Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Great, well here's some "thinking-for-myself" then, from an athiest:
It's ironic (and probably hypocritical) that in the very thread you admonish us to guard against "painting all members of a single group with a broad brush", you hold members of the KKK and Nazi party out for public ridicule.
Don' you know there were good Nazis, and even good members of the KKK?
At first glance you appear to raise a legitimate point, but I would argue that Nazism and the KKK are groups which, by their very terms, are based on evil beliefs. As such, the difference between Atheism and Nazism is not a difference in degree but rather, a difference in kind. In short, Nazism and the KKK are both inherently evil belief systems, just as NAMBLA (North American Man-Boy Love Association) is.
As one who maintains a lot of sympathy for non-believers, I wouldn't class "Atheism" as a system which is on its own terms "evil." (Although I'm not an expert in this area and may very well be going against the teachings of the Magesterium here or at the very least esteemed Catholic theologians such as Aquinas and, as such, am open to correction by a Catholic scholar who knows better, such as Thomas undoubtedly does).
My point being, those who adhere to a belief system which is not inherently "evil" (immoral) can still exhibit patterns of very evil and immoral behavior.
I suppose it's possible that those who profess Nazism could also be "good people" but I don't know how that would come about unless such a person actually had their head in the sand or were otherwise misled as to the axioms that Nazis as a group hold to be true.
At first glance you appear to raise a legitimate point, but I would argue that Nazism and the KKK are groups which, by their very terms, are based on evil beliefs. As such, the difference between Atheism and Nazism is not a difference in degree but rather, a difference in kind. In short, Nazism and the KKK are both inherently evil belief systems, just as NAMBLA (North American Man-Boy Love Association) is.
As one who maintains a lot of sympathy for non-believers, I wouldn't class "Atheism" as a system which is on its own terms "evil." (Although I'm not an expert in this area and may very well be going against the teachings of the Magesterium here or at the very least esteemed Catholic theologians such as Aquinas and, as such, am open to correction by a Catholic scholar who knows better, such as Thomas undoubtedly does).
My point being, those who adhere to a belief system which is not inherently "evil" (immoral) can still exhibit patterns of very evil and immoral behavior.
I suppose it's possible that those who profess Nazism could also be "good people" but I don't know how that would come about unless such a person actually had their head in the sand or were otherwise misled as to the axioms that Nazis as a group hold to be true.
But of course, many atheist would argue that the Catholic Church IS inherently evil, even if not every members is, and even if not completely so. Abortion, contraception in the third-world, gay rights, etc. could be named as specific issues of disagreement, but that misses the point. What we would call evil is any ideology that places irrational faith over reason.
(A criticism of religion more so than just Catholicism.)
Would you concede that the Catholic Church of the 12th - 17th century was perhaps only degrees different than the Nazi's of the 1940's, in terms of evilness?
I suppose atheism is "evil" in that loving God and Man is a big cornerstone of the good. Although this would make it more half-evil than actual evil
More generally I've read things on Catholic views of evil and I don't think atheism, in itself, would fit. Although I admit some of what I've read confuses me a tad. Basically "evil" is about the absence of good or is about harm, immorality, and keeping people from the good. I think. The harm and negating good sound sensible/central to me. I think an argument could be made that atheism fits that, but I don't think that argument would have to be accepted. I don't accept it by and large. Unless maybe the person actually believes in God, but claims atheism in order to cause harm or pain to others.
Although I think an atheist who believes in using insults and emotional trauma to "de-convert" people would be behaving in an evil manner. This does not mean the person is "evil" as one may do evil things without simply being defined as evil. I have certainly done things that are objectively evil.
But of course, many atheist would argue that the Catholic Church IS inherently evil, even if not every members is, and even if not completely so. Abortion, contraception in the third-world, gay rights, could be named as specific issues of disagreement, but that misses the point that. What we would call evil is any ideology that places irrational faith over reason.
(A criticism of religion more so than Catholicism.)
Would you concede that the Catholic Church of the 12th - 17th century was perhaps only degrees different than the Nazi's of the 1940's, in terms of evilness?
I'm a little confused by your post, but you appear to be asking whether I think some of the moral teachings of the Catholic Church are "inherently evil." The answer is, no, I do not.
