atheists you know is the simple fact that none of us have been convinced that gods exist.

If you’d like to use a similar argument, then use humanism or some such ideology. And in any case, you’d be quite entitled to do so. It works both ways.

 

[Bradski]

So you accept that jihadists are representative of Islam AND Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, et al, are representative of atheism?

Do you accept that every act a human being undertakes is necessarily a “human” act? So words like “humanism” and “inhuman” are meaningless or even self-contradictory?

As regards Islam, yes. They represent it. They act in its name. As do peace loving Muslims. I balance the two as I balance the differences in attitudes between Catholics.

As regards atheism, see last post. You may define humanism as you wish and draw your own conclusions from it.

 

[goout]

All these people represent Catholicism. My impression of Catholicism comes from these people. From all of you.

That’s great and I hope we represent the faith well.
Aside from that, our faith and morals have an an objective content.
I hope it is understood what is meant by objective content and how it differs from popular expression of it.

And before any counter argument that all atheists can likewise be used as a measure of atheism, the only single commonality between myself and any other atheists you know is the simple fact that none of us have been convinced that gods exist.

Well, that’s very convenient and will never get you crucified for sure, cause there’s not much meat to grab onto.

And I am sorry for your lack of commonality. That is nothing short of tragic.

 

[LethalMouse]

Did someone say that somewhere? I’m pretty certain that I didn’t, explicity or implicitly. In fact I said that the sum total of Catholics represent Catholicism.

So if one Catholic was OK with, for example, SSM and all others against it, then I would say that ‘Catholics are against SSM’. If one Catholic used contraception and all the others didn’t, then I would say ‘Catholics do not use contraception’.

So what do I say if a majority support SSM and a majority use contraception?

Again, I am not interested in the Catechism or dogma or pronouncements from the chair (unless they specifically form part of a discussion). I am interested in what you say. What others on the forum say. What Catholics say in news articles. What Catholic friends have to say. What Catholics write in the newspapers. What Catholics say in various polls.

All these people represent Catholicism. My impression of Catholicism comes from these people. From all of you.

And before any counter argument that all atheists can likewise be used as a measure of atheism, the only single commonality between myself and any other atheists you know is the simple fact that none of us have been convinced that gods exist.

If you’d like to use a similar argument, then use humanism or some such ideology. And in any case, you’d be quite entitled to do so. It works both ways.

But are they? In that most people identify with a religion regardless of beliefs. Even many athesits will claim a relgion near as a race like a ethnic jew. Proper or not it happens

And yes you heavily implied this logic with your police example. The one cut from the quote here

There are those for example who would become cops simply for the power. Ljke an undercover who becomes a criminal but AS a cop.

These are not “police officers” they are criminals using deception.

In fact look at natiins where organized crime is taken out, they are places like China, where the top criminals used their power to become the governments agents.

Like all Marxists who sell people on the ideal which in true marxism ends with democracy, it never actually does.

But to distaste marxism because it can’t not end in corruption is one thing. But take a Bernie Sanders, I doubt heavily he has evil intent. He advocates in essence for idealist marxism. Though it would never play out like that, it doesn’t mean real marxism is soviet or North korean communism even if the majority do it.

 

[Wesrock]

Er… Sanders is more of an advocate for social democracy and would probably be in the more economically conservative side in European states such as Germany, France, Norway, etc… Not to stem off a political discussion on the philosophy board, but he is hardly an advocate of some ideal marxist state (or non-state) . . .

 

[goout]

…
And before any counter argument that all atheists can likewise be used as a measure of atheism, the only single commonality between myself and any other atheists you know is the simple fact that none of us have been convinced that gods exist.
…

…
As regards atheism, see last post. You may define humanism as you wish and draw your own conclusions from it.

To demonstrate faith/beliefs having an objective content, we can observe that atheism believes God does not exist. That is a belief that endures outside the subjective experiences and varying expressions we see from atheists, or secular humanists.

Objective content.

 

[tonyrey]

Wait so in any group whatsoever if ONE person does something it condemns them all?

SO if for example a Catholic, Jew, or Muslim said they are such but believe in Thor and Loki… you would say all Abrahamic religions are actually pagan?

In fact then as a atheist and member of the rational rat pack you MUST believe in all that EVERY atheist and member believes.

And is PRMEGER not a member and also a theist? SO you MUST be simultaneously a Catholic and Atheist.

Also YOU MUST be like Stalin

I could go on and on on what you must be up to and including the myriad of things that are dead contradictions as the theist/atheist…

I usually find your posts at least fairly logical even if I disagree, you disappoint me on this one

I agree. It is the teaching of Christ that is the only authentic criterion of Catholicism. We don’t judge democracy by nations which claim that title because our representatives sometimes use devices like filibustering to prevent legislation and on other occasions they are sincere but misguided. Human behaviour is not a sound basis for judging the truth and value of any ideology, let alone a religion. For a start atheists don’t live as if they exist by chance!

I regret to say Brad’s argument must qualify as one of the worst for atheism…

 

[LethalMouse]

Er… Sanders is more of an advocate for social democracy and would probably be in the more economically conservative side in European states such as Germany, France, Norway, etc… Not to stem off a political discussion on the philosophy board, but he is hardly an advocate of some ideal marxist state (or non-state) . . .

