The central contradiction running through the arguments of many of those new atheists authors

[Charlemagne_II]

*You think it’s bad here, wait to you visit a religion forum overrun by militant “new atheists”, like the Amazon.com Religion Forum. That place is nuts, once they’re in the majority, the forum becomes a cess pool of insults, mocking, flaming, and hate.

I kind of like this place so far, it’s nice not to be outnumbered 5 to 1 by Dawkins lemmings *

I used to visit atheist websites. Not any more. The manager of one kicked me out when one atheist, who called himself an authority on Voltaire, insisted that Voltaire was an atheist, and I corrected him by quoting from Voltaire’s essay on atheism in which he thoroughly savaged the atheists, as in the following passage from his essay “On Atheism.”:

“The atheists are for the most part impudent and misguided scholars who reason badly, and who not being able to understand the creation, the origin of evil, and other difficulties, have recourse to the hypothesis of the eternity of things and of inevitability…. That was how things went with the Roman Senate, which was almost entirely composed of atheists in theory and in practice, that is to say, who believed in neither Providence nor a future life. This senate was an assembly of philosophers, of sensualists and ambitious men, all very dangerous men, who ruined the republic."

 

[Quid_estVeritas]

I used to visit atheist websites. Not any more. The manager of one kicked me out when one atheist, who called himself an authority on Voltaire, insisted that Voltaire was an atheist, and I corrected him by quoting from Voltaire’s essay on atheism in which he thoroughly savaged the atheists, as in the following passage from his essay “On Atheism.”:

tha sad thing is Amazon.com’s Religion Forum isn’t suppose to be an Atheist Forum, it’s a ***Religion ***Forum. But Richard Dawkins’ army of new atheist lemmings have completely taken over the Forum, they make it such a nasty place for a religious person to post their thoughts that whenever some new religious person wanders onto the forum, they get flamed and insulted ad nauseum, get sick of the abuse, and then leave. It’s like a darwinian selection effect, the Christains get weeded out through abuse and all your left with is a forum of nasty Dawkins new atheists.

I like it here better

 

[Charlemagne_II]

It’s like a darwinian selection effect, the Christains get weeded out through abuse and all your left with is a forum of nasty Dawkins new atheists.

I once corresponded with a priest who remarked that he was disheartened at working with atheists because of their tendency to become very angry and insulting.

I suspect the atheists who are not angry and insulting don’t even go to those websites dominated by the abusers. It has to be embarrassing in the same way that a Catholic going to a website dominated by ultra right wing and bigoted Christians is embarrassed. He takes off and doesn’t return.

The atheists can find something like CA, where they will not be abused so long as they behave themselves; but Christians can hardly find an atheist website where they will not be run off sooner or later even when they behave themselves.

At least that’s been my experience. If someone knows where that doesn’t routinely happen, do let me know.

 

[PAboy57]

It appears both sides are trying their best to convince the other that their philosophy is best. That is human nature and will continue until the end of time. But really interesting comments none the less.

I used to want proof that there is a God. Somehow I was able to wrap my mind around the fact that people, a long time ago, began to record important issues. Of major importance was God. He actually spoke to man on a regular basis. No one was capable of making all of that stuff up. There isn’t any one or a hundred that could come up with all of that on their own initiative.

Then Jesus came and actually fulfilled the prophesies that were written hundreds of years before Him. The Apostles recorded their life events and were true witnesses to the truth. If they were just making this up people would have stoned them to death immediately. Instead the truth spread. Around the year 100 AD the original Apostles were all gone but they had taught their flock well. After that we have had some “supernatural” events recorded and I believe that at least the “true” ones are messages from God and His Saints to help us with our belief system. God continues to give us great Saints and some encouragement along the way.

Free will comes into all of this because God loves us and doesn’t want to force us to love Him. We choose. It’s ambiguous so we are forced to make a decision and follow our hearts and minds. Then God knows our faith is true and out of love and not a “Pascal Wager” sort of thing.