And no, I do not believe the "Catholic Church of the 12th - 17th century" was similar to Nazism in terms of "evilness." In fact, I believe that the only thing standing between the fallen world we have now and total hell on earth (which is what Hitler sought to establish) is the Roman Catholic Church. If I didn't believe this I would be an Atheist or at least an Agnostic.
Thanks for confirming the reasonable inference I made based on the contents of what you have written about the Roman Catholic Church. I wouldn't have characterized you this way unless I was confident my characterization was an accurate one.
As regards your attempts to "discredit the Catholic Church on its own terms" -- the claim that you do so is undermined by your lack of understanding, based on what you have written above, about the reasons for an all-male clergy and the reasons for celibacy (which, unlike the all-male clergy, is a discipline and not dogma, and may therefore be changed at some point in the future). You obviously lack even a basic understanding of Church teachings on these matters.
You again re-stated the fact that there is ONLY allowed an ALL MALE CLERGY. Which was my basic point in that one regard, no more, no less. No, I didn't delve into the dogma, because it doesn't matter to me. That doesn't mean I don't understand it, it just means I don't CARE. The fact that there is a black and white rule that NO women are allowed to be an elder/decision maker of your church- is nonsensical and downright unreasonable. Not to mention backwards and outright sexist. You defending that practice is like defending why women shouldn't vote, or why black people shouldn't drink out of "your" water fountain. BACKWARDS. You can defend your faith all you want and I may listen or not- but when it comes to simple, outlined facts about the practices within your organization- those I will take issue with without backing down, and it has nothing to do with dogma, it's about basic human rights and spirituality- two things that the catholic church (generally speaking as an organization) has all but ignored until some people lately- who I hope succeed- have been trying to change this church into something more open and healthy rather than toxic and harmful.
And with regard to celibacy- much like not allowing women on board, there ARE no reasons, in my mind, for this to be, and whether I understand why your church or the faith of your church deems it necessary isn't the point. The point is about the concrete actions and rules that are interfering with what I'm sure, to you, is a pure and kind faith (and believe me, such practices ARE interfering). Celibacy, to anyone other than an admitted asexual person (who do exist but aren't very common), is out and out unnatural, period. Hence all the issues the clergy therein have had- another indisputable fact. You can say all day long that I don't "understand" the catholic church- fine, you can have that. I'm sure I don't, not the way you want me to. But it doesn't take a lot of research and analyzing to understand and see the countless ways the church needs to change- and quick- before it just outright expires due to obsoletion. As far as the faith itself- personally, I find it very peculiar, the "hero worship" aspect of it with regard to all the saints, and the blind, repetitive rituals but I know a lot of people who find peace that way so that's fine and good. Again, it's just the "rules" within the church I have issue with- it's GOVERNMENT. And moreso than any other christian church.
Quote:
Originally Posted by samyn on the green
It is an all out war on the Catholic Church. Why not? Only the Catholic Church that stands up for what is right.
The secular authority that has usurped Gods authority knows the weak points of man. It is through the weak points of vice that man is controlled today. Every vice from sex, to drugs, to gambling to entertainment is used to control man without him evening knowing it. The cost is millions destroyed by drugs, millions of unborn killed to maintain a culture of degenerate, promiscuous sex. All the while people are loving their enslavement and will reach for the ad hominem if you take away their master. The secular authority plays the good cop to the Church's bad cop. This is how the world has been turned upside down, but few realize it. Then again try to take drugs away from the addict and he will not like you; regardless of your good intentions. The secular authorities provide the license and play the Church as the bad guy.
This is why the Church is endlessly attacked. Yes there was a significant homosexual presence in the clergy and this homosexual presence lead to a string of molestations. s been in the news on a daily basis for the last 12 years? Day after day of ram The was just the opening that the enemies so dearly desired. All it took were a few hundred boys over a period of 50 years. This is very wrong and I don't mean to marginalize the pain this caused. However it has been addressed. Why has thiming this issue down our throats. It is not like this is happening now. It is always some thing that happened 20-50 years ago; yet it is recycled to keep it fresh in peoples minds. This is a Church with 1 billion members. In context this was not a rampant abuse but isolated incidents. Since it is ideological war it is rammed down the people's throats on a daily basis. This is ideological warfare.
How many were molested in the secular world? How many are being molested now? Why don't we ever hear about this? If the media is so concerned with the welfare of the young why doesn't it report on the tens of thousands of girls raped in secular university every year? Why don't we hear about that? It is happening as we speak. The short answer is that college date rape doesn't fit into the agenda of debasing the population, so the ideological subversion of destroying religion is driven home while these rapes are given license.
