The atheists best argument?

[Charlemagne_III]

A certain atheist in this forum seems to be thinking along the line that Catholicism is a democracy, and that the majority must rule and represent the true teachings of the Church.

This clearly is not true either in a historical sense or at present.

The Church has always spoken of itself as possessing a ruling hierarchy stemming from the authority of Christ the King. True, there have been many rebellions against this authority, in modern times starting with Martin Luther. But Luther very soon lost his right to speak for the Catholic Church. So did Henry VIII.

It’s nothing short of bizarre that an atheist should regard the views of modern day ill informed or downright heretical Catholics as true representatives of what the Catholic Church either believes or teaches.

The Catholic Church today wages an uphill battle against the two secular arms of atheism, the media and academia, in that both are hostile and set on undermining the influence of Catholic thought everywhere.

 

[goout]

A certain atheist in this forum seems to be thinking along the line that Catholicism is a democracy, and that the majority must rule and represent the true teachings of the Church.

This clearly is not true either in a historical sense or at present.

The Church has always spoken of itself as possessing a ruling hierarchy stemming from the authority of Christ the King. True, there have been many rebellions against this authority, in modern times starting with Martin Luther. But Luther very soon lost his right to speak for the Catholic Church. So did Henry VIII.

It’s nothing short of bizarre that an atheist should regard the views of modern day ill informed or downright heretical Catholics as true representatives of what the Catholic Church either believes or teaches.

The Catholic Church today wages an uphill battle against the two secular arms of atheism, the media and academia, in that both are hostile and set on undermining the influence of Catholic thought everywhere.

Which reminds me of the Fulton Sheen observation of the Church’s opponents.

“There are not one hundred people in the United States who hate The Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they wrongly perceive the Catholic Church to be.”
And there are continuous objections to the behavior of Catholics, which are well placed.

Individual Catholics do not determine the content of the faith.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

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

Is that a reference to Frank Schaeffer, author of Why I am an Atheist Who Believes in God: How to give love, create beauty and find peace?
Frank Schaeffer (Abbridged):

Take me, I am an atheist who believes in God.

Let me explain.

I believe that life evolved by natural selection. I believe that evolutionary psychology explains away altruism and debunks love, and that brain chemistry undermines the illusion of free will and personhood.

I also believe that a spiritual reality hovering over, in and through me calls me to love, trust and hear the voice of my creator.

It seems to me that there is an offstage and an onstage quality to my existence. I live onstage, but I sense another crew working offstage. Sometimes I hear their voices “singing” in a way that’s as eerily beautiful as the offstage chorus in an opera…]

Many Muslims, Jews, Hindus and Christians inherited their faith because of where they were born. If you are an atheist, you hold those beliefs because of a book or two you read, or who your parents were and the century in which you were born.

Don’t delude yourself: There are no ultimate reasons for anything, just circumstances.

If you want to be sure you have “the truth” about yourself and our universe, then prepare to go mad. Or prepare to turn off your brain and cling to some form or other of fundamentalism, whether religious or secular.

You will always be more than one person. You will always embody contradiction.

You—like some sort of quantum mechanicals physics experiment—will always be in two places at once.

religion.blogs.cnn.com/2014/06/10/meet-an-atheist-who-believes-in-god/

 

[eddie_too]

i believe that Jesus Christ is a far more credible source for the truth than any other human being, past or present.

for that reason, what frank schaffer or any other person says i weigh against the Gospel of Jesus Christ to determine the value of their words.

life and all that it contains is as simple as that to me.

i realize that many, although not all, of those who issue that myriad of thousands and millions of words are doing so because they believe they are doing me a service. for that, i commend them. but for the confusion and doubt they create by their hubris, love of their own thoughts and words, i reject and when necessary oppose them.

 

[Bradski]

That’s great and I hope we represent the faith well.

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

As representing your faith…well, from your perspective I don’t think that the majority of Catholics do. At least as far as the main ticket items go.

And as for lack of commonality, that would be in regard to anything that resulted from our atheism. Which, as I said, is simply a lack of belief in gods.