There are so many wonderful things that will never be explained. There is no owner’s manual for us or for the universe – only God knows how He did it. We then have faith in our loving Creator that He will provide for His flock. We in turn try and do the best we can and help others along the way. That is what makes us a Christian or not. But you have to believe and trust the Lord your God. He understands that it is hard for some of us to understand all of this. He will help you if you ask with an open mind and heart. We can’t let human pride get in the way. And usually that is all that is standing between man and his God, pride.

So we should pray that our God allows others to open their mind and find their way back to their Creator. I only hope that this brief message may help one person open their heart and mind to accept God and enjoy eternal life. I would like you to choose Catholicism but others are better than none. After that the other options aren’t so good and their has to be something better than what most people have in this life. I believe one thing is for sure – at the end of time we will either be in Heaven or hell. God is Love but also Judge. The choice is our’s.

Take care and good debating.

 

[Leela]

Heh. “And you shall know them by their fruits.” I’m not at all surprised.

In my experience, atheists like Leela are the exception rather than the norm. Most I know have serious anger issues, which I suspect is caused by the hopelessness brought about by the resulting nihilism.

It may be that there are some atheists hopelessly despairing nihilism, but I have never met one. The concerns I hear from other atheists are moral concerns for what religions are promoting as well as bigotry aimed at atheists. For example, it is pretty much a political impossiblity for an atheist to be honest about her lack of belief and still be ellectable to public office. We know that a woman or a black person can be taked seriously as a candidate for high office, but atheists are widely considered to be unfit.

 

[ContegoFides]

I once corresponded with a priest who remarked that he was disheartened at working with atheists because of their tendency to become very angry and insulting.

My experience as well. Earlier I said that I think this is caused by nihilism and hopelessness. While I still thing this is true, after further reflection I think there’s something else, in addition. Deep down, I think most atheists sense that there is something wrong with their position; that atheism is not the Truth. Thus, when they are challenged, the response is defensive - not just an attempt to prove the other person wrong, but also a deep need to try to validate their own position in their own mind. It’s the same way with radical abortionists, despite the claims of abortion rights advocates of pro-life people being angry, what I have seen is that it is the abortion rights radicals that have the most bile and vitriol coming from them. Again, I think they know deep down that tearing apart a baby in the mother’s womb is terribly wrong, and so they are desperate to prove to themselves that they are right and avoid acknowleding that they are complicit in the horror.

It may be that there are some atheists hopelessly despairing nihilism, but I have never met one. The concerns I hear from other atheists are moral concerns for what religions are promoting as well as bigotry aimed at atheists. For example, it is pretty much a political impossiblity for an atheist to be honest about her lack of belief and still be ellectable to public office. We know that a woman or a black person can be taked seriously as a candidate for high office, but atheists are widely considered to be unfit.

More likely they do not show you anger because you hold the same position of atheism. A person’s true colors are shown when deeply held positions are challenged. Trust me, you really are the exception rather than the rule. While it is also true that you can find plenty of religious people that have anger issued when challenged, including Christians, a good Christian doesn’t become angry; or at least controls the anger relatively easily. Empassioned, maybe, but not the kind of rage I’ve commonly seen when debating atheists. The two reasons for this are simple, 1) the good Christian knows that God is in control and so doesn’t have to worry about it; and 2) God is love (agape), and anyone who abides in God does not become enraged, and can more readily channel natural anger appropriately. A good example is when Mother Theresa confronted the Clintons. She chided them, was even angry, but was never enraged; she never lost her sense of peace.

 

[ContegoFides]

The concerns I hear from other atheists are moral concerns for what religions are promoting as well as bigotry aimed at atheists.

I find atheists’ moral concerns intensely ironic. As a first matter, how is an atheist to judge morality? There is no provable reference point because moral and immoral are not positivistic judgements.

As a second matter, atheism has, objectively speaking, produced far more evil in the world than all other religions combined, including Islam (which is the only major religion that advocates violence as a way of spreading itself). Nazism and communism have their roots in atheism; in fact, it’s a state religion. Once God is abandoned, then any absolute sense of morality is gone. The result is that the State defines what is good, leading to pogroms and holocausts to promote what the leaders have defined in their minds is good. Do you think Hitler did what he did because he wanted to do evil? No, he wanted - in his own mind - to do something good; to 1) create a master race, 2) make his country “great,” and 3) eliminate people he defined as evil and threatening (having “caused” many of the woes in Europe, particularly Germany) - the Jews. Even Stalin was promoting what was “good” in his own mind - his power and his definition of strength for Russia.