As i said marxism is supoosed to be a democracy
…

 

[Wesrock]

Not going to pursue it further. “Social democracy” is itself an ideology on a spectrum and can be looked up on Wikipedia of anyone wishes.

 

[Peter_Plato]

So what do I say if a majority support SSM and a majority use contraception?

Again, I am not interested in the Catechism or dogma or pronouncements from the chair (unless they specifically form part of a discussion). I am interested in what you say. What others on the forum say. What Catholics say in news articles. What Catholic friends have to say. What Catholics write in the newspapers. What Catholics say in various polls.

All these people represent Catholicism. My impression of Catholicism comes from these people. From all of you.

And before any counter argument that all atheists can likewise be used as a measure of atheism, the only single commonality between myself and any other atheists you know is the simple fact that none of us have been convinced that gods exist.

It seems a little strange that for atheism you are willing to allow as a “commonality” the idea that no gods exist, but for Catholicism you are not citing any such common idea or belief, but, rather, simple self-identification.

What would you say of a self-proclaimed “atheist” who claimed that the existence of God is consistent with his atheism?

There would seem to be some connection between the atheistic belief that man is the measure and determiner of all things because no higher authority exists, and the actions that can follow from that basic idea. Ergo, atheism can and often does lead to tyrannical dictatorships because there is no remediating or tempering idea that follows from “no God exists” that necessarily leads to humanism. Both are equally and fairly deduced from atheism. Atheism leads to both because it isn’t a positive ideology, but merely a negative one.

Christianity and Catholicism, in particular, has a defined set of positive beliefs or guiding principles within its theology and morality. These are debatable, but in the end disputes are resolvable from those fundamental principles as to whether certain ideas and behaviours are determinably “Catholic” or “Christian” or not.

Someone who believes in wanton killing of innocents for no reason except for their own pleasure is not acting as a Catholic or Christian, despite claims to the contrary, because there are no principles in either of those belief systems which support that action. Similarly, all behaviours and ideas can be assessed for whether they follow from basic Catholic or Christian principles. Anyone claiming to be Catholic or Christian who flaunts these is not acting as a Catholic or Christian even while claiming to be either.

Atheism has no fundamental positive principles, which means atheists are quite free and consistent with their atheism to be genocidal maniacs or pacifists. This is not true, however, with Catholicism or Christianity precisely because both have positive systems which can and do render some behaviours and ideas as unCatholic or unChristian because they are logically inconsistent with those positive principles of belief – even if those inconsistent beliefs and actions are espoused, proposed, or carried out by supposedly Catholic or Christian individuals.

 

[Peter_Plato]

So what do I say if a majority support SSM and a majority use contraception?

There was a time after the Council of Nicaea when the majority of “Catholics” including bishops were Arian. That fact, by itself, did not make Catholicism Arian in its basic set of beliefs. No, hidden underneath were the truly Catholic beliefs which were more clearly defended, primarily by Athanasius, which led to the Church regaining its compass and identity.

We live in times when a large number of Catholics do not know what the Church fundamentally believes or teaches.

To even look for a legitimate “majority” of Catholics to begin with, you would have to, minimally, look at the actual majority of faithful Catholics down through all of history and across the world. Not merely the “majority” which lives in the secular society that forms your current field of view.

I would suppose that a proper survey of whether someone ought to be counted as “Catholic” in their outlook would be whether they can explicitly detail what the Church teaches as fundamental truth. If they can’t do that, then it would be much like permitting someone to call themselves “atheist” who have no idea what the word means or to which ideas an “atheist” would subscribe.

Would you count, for example, someone as Catholic who does not believe God even exists, even though they count themselves as “Catholic” simply because they were born or baptized into a Catholic family or community?

What would you say if the majority of Catholics currently living did not believe that God exists nor that Jesus is God in any sense of the word? At what point does the word Catholic become meaningless – isn’t it immediately if you want to insist that the word merely is defined by whatever anyone who calls himself “Catholic” intends it to mean?

 

[LethalMouse]

What would you say of a self-proclaimed “atheist” who claimed that the existence of God is consistent with his atheism?

.

Perfection

 

[LethalMouse]

Not going to pursue it further. “Social democracy” is itself an ideology on a spectrum and can be looked up on Wikipedia of anyone wishes.

A rose by any other name smells as sweet.

The same logic applies to a turd.

The difference here is you see a rose and I see the latter.

Ignoring the political for a moment, there are many religious and philosophical things that are “different”.

They are wrapped in so much semantics and supposedly different synonyms one can question if they actually disagree or just think they do.

 

[goout]

One need not wait til the council of Nicea to find objective content in Christianity. John 6 demonstrates the fleeting nature of public opinion when confronted with the objective content of the faith.
“This saying is hard…
many no longer followed him”.

Christianity has never never made a pretense at lockstep observance. Popular whims come and go. Protests happen. Ignorance is a fact of life.
What is enduring is objective content. We believe that content is at it’s source a person.

It seems to me atheism is designed by nature to avoid objective content, and so it is difficult to take it seriously. It is one long “no” which refuses to take positions (but that’s what faith is, a response. Taking a stand, saying yes to something.).
At the same time we can see that life is more than “no”. Human beings are wired to be more than “no”.
Merely saying “no” is an obstinate spiritual infancy.