However, I do find that I have things in common with other atheists. If you work backwards from the lack of belief and see what prompts it, there are areas where I’d expect to overlap. And generally do.

 

[Bradski]

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) . . .

Indeed. It shows the position of American politics when Sanders can be considered a Marxist.

 

[Bradski]

I agree. It is the teaching of Christ that is the only authentic criterion of Catholicism.

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

The teaching of Christ is ONE on the criteria.

And my point (it wasn’t an argument) was simply to explain how I perceive Catholocism: a set of beliefs held by Catholics.

 

[goout]

The teaching of Christ is ONE on the criteria.

The teaching of Jesus Christ isn’t merely one criteria.
The Church is Jesus Christ.
It’s and existential and personal thing.

The Catholic Church is the mystical body of Jesus Christ, united to him.
The Church is one organism, united to one head, not individual and disparate attempts to figure it all out.
One
Unity
Catholic (universal, whole)

And my point (it wasn’t an argument) was simply to explain how I perceive Catholocism: a set of beliefs held by Catholics.

*You don’t fully perceive the Church as it is. * You see what confirms your beliefs.
Catholicism is not merely a set of beliefs held by Catholics.
Catholicism is adherence to a person who objectively exists, and embodies the faith.
Faith is adherence to a person.

 

[Bradski]

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

As this is the only part of your post that has any relevance to what I said earlier I’ll answer it.

Someone who proclaims a belief in God is not, by definition, an atheist. So how could I class him as such? Likewise, someone who says that they don’t believe in God is not, by definition, a Christian. So I certainly wouldn’t include him or her in the set of Catholics I use to determine the beliefs of Catholicism.

As for the rest of Christian, and specifically Catholic beliefs, I leave it to the individual to decide how they class themselves. It’s not a decision I am in a position to determine. Maybe you are.

Perhaps we should have a points system. Hit 100 and you are Catholic. Gain 20 points if you understand the trinity. Lose 10 if you support SSM. Gain 15 if you believe in miracles but lose 50 if you have had an abortion. In any case, I could care less who you think should be classed as Catholic or not.

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.

Then how about a very simply criteria. Have you taken mass? Yeah? Do you class yourself as a Catholic at this time? Yeah? Well into the basket you go.

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?

That’s what you need to tell me. I suppose you class yourself as 100% Catholic so tell me where I should draw the line. Anyone who is less Catholic than you? Look, thanks for the (name removed by moderator)ut, but I know the difference between The Catholic Church and Catholicism. I know what the church teaches and I know what you are meant to believe and how you are meant to act to be classed as a member of that church. But it would be idiotic to declare that everyone passes muster. That everyone hits the target. So there is a gap.

The gap is between The Catholic Church and Catholicism as it is represented by all who claim to be Catholics.

A certain atheist in this forum seems to be thinking along the line that Catholicism is a democracy, and that the majority must rule and represent the true teachings of the Church.

Your comprehension skills need some work, Charles. The majority represent the majority. No more. They certainly don’t represent The Catholic Church. That stands on its own. Catholicism is represented by Catholics.

Imagine there was an Atheist Manifesto (yes, I’m sure you could come up with some examples on line). It states that:

1. Atheists state that there are no Gods.
2. Atheists state that only science can find The Truth.
3. Etc etc

Then simply by talking with the various atheists on this forum, you would be able to say that hardly any of them fulfill even the first two criteria of being An Atheist. That doesn’t change the Atheist Manifesto. That stands whatever people believe. So you would be correct to say that, as far as you can see from the atheists you know, atheism (which is what they, as self-identified atheists, constitute) is not what the AM is meant to stand for.

Similarly, self-identified Catholics, who constitute Catholicism, do no accurately represent what the Catholic Church stands for.

The teaching of Jesus Christ isn’t merely one criteria.
The Church is Jesus Christ.

Yet again, I am not talking about the Catholic Church. I am talking of the difference between the Catholic Church and Catholicism. Which is what the laity represent.

 

[LethalMouse]

As this is the only part of your post that has any relevance to what I said earlier I’ll answer it.