How do we know these things were evil; i.e., not good? With atheism, there is no moral compass. There is no way to say one way or another. In other words, to use the atheists own language, prove to me that what they did was “evil.” If an atheist fails to believe in what cannot be positivistically shown, and really means it, then you cannot prove that they were evil. If you simply deny God’s existence, and define your own morality, then you are no different in principle from them, because there is no way to challenge someone else as being wrong.

To be “right” or “wrong” - to be “good” or “evil” - requires a reference point to be able to establish a judgement. Unless the reference point is absolute, it is subject to change.

While it is true that millions have been tortured and killed in the name of religion, nothing holds a candle to atheism as a source of evil. The difference, however, is that - with the exception of Islam - religions hold that except in limited circumstances, killing is bad. Even for good muslims, wanton killing is forbidden, and conquest is limited to simple military domination of a people (as opposed to killing everyone), meaning only enemy soldiers are to be killed. There are no limits for atheists because there is no way to judge what is moral and what is not.

In other words, you cannot judge a philosophy by those who fail to live up to it - but by those who really adhere to it.

As for bigotry, I guess it depends on the way you look at it. I am not bigoted towards atheists. One of my very best friends is an atheist (the sad guy I mentioned a way back earlier). We constantly debate respectfully, and we are still friends. However, in public office, I would consider a candidate’s atheism to be a strong factor why I would not want to vote for the candidate (though not dispositive). The reason for this is that when atheists take power, the bad results are known from history. Atheists are more likely to impose their beliefs on others because they have no reason not to do so.

Some people do the opposite - they wouldn’t vote for a Christian simply because he or she is Christian and didn’t like what Christians stood for. If the person voted this way according to their reasoned conscience, I would not necessarily say this person was a bigot. I would disagree with the person and say they were wrong, but I would not necessarily say he or she was bigoted. I would not say that the vote they cast was necessarily morally wrong simply by virtue of their reasoned belief that Christians should not be in office. Again, I would strongly disagree, but would not identify that person as a bigot.

Sadly, the words “bigot” and “predjudiced” and “judgmental” are thrown around alot in our society unjustly as a way to try to silence those with opposing viewpoints. The fact is that we are all judgemental of actions - for example, I would suspect that you would judge Hitler to have done wrong (though maybe I’m incorrect, some atheists are totally amoral in the dictionary sense of the term). We all prejudge on a daily basis; in fact, I’d say it’s necessary.

The difference between being rightly prejudice and rightly judgemental - and being a bigot - is injustice. Being unjustly prejudicial or judgmental is wrong. How you define “unjust” is a pretty heavy topic, but most ethicists would acknowledge that at least the underlying concept is correct.

 

[Quid_estVeritas]

It may be that there are some atheists hopelessly despairing nihilism, but I have never met one. The concerns I hear from other atheists are moral concerns for what religions are promoting as well as bigotry aimed at atheists.

Leela, I know lots of atheists in “real life” that are great people, I’ve never had a negative opinion of atheists until I started meeting up with the more militant ones you find on the internet. I’ve mentioned the Amazon.com Religion Forum a couple of times here, I used to get beat up pretty bad there, like I said “new atheists” pretty much own that forum. Every chance they get they portray themselves as victims and say that Christians don’t like them because they don’t believe in God. I can tell you that for me personally, and other religious people I’ve discussed it with on that forum, we don’t care that they don’t believe in God, we don’t “hold that against them”, the reason so many people don’t like them is because many of them are very nasty and mean and demeaning to all religious people, it’s that simple, people don’t like the “new atheists” because so many of them are “jerks”.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

The difference between being rightly prejudice and rightly judgemental - and being a bigot - is injustice. Being unjustly prejudicial or judgmental is wrong. How you define “unjust” is a pretty heavy topic, but most ethicists would acknowledge that at least the underlying concept is correct.

