Patrick Madrid: Turning the Tables on Atheists

Donatello

If you want to know what happens when atheistic principles overtake a society, look no further than the totalitarian regimes of Joseph Stalin and Mao Tse-tung, says Patrick Madrid.

According to Madrid, "the atheist claim that there is no God entails the claim that there is no absolute standard of morality," which in turn means that "what is 'right' and 'wrong' is simply what the individual or groups of individuals decide is 'right' or 'wrong.'"

He explains that in this situation, what is "good" is often what is "what is expedient, what promotes the consolidation of power and privilege, what facilitates the elimination of resistance and ideological competition (Christianity, for example)."

ZENIT: You address in your book the problem of proselytism by atheists. First, why is it important for atheists to push their non-belief in God? Second, what happens to society if they succeed?

Madrid: Perhaps the most vividly convincing evidence of what happens to a society when atheist principles are put into practice on a grand scale are the repressive, totalitarian, genocidal horrors wrought by atheists during the 20th century. Avowed atheists such as Stalin and Mao systematically imposed atheist principles as state policy, and in the processes liquidated more than 100 million men, women and children.

As we discuss in "The Godless Delusion," the atheist claim that