**Someone who proclaims a belief in God is not, by definition, an atheist. So how could I class him as such? Likewise, someone who says that they don’t believe in God is not, by definition, a Christian. So I certainly wouldn’t include him or her in the set of Catholics I use to determine the beliefs of Catholicism.

As for the rest of Christian, and specifically Catholic beliefs, I leave it to the individual to decide how they class themselves. It’s not a decision I am in a position to determine. Maybe you are.**
Perhaps we should have a points system. Hit 100 and you are Catholic. Gain 20 points if you understand the trinity. Lose 10 if you support SSM. Gain 15 if you believe in miracles but lose 50 if you have had an abortion. In any case, I could care less who you think should be classed as Catholic or not.

Then how about a very simply criteria. Have you taken mass? Yeah? Do you class yourself as a Catholic at this time? Yeah? Well into the basket you go.

That’s what you need to tell me. I suppose you class yourself as 100% Catholic so tell me where I should draw the line. Anyone who is less Catholic than you? Look, thanks for the (name removed by moderator)ut, but I know the difference between The Catholic Church and Catholicism. I know what the church teaches and I know what you are meant to believe and how you are meant to act to be classed as a member of that church. But it would be idiotic to declare that everyone passes muster. That everyone hits the target. So there is a gap.

The gap is between The Catholic Church and Catholicism as it is represented by all who claim to be Catholics.

Your comprehension skills need some work, Charles. The majority represent the majority. No more. They certainly don’t represent The Catholic Church. That stands on its own. Catholicism is represented by Catholics.

Imagine there was an Atheist Manifesto (yes, I’m sure you could come up with some examples on line). It states that:

1. Atheists state that there are no Gods.
2. Atheists state that only science can find The Truth.
3. Etc etc

Then simply by talking with the various atheists on this forum, you would be able to say that hardly any of them fulfill even the first two criteria of being An Atheist. That doesn’t change the Atheist Manifesto. That stands whatever people believe. So you would be correct to say that, as far as you can see from the atheists you know, atheism (which is what they, as self-identified atheists, constitute) is not what the AM is meant to stand for.

Similarly, self-identified Catholics, who constitute Catholicism, do no accurately represent what the Catholic Church stands for.

Yet again, I am not talking about the Catholic Church. I am talking of the difference between the Catholic Church and Catholicism. Which is what the laity represent.

This entire post is basically nicely worded trickery that only sometimes applies and specifically not to a Catholic.

For a simplified example, we say the creed “I believe” In it if you do not believe any single part, you are as the atheist who believes in God.

One part is “I believe in ONE HOLY AND APOSTOLIC CHURCH”

By definition is to believe in the totality of the teachings thereof.

Ergo a “Catholic” who believes in abortion is literally the same as a “catholic” who does not believe in God from a standpoint of how the faith works in this regard.

Now independent Christians and assorted things that changes, but you are making a mistake that even many lapse catholics make so I won’t overly fault you for instance I am a born… “Culture catholic” much as an ethnic jew not raised to be more than such really.

When I heard what Christianity was I took sort of like you “the sum total of Christians” specifically too Christians… you know young/flat earthers. alcohol is the devil, sex through a hole in the sheet, either and ironically “Everything is a sin” coupled with “Magic word Jesus = auto heaven even if you go full Hitler”

None of this makes any sense to me so I decided this was a silly thing Christianity. Though I liked the bible as I understood it.

Later I found that despite the many Catholics who might have some odd ideas. the teaching made sense to me

Now not to say it will to you but I am saying that even a theist who pays attention to the most randomness of people who are literally akin to an atheist who believes in God, you are making a judgment based on a complete falsehood.

And PLEASE, you truly are kinda insulting me when you lump me in with some of these people

 

[goout]

As this is the only part of your post that has any relevance to what I said earlier I’ll answer it.

Someone who proclaims a belief in God is not, by definition, an atheist. So how could I class him as such? Likewise, someone who says that they don’t believe in God is not, by definition, a Christian. So I certainly wouldn’t include him or her in the set of Catholics I use to determine the beliefs of Catholicism.

As for the rest of Christian, and specifically Catholic beliefs, I leave it to the individual to decide how they class themselves. It’s not a decision I am in a position to determine. Maybe you are.