I don’t think atheists can ever claim the high moral ground against Christians. For example, as you said, they have no formal moral compass. Each atheist is a law unto himself.

The arrogance of atheists has been duly noted in such characters as Dawkins and Hitchens. They would have you believe that only a person of inferior intellect can be religious. They would have you believe that all Christians have ever done is run around looking for someone to persecute, burn at the stake, etc.

They will hardly ever admit that Christianity is good for anything really worthwhile, in spite of all the good deeds done by Christians throughout history and certainly in our own day, when almost every town and city provides for the needy, the hungry, the lonely, the imprisoned, the sick, etc.

To hear atheists they never saw any of these things. Well I guess they wouldn’t since apparently it isn’t convenient to see them.

 

[ThomasToo]

Leela, I know lots of athiests in “real life” that are great people, I’ve never had a negative opinion of atheists until I started meeting up with the more militant ones you find on the internet. I’ve mentioned the Amazon.com Religion Forum a couple of times here, I used to get beat up pretty bad there, like I said “new atheists” pretty much own that forum. Every chance they get they portray themselves as victims and say that Christians don’t like them because they don’t believe in God. I can tell you that for me personally, and other religious people I’ve discussed it with on that forum, we don’t care that they don’t believe in God, we don’t “hold that against them”, the reason so many people don’t like them is because many of them are very nasty and mean and demeaning to all religious people, it’s that simple, people don’t like the “new atheists” because so many of them are jerks.

I think part of the problem is that atheists are, arguably, the most hated minority in America. According to a 2007 Gallup survey, more than half of Americans (53%) answered no to the question ‘if your party nominated a generally well-qualified person for president who happened to be an atheist, would you vote for that person?’ Which is higher than ‘Catholic’ (4% no), ‘black’ (5% no), ‘a woman’ (11% no), ‘Mormon’ (24% no) ‘72 years of age’ (42% no) and ‘homosexual’ (43% no) source].

In fact, a former President George H.W. Bush (then only a candidate) said ‘I don’t know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God’ (August 27, 1987, Chicago).

Some of us just get a bit overly touchy about it.

 

[AntiTheist]

I had intended to abandon this thread, but I glanced at it just now, and I just can’t resist pointing out ridiculous falsehoods:

Deep down, I think most atheists sense that there is something wrong with their position; that atheism is not the Truth.

I’ll take “wild and unfounded speculation for 100,” Alex.

I find atheists’ moral concerns intensely ironic. As a first matter, how is an atheist to judge morality? There is no provable reference point because moral and immoral are not positivistic judgements.

They’re value judgments. Values are opinions about facts – they’re not facts that can be demonstrated.

Where do values come from? A lot of sources, many of them non-rational: empathy, reason, social training, tradition, learned behaviors, life experiences, and more.

Members of a society, we would correctly suspect, probably share many broad values in common (for example, most people in just about every society value not being killed and not having their stuff stolen, and living in an orderly society where such things are commonplace).

Starting from a basis of shared goals and values, it’s more than possible to come up with a list of things that are generally good or bad within the context of those values.

As a second matter, atheism has, objectively speaking, produced far more evil in the world than all other religions combined

Atheism, not being a belief, cannot directly “produce” action. Action is the fruit of things you do believe, not things you don’t believe.

For example, you can’t logically get from “There are no gods” to “I should destroy all followers of all religions.” There’s no way to do it. You have to start from a belief like, “All religious people are bad.” Then, starting from that belief, you can deduce the conclusion, like this: “All religious people are bad; I should destroy all bad people; I should destroy all followers of all religions.”

Of course, the first two assumptions of that argument are false, and the conclusion is false as well.

Now, there certainly might be atheists dumb enough to accept the first two assumptions, but their acceptance of those assumptions isn’t caused by atheism, as should be clear to anyone halfway paying attention.

Now, you can get from beliefs to actions, and beliefs like “Homosexuals are evil” can and do lead to atrocity. And since religions are beliefs, you can indeed draw a causal line between religious beliefs and atrocity.

Now as far as religion giving people a “moral compass,” I’ll simply point out that the Bible, as a whole, endorses slavery. Not only are there laws pertaining to the keeping of slaves in the Old Testament, and not only does Jesus not preach against slavery, there is a specific injunction in the letters of Paul for slaves to obey their masters.

In order to find slavery wrong, a Christian has to interpret the Bible with some extra-Biblical standard (i.e. values, either individual or those of “tradition”) – this being the case, the Bible is completely and totally superfluous to a discussion of morality. We can skip the Bible and go directly to the values that underlie the interpretation.

 

[ThomasToo]

They will hardly ever admit that Christianity is good for anything really worthwhile, in spite of all the good deeds done by Christians throughout history and certainly in our own day, when almost every town and city provides for the needy, the hungry, the lonely, the imprisoned, the sick, etc.

To hear atheists they never saw any of these things. Well I guess they wouldn’t since apparently it isn’t convenient to see them.

If you want credit for all the good done by every Christian over the last two thousand years that is of course your prerogative and we should respect that. You must then, however, also be willing to accept communal responsibility for all the bad done as well. Any list I assemble here would be incomplete but I’ll put a brief sampling for illustrative purposes

• Persecution of Galileo for saying the Earth revolves around the Sun… then taking 400 years to apologize
• The Crusades
• The Inquisition
• The shooting, in cold blood, of Dr. George Tiller in a church on 31 May, 2009
• The violence from the 70s through the 90s in Northern Ireland
• The systematic subjugation of women until, at the very earliest, the 1920s
• Slavery (and I will concede also its later downfall)

The list, of course, goes on to near infinitude. As you’ve said many Christian provide (and provided) many goods but it’s not all sunshine, kittens and daisies.

 

[Quid_estVeritas]

I think part of the problem is that atheists are, arguably, the most hated minority in America. According to a 2007 Gallup survey, more than half of Americans (53%) answered no to the question ‘if your party nominated a generally well-qualified person for president who happened to be an atheist, would you vote for that person?’ Which is higher than ‘Catholic’ (4% no), ‘black’ (5% no), ‘a woman’ (11% no), ‘Mormon’ (24% no) ‘72 years of age’ (42% no) and ‘homosexual’ (43% no) source].

In fact, a former President George H.W. Bush (then only a candidate) said ‘I don’t know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God’ (August 27, 1987, Chicago).

Some of us just get a bit overly touchy about it.

Thomas, you have no idea how many atheists have used that supposed George H.W. Bush quote while they’re in the middle of a hate filled rant on a message board. It’s sad that they need to cling onto a single quote from over twenty three years ago that no journalist has ever reported on in any News source, just one guy (who appears to be a militant atheist himself) who supposedly heard Bush say it, and he didn’t record it. So you’ve got this one dubious “source” for hearing a quote from over 20 years ago and we still have atheists trotting it out there as a “smoking gun” of all the bigotry against them while they’re in the middle the a hateful rant on a message board (a rant btw which is the* real reason *people don’t like them). I just wish some of them could understand that.

 

[ContegoFides]

Atheism, not being a belief, cannot directly “produce” action. Action is the fruit of things you do believe, not things you don’t believe.

…

Now, you can get from beliefs to actions, and beliefs like “Homosexuals are evil” can and do lead to atrocity. And since religions are beliefs, you can indeed draw a causal line between religious beliefs and atrocity.

History proves you wrong. The rest is fancy arguments that might sound good but can’t be true due to the observed result.

Also, you can easily get from “there are no gods” to “I should destroy all religious followers of all religions” in a very few simple steps. 1) There are no gods. 2) I hate all religious followers of all religions and desire to kill them. 3) I have the power to implement my desire without positivistic consequences I consider important. 4) Because there are no gods or absolute moral code, I have no reason not to implement my desire. 5) I implement my desire.

Also, atheists really do come in two breeds - yours (“lack faith”) and those that actively deny God. The reason for your breed is because it is logically inconsistent to hold there is no God when you have no proof for that proposition.

Additionally, atheism IS a belief - even your variety. You believe that only things that can be positivistically proved are to be believed, or the other side of the coin, you lack belief in anything that cannot be positivistically proven (thereby acknowleding the possibility of the existence of the positivistically unprovable). That is a belief system no matter how much you try to deny it. The truth is that you have assumed that God does not exist (or that any god exists) based on other presumptions, such as possibly your interpretation of Occom’s Razor.

Really, and atheists call us irrational.

They’re value judgments. Values are opinions about facts – they’re not facts that can be demonstrated.

Where do values come from? A lot of sources, many of them non-rational: empathy, reason, social training, tradition, learned behaviors, life experiences, and more.

Members of a society, we would correctly suspect, probably share many broad values in common (for example, most people in just about every society value not being killed and not having their stuff stolen, and living in an orderly society where such things are commonplace).

Starting from a basis of shared goals and values, it’s more than possible to come up with a list of things that are generally good or bad within the context of those values.

Then you must agree that if society as a whole were to judge that the genocide of the Jews was justified, that doing so would then be good.

Therein lies the problem with your reliance on common value judgements. They change, even on fundamental issues such as killing, and not always in good ways.

If you want credit for all the good done by every Christian over the last two thousand years that is of course your prerogative and we should respect that. You must then, however, also be willing to accept communal responsibility for all the bad done as well. Any list I assemble here would be incomplete but I’ll put a brief sampling for illustrative purposes…

You cannot judge a philosophy based on those who have failed to live up to it.

Persecution of Galileo for saying the Earth revolves around the Sun… then taking 400 years to apologize

Misunderstood. catholic.com/library/Galileo_Controversy.asp Galileo was censured for his religious conclusions regarding his observations, and for not having sufficient proof. While not everything the Church did with respect to Galileo may have been correct at the time, you really should know the story better before making vast oversimplifications like this.

The Crusades

Again, a gross oversimplification. While not everything that happened during the crusades was good, without them you might be under muslim rule today. catholic.com/thisrock/2006/0603tbt.asp

The Inquisition

Another gross oversimplification. catholic.com/library/Inquisition.asp

The shooting, in cold blood, of Dr. George Tiller in a church on 31 May, 2009

Objectively morally wrong, committed by someone who did not live up to the Christian moral code or at least did not properly understand it. Again, you can’t judge a philosophy by those who fail to live up to it. The justification in defense of others requires not just mortal danger for the defended, but must also take into consideration proportionality in force used in terms of the minimum force needed, prudence in the effectivness of the force to be used, and the imminence of the harm. The shooting of Dr. Tiller fails all three tests and thus was an objectively evil act.

The violence from the 70s through the 90s in Northern Ireland

Primarily political, though religion has always been used as an excuse for immoral behavior. Again, you can’t judge a philosophy by those who fail to live up to it.

The systematic subjugation of women until, at the very earliest, the 1920s
Slavery (and I will concede also its later downfall)

With respect to women, this is a false accusation. Christianity has done more for the ethical treatment of women than any other religion, especially atheism. Regarding slavery, the biblical citations to St. Paul are misunderstood and misplaced. catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9907fea2.asp

 

[AntiTheist]

Also, you can easily get from “there are no gods” to “I should destroy all religious followers of all religions” in a very few simple steps. 1) There are no gods. 2) I hate all religious followers of all religions and desire to kill them.

Number 2 is a value judgment that is not a part of atheism. You can’t logically get from “There are no gods” to “I hate all religious followers…etc.” It does not automatically follow, and we know that there are plenty of examples of atheists who don’t hate “all religious followers.”

As you point out, you have to actually hate religious followers and desire to kill them – both things that exist outside of atheism – for what you’re saying to make any sense.

Additionally, atheism IS a belief - even your variety. You believe that only things that can be positivistically proved are to be believed, or the other side of the coin, you lack belief in anything that cannot be positivistically proven

And that’s not atheism. Atheism is the lack of belief in gods. A person can be an atheist and not hold to a skeptical model: an atheist might, for example, believe in souls, magic, aliens, and all kinds of things that cannot be demonstrated.

An atheist could be an atheist not for any rational reasons but for irrational emotion reasons for reasons of “personal revelation” from some sort of supposed psychic force.

Really, and atheists call us irrational.

Well, I would call you irrational. Thanks for demonstrating it.

 

[ContegoFides]

Now as far as religion giving people a “moral compass,” I’ll simply point out that the Bible, as a whole, endorses slavery. Not only are there laws pertaining to the keeping of slaves in the Old Testament, and not only does Jesus not preach against slavery, there is a specific injunction in the letters of Paul for slaves to obey their masters.

In order to find slavery wrong, a Christian has to interpret the Bible with some extra-Biblical standard (i.e. values, either individual or those of “tradition”) – this being the case, the Bible is completely and totally superfluous to a discussion of morality. We can skip the Bible and go directly to the values that underlie the interpretation.

The issue of slavery was addressed above, but again the accusations are oversimplified and not really accurate. catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9907fea2.asp

Additionally, your assertions show that you do not really understand the place of scripture (the Bibile) in Catholic theology. The Bible came from the Church, not vice versa. The authority of the Church comes first and foremost through the apostles and their successors - the bishops. Each and every bishop can trace who laid hands on him, who laid hands on his predecessor, etc. all the way back to the apostles - yes, the records are that detailed. Using this Divinely-conveyed authority, the Church designated the canon of scripture several hundred years after Jesus lived - this cannon we now call the Bible.

Therefore, scripture is interpreted according to the teaching of the Church; not that the Church behaves inconsistently with YOUR interpretation of scripture or that some value judgement is used outside of scripture to interpret it.

Ultimately, Catholic theology flows from the twin pillars of scripture and Tradition (with a capital “T”) - the divinely inspired Word of God and the Divinely-conveyed authority of the Church. This Divinely-conveyed authority goes beyond just the ability to establish which scriptures are Divinely inspired and how to interpret said scripture, but to rule on matters of faith and morals. The Church is more than a man-made institution, it is literally part of the Body of Christ - a thing that is itself Divine despite the failures of some of its members (even those high up in Church hierarch).

If you think that’s more than a little convenient, then you’re right. Without that authority, we would be swimming in a morass of conflicting theology and moral rules - which is precisely what has happened to the intellectual descendants of Martin Luther. Another demonstration that without an absolute reference point you are a slave to ever-shifting value judgements (the “dictatorship of moral relativism” as Pope Benedict XVI put it).

Of course, you’d probably assert this is all a bunch of rubbish. However, unless you at least understand what the Church proclaims, your arguments will always be unsophisticated and probably wrong. So maybe you have some studying to do.

 

[ContegoFides]

Number 2 is a value judgment that is not a part of atheism. You can’t logically get from “There are no gods” to “I hate all religious followers…etc.” It does not automatically follow, and we know that there are plenty of examples of atheists who don’t hate “all religious followers.”

As you point out, you have to actually hate religious followers and desire to kill them – both things that exist outside of atheism – for what you’re saying to make any sense

Number 2 and number 1 are both presuppositions. My demonstration is that atheism allows for (i.e., can lead to) objectively evil behaviors. I have done that.

And that’s not atheism. Atheism is the lack of belief in gods. A person can be an atheist and not hold to a skeptical model: an atheist might, for example, believe in souls, magic, aliens, and all kinds of things that cannot be demonstrated.

An atheist could be an atheist not for any rational reasons but for irrational emotion reasons for reasons of “personal revelation” from some sort of supposed psychic force.

But why? Under your view, such people would be just as irrational as religious adherents.

Also, who are you to define what atheism is? You can’t prove it one way or another. Another atheist may say that atheism is defined as the affirmative denial of God; and such people certainly do exist. They are no more irrational than you or me.

For that matter, why would you believe there is no God? Why would you believe in anything that isn’t science. How do you evaluate what to do with your life? Pure selfish desire? Not that it matters, since without God everything you say and do is for naught (as is the actions - evil or good - all of humanity).

Well, I would call you irrational. Thanks for demonstrating it.

 

[Leela]

I find atheists’ moral concerns intensely ironic. As a first matter, how is an atheist to judge morality? .

Hi Contego and Charlemagne,

You two have both been making a lot of similar claims to that above. Atheists can indeed judge morality. The Catholic Church teaches that this is so because in the Catholic view belief in the Church is not required for recognition of Natural Law.