That is sick, sick, sick. I'm sorry, but you have a very distorted view of the world. Yes, your "non-secular" rape IS happening now- wake UP. I can't even believe you actually have the audacity to minimalize even ONE case of rape/pedophilia, much less an entire rampage of it that has occurred SPECIFICALLY within the catholic church. How dare you?! What if it were YOUR son that was molested, as an alter boy? I bet you'd not take this so lightly. I can understand that you might want to defend your church but perhaps you should try doing so like Dreaming Spires who at least had the dignity not to try and make light of such a VERY serious issue.
And just fyi- there is no "Secular" and "Non-secular" rape- there is just RAPE. And when it keeps happening within a particular situation or set scenario, over and OVER again- something needs done about it. Shame on you that you feel that the lives of innocent people are OK to destroy and screw up in order that your church saves face...even ONE child, or person IS important. EVERY person is. The fact that you, or anyone else wants to gloss such things over or sweep the truth under the rug is why our society is such a mess.
And on the "secular" note you kept bringing up- we DO hear about the "non-church" related rapes and molestations. Sorry, but I just listen to regular, "secular" broadcast news and I hear about it all too much for my taste, so maybe you should turn off the PTL channel and try ABC- or better yet, NPR which is unbiased and you'll hear about plenty of violations- probably way more, in number, than those that happen within the parameters of your "church"- if that makes you feel better.
Of course unfortunately, there are many more cases, within and without the church that do not get reported than do; some victims are too frightened to come forward for various reasons; fear of retribution- perhaps because they feel ashamed, or maybe are of a religious upbringing and feel guilty...maybe because they belong to some spiritually backwards institution that teaches them to ignore the truths of life and they were never taught their self worth or value as individuals....
I suppose atheism is "evil" in that loving God and Man is a big cornerstone of the good. Although this would make it more half-evil than actual evil
More generally I've read things on Catholic views of evil and I don't think atheism, in itself, would fit. Although I admit some of what I've read confuses me a tad. Basically "evil" is about the absence of good or is about harm, immorality, and keeping people from the good. I think. The harm and negating good sound sensible/central to me. I think an argument could be made that atheism fits that, but I don't think that argument would have to be accepted. I don't accept it by and large. Unless maybe the person actually believes in God, but claims atheism in order to cause harm or pain to others.
Although I think an atheist who believes in using insults and emotional trauma to "de-convert" people would be behaving in an evil manner. This does not mean the person is "evil" as one may do evil things without simply being defined as evil. I have certainly done things that are objectively evil.
It looks like we are more or less on the same page with this, in that there is probably no definitive teaching by the Magesterium that would class Atheism as "evil."
The only thing that comes to mind is the sin against the Holy Spirit. Could denying God (rejecting Grace) be a form of the unforgiveable sin? I suppose one could "reject Grace" whilst not simultaneously denying the existence of God (in the instance of someone who worships Satan, for example).
Moreover, if one takes an atheistic view and denies the existence of God without "full knowledge" this might not even be a mortal sin, correct?
I'm a little confused by your post, but you appear to be asking whether I think some of the moral teachings of the Catholic Church are "inherently evil." The answer is, no, I do not.
And no, I do not believe the "Catholic Church of the 12th - 17th century" was similar to Nazism in terms of "evilness." In fact, I believe that the only thing standing between the fallen world we have now and total hell on earth (which is what Hitler sought to establish) is the Roman Catholic Church. If I didn't believe this I would be an Atheist or at least an Agnostic.
My first paragraph was an argument. Besides specific policies of the Catholic Church (which I would call evil,) the very basic organization and goal of the Catholic Church is evil. That is what I was pointing out. And the reason I say that is because it is organized around the principle that faith is superior to logic, and that revelation is superior to reason. This is a criticism most atheist have against most religions: you elevate the irrational. Accordingly, we normally consider that evil.
My second paragraph was to point out the checkered past of the Catholic Church, which admittedly is checkered mostly as a consequence of its being a product of it's day. And while I didn't claim it was AS evil as Nazism, I did claim that the difference was of degree, and not of kind.
Certainly you would agree that inquisitions would be evil if there done today, would you not? Crusades? Anti-science trials?