Perhaps we should have a points system. Hit 100 and you are Catholic. Gain 20 points if you understand the trinity. Lose 10 if you support SSM. Gain 15 if you believe in miracles but lose 50 if you have had an abortion. In any case, I could care less who you think should be classed as Catholic or not.

Then how about a very simply criteria. Have you taken mass? Yeah? Do you class yourself as a Catholic at this time? Yeah? Well into the basket you go.

That’s what you need to tell me. I suppose you class yourself as 100% Catholic so tell me where I should draw the line. Anyone who is less Catholic than you? Look, thanks for the (name removed by moderator)ut, but I know the difference between The Catholic Church and Catholicism. I know what the church teaches and I know what you are meant to believe and how you are meant to act to be classed as a member of that church. But it would be idiotic to declare that everyone passes muster. That everyone hits the target. So there is a gap.

The gap is between The Catholic Church and Catholicism as it is represented by all who claim to be Catholics.

Your comprehension skills need some work, Charles. The majority represent the majority. No more. They certainly don’t represent The Catholic Church. That stands on its own. Catholicism is represented by Catholics.

Imagine there was an Atheist Manifesto (yes, I’m sure you could come up with some examples on line). It states that:

1. Atheists state that there are no Gods.
2. Atheists state that only science can find The Truth.
3. Etc etc

Then simply by talking with the various atheists on this forum, you would be able to say that hardly any of them fulfill even the first two criteria of being An Atheist. That doesn’t change the Atheist Manifesto. That stands whatever people believe. So you would be correct to say that, as far as you can see from the atheists you know, atheism (which is what they, as self-identified atheists, constitute) is not what the AM is meant to stand for.

Similarly, self-identified Catholics, who constitute Catholicism, do no accurately represent what the Catholic Church stands for.

Yet again, I am not talking about the Catholic Church. I am talking of the difference between the Catholic Church and Catholicism. Which is what the laity represent.

A Catholic is such by incorporation into Christ (baptism), not by qualification on your points system. It’s a state of being, not an achievement.

Every individual is unique and so has unique expressions of the faith, and we all misrepresent the faith to some extent by weakness, ignorance, willful choice (aka sin). None of this changes the objective content of the faith.
Do you understand what objective content means?

For example, “I propose that a same sex union is the same as the marriage of man and woman”.
There are many Catholics that might erroneously say this, but the objective content of the faith is unchanged. That error is not Catholic, despite the fact than many Catholics might say it.

Your point that our actions and words are what others perceive to be Catholicism is true, obviously.
And so we either represent it well or we do not. It is no different than the Stalin problem for Atheists.

What we are talking about at the end of the day is prejudice.
“All black men wearing hoodies are carrying guns and want to shoot me, and those people represent what it means to be black”.
Well, no, that’s not true, despite representations and perceptions to the contrary.

 

[Bradski]

PAnd PLEASE, you truly are kinda insulting me when you lump me in with some of these people

These people being other Catholics? I wouldn’t worry about it. Your attitudes and beliefs are only representative of Catholicism in respect to the total and cumulative attitudes and beliefs
of all Catholics. So you have very little influence on the overall perception that I might have.

 

[Bradski]

Your point that our actions and words are what others perceive to be Catholicism is true, obviously. And so we either represent it well or we do not.

Nuff said. I wish I’d have said that.

Oh, hang on…I did

 

[LethalMouse]

Nuff said. I wish I’d have said that.

Oh, hang on…I did

So question?

My senator recently-ish pushed for legislation with saying out loud amazingly “my constituents aren’t going to like it but it is what is best for them”

Now given a senator by nature of the job is representative of their constituents, would you still call him a representative of us? In the sense that could you really claim that his push for legislation is = the views of the people of the state?

If yes I am sorry but you are calling the God believing athesit an athesit.

If no. Your entire philosophy on what Catholiscm is as stated here is wholly wrong.

 

[goout]

Nuff said. I wish I’d have said that.

Oh, hang on…I did

No I don’t think you did.

Catholicism has an objective content that is distinguishable from the behavior and adherence of Catholics.