You asked, how is an atheist to judge morality? The answer is that we generally make the same sorts of considerations in moral deliberation that you and other believers generally do. Like you, we consider our moral intuitions (i.e., conscience), we consider universability (what if everyone behaved that way?), consequences (how would you feel if someone did that to you?), human flourishing (does this behavior help others be all they can be?), and we consult others whose views and judgments we respect. Again, I think we pretty much all make these same sorts of considerations. The differences are a matter of which “others” we consult in our diliberation. For any nonCatholic, one of those others is probably not the Catholic Church, and for nonChristians in general, one of these consultations with “others” will probably not include praying for the guidance of Jesus.

There is no provable reference point because moral and immoral are not positivistic judgements.

The issue of the limits of positivism is only of issue for positivists. You should not assume that all atheists are positivists who regard moral claims as incoherent babble incapable of having truth-value. Those who are positivists (like AntiTheist) are not likely to make such moral claims because they are not so careless as to contradict themselves.

best,
Leela

 

[Leela]

I don’t think atheists can ever claim the high moral ground against Christians. For example, as you said, they have no formal moral compass. Each atheist is a law unto himself.

Hi Charlemagne,

Though you may think that Christians are in general more moral, I think it should be easy for you to imagine an atheist who cold claim the moral high ground over such Christians who have murdered abortion doctors.

The arrogance of atheists has been duly noted in such characters as Dawkins and Hitchens.

I am sure that there are one or two arrogant Christians out there somewhere.

They will hardly ever admit that Christianity is good for anything really worthwhile, in spite of all the good deeds done by Christians throughout history and certainly in our own day, when almost every town and city provides for the needy, the hungry, the lonely, the imprisoned, the sick, etc.

To hear atheists they never saw any of these things. Well I guess they wouldn’t since apparently it isn’t convenient to see them.

Christianity certainly can be good for some things. I don’t think that people should argue that religion or even Christianity as a whole is either a good or bad thing. There are lots of ways of being religious and lot of Christian practices. Some are better and worse than others. Some are good and others bad.

Best,
Leela

 

[AntiTheist]

Number 2 and number 1 are both presuppositions. My demonstration is that atheism allows for (i.e., can lead to) objectively evil behaviors. I have done that.

I agreed that an atheist can believe something kooky, like your number 2.

But the number 2 belief isn’t a part of atheism. That’s the point. You can’t logically derive number 2 from number 1. Number 2 is consistent with Number 1, but it’s not derived from Number 1. That’s my point.

[Keep in mind that I jumped back in this thread when you claimed that atheism had done worse things than religions, the implication being that there atrocities can be derived from atheism, not merely that they are consistent with atheism]

But why [would an atheist believe in something irrational, like souls or psychic powers]?

Because people are irrational.

Under your view, such people would be just as irrational as religious adherents.

Absolutely, and I do consider them as irrational as religious adherents. They disagree. And yet they’re atheists, provided that they don’t believe in gods.

This is the point you’re not understanding: there is a difference (a big one) between the labels “skeptic” and “atheist.” The former means “someone who doesn’t accept claims without evidence,” and the latter means “someone who doesn’t accept the claim that god exists.”

Here’s the important point: while the two labels can go to together (and often do), they don’t have to. You can be a skeptic and not be an atheist (though I’ve heard atheist skeptics argue that atheism is the necessary result of skepticism properly applied…and I’ve heard that claim fiercely contested), and you can be an atheist and not a skeptic.

There are, for example, irrational atheists who don’t believe in gods and do believe in psychic powers. Or other nutty stuff. Search me why people believe in nonsense like that.

Why would you believe in anything that isn’t science.

What’s with this “science” stuff? I believe in evidence-based inquiry when it comes to determining fact claims about the universe.

When it comes to questions that aren’t fact claims (like “should” claims…what “should” I do?), I appeal to my values, and yes, I don’t rule out selfish desires, but I also don’t rule out the necessities of my environment, which include a need to cooperate with others.

without God everything you say and do is for naught (as is the actions - evil or good - all of humanity).

If you say so, buddy.