So my point is that on the same basis you were able to condemn the Nazi's or the KKK, atheist may condemn the Catholic Church. Even if you disagree with our premises, you should agree that, if our premises are true than we are right to condemn Catholicism. Because even if not every Catholic is evil, from our point of view, Catholicism itself is evil.
My first paragraph was an argument. Besides specific policies of the Catholic Church (which I would call evil,) the very basic organization and goal of the Catholic Church is evil. That is what I was pointing out. And the reason I say that is because it is organized around the principle that faith is superior to logic, and that revelation is superior to reason. This is a criticism most atheist have against most religions: you elevate the irrational. Accordingly, we normally consider that evil.
My second paragraph was to point out the checkered past of the Catholic Church, which admittedly is checkered mostly as a consequence being a product of it's day. And while I didn't claim it was AS evil as Nazism, I did claim that the difference was of degree, and not of kind.
Certainly you would agree that inquisitions would be evil if there done today, would you not? Crusades? Anti-science trials?
So my point is that on the same basis you were able to condemn the Nazi's or the KKK, atheist may condemn the Catholic Church. Even if you disagree with our premises, you should agree that, if our premises are true than we are right to condemn Catholicism. Because even if every Catholic is evil, from our point of view, Catholicism itself is evil.
Well, it's hard to know even where to start here. The first point I would make, and it has been made by me and others many times at this forum, is that there is no conflict between Catholicism and Reason or Catholicism and Science. Although Reason does not COMPEL belief in Catholicism it does not preclude it. This is why the numerous "faith and science" threads are a red herring and bore me stiff.
Of course in the Catholic view, God is superior to "human reason." God created man, man did not create God.
Like I said, you and I will have to agree to disagree about whether or not Catholicism is similar to Nazism in terms of "evilness." You can go ahead and think that it is and I cannot stop you, just as you cannot stop me from believing differently, seeing that we both have free will.
As regards your final paragraph, it appears from your use of collective language ("us" and "we") that you are attempting to speak for "all Atheists." I have done enough reading in my lifetime to appreciate that not all Atheists think alike. In fact, I suspect S.E. Cupp, the subject of this very thread, would vehemently disagree with much of what you and other Atheists have written on this thread.
But if you do feel that you have the right to speak for "all Atheists" or even "most Atheists" it would be interesting to find out where you feel you get the mandate to do so.
Well, it's hard to know even where to start here. The first point I would make, and it has been made by me and others many times at this forum, is that there is no conflict between Catholicism and Reason or Catholicism and Science. Although Reason does not COMPEL belief in Catholicism it does not preclude it. This is why the numerous "faith and science" threads are a red herring and bore me stiff.
Of course in the Catholic view, God is superior to "human reason." God created man, man did not create God.
Like I said, you and I will have to agree to disagree about whether or not Catholicism is similar to Nazism in terms of "evilness." You can go ahead and think that it is and I cannot stop you, just as you cannot stop me from believing differently, seeing that we both have free will.
As regards your final paragraph, it appears from your use of collective language ("us" and "our") that you are attempting to speak for "all Atheists." I have done enough reading in my lifetime to appreciate that not all Atheists think alike. In fact, I suspect S.E. Cupp, the subject of this very thread, would vehemently disagree with much of what you and other Atheists have written on this thread.
But if you do feel that you have the right to speak for "all Atheists" or even "most Atheists" it would be interesting to find out where you feel you get the mandate to do so.
I would agree with you that Catholicism is less anti-science than most protestant religions, but I would disagree with you when you say that there is absolutely no conflict between Catholicism and science, (or reason). For example, the very idea that humans have a soul demonstrates a 14th century understanding of the way the mind works.
But you are right that I don't speak for all atheist, just as you don't speak for all Catholics. Sorry if I was too loose with my language.
I would agree with you that Catholicism is less anti-science than most protestant religions, but I would disagree that there is no conflict between Catholicism and science, (or reason). For example, the very idea that humans have a soul demonstrates a 14th century understanding of the way the mind works.
But you are right that I don't speak for all atheist, just as you don't speak for all Catholics. Sorry if I was too loose in my language.
Thanks for clarifying that.
You are correct that I "don't speak for all Catholics," however, you are incorrect if you are attempting to imply that there is no objective body of belief to which all Catholics adhere. There is such a body of belief, and it is called "The Magisterium."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