Ideas that run counter to the content of the faith are not Catholic, they are simply ideas that Catholics have.
If you agree with that, then I apologize for misunderstanding you.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Catholicism has an objective content that is distinguishable from the behavior and adherence of Catholics.

A tersely worded truism!

Many a Catholic is ignorant of his Church’s teachings. It’s complicated.

When the media and academia work so hard to attack and destroy the influence of Catholic thought on society, it’s no surprise that so many Catholics wrongly think the Catholic Church is a democracy, and all Catholics’ ideas are equal to all other Catholics’ ideas.

In truth, while the media and academia claim to be liberal and tolerant of all views, they are really a dictatorship of relativists, as Benedict XVI so rightly noted. Every view is tolerated except the Catholic view, which must be trashed wherever it is found.

Or if not trashed, treated as if it did not even exist.

 

[tonyrey]

It is the teaching of Christ that is the only authentic criterion of Catholicism.

It is the fundamental criterion of Catholicism.

And my point (it wasn’t an argument) was simply to explain how I perceive Catholocism: a set of beliefs held by Catholics.

Then your perception is too restricted because Catholicism consists of an international community founded by Jesus which cares not only for Catholics but for every type of person with schools, universities, chapels, hospitals, clinics, dispensaries, hospices, orphanages, psychiatric units, clubs for the young and old, homes for the elderly and afflicted, societies which help the poor, support groups, refuges for victims of war and violence - and of course online forums which cater for many different interests like philosophy. In addition to religious beliefs Catholicism has moral, social and economic principles as well as church services and sacraments for the important stages of life from birth to death with a rich cultural heritage of art, music and literature preserved in churches, cathedrals, convents and monasteries many of which have great aesthetic, architectural, historical and archaeological significance.

 

[Bradski]

It is the fundamental criterion of Catholicism.Then your perception is too restricted because Catholicism consists of an international community founded by Jesus which cares not only for Catholics but for every type of person with schools, universities, chapels, hospitals, clinics, dispensaries, hospices, orphanages, psychiatric units, clubs for the young and old, homes for the elderly and afflicted, societies which help the poor, support groups, refuges for victims of war and violence - and of course online forums which cater for many different interests like philosophy. In addition to religious beliefs Catholicism has moral, social and economic principles as well as church services and sacraments for the important stages of life from birth to death with a rich cultural heritage of art, music and literature preserved in churches, cathedrals, convents and monasteries many of which have great aesthetic, architectural, historical and archaeological significance.

[sarcasm mode]Gee, I never knew.[/sarcasm mode]

Thanks for the list, Tony. Which is irrelevant as to the point I have been making. It’s Catholic beliefs I have been referring to. And how they relate to what the church teaches.

And any comment on 19th century Xrays?

 

[tonyrey]

[sarcasm mode]Gee, I never knew.[/sarcasm mode]

I’m not surprised because a lot of people underrate the value of Christianity even though they enjoy its benefits. It is the only rational foundation of human rights and the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity. In a Godless universe people would be related solely by an accident of birth and have no moral obligations whatsoever towards anyone, let alone the entire human race.

Thanks for the list, Tony. Which is irrelevant as to the point I have been making. It’s Catholic beliefs I have been referring to. And how they relate to what the church teaches.

The activity of the Catholic Church is directly relevant because her members are putting into practice the precepts of Christ. “By their fruits you shall know them…”

And any comment on 19th century Xrays?

I see no reason to reject the X-rays. Do you question their authenticity? If so on what ground?

 

[Bradski]

The activity of the Catholic Church is directly relevant because her members are putting into practice the precepts of Christ. “By their fruits you shall know them…”

We’re talking about the differences between what the church teaches and what Catholics appear to believe.

The church teaches that homosexual unions are wrong.
Most Catholics do not believe this.

The church teaches that contraception is wrong.
Most Catholics do not believe this.

The church teaches that abortion is wrong.
Very many Catholics do not believe this (or at least do not believe it applies to them).

I see no reason to reject the X-rays. Do you question their authenticity?

Yes.

If so on what ground?

On the grounds that there weren’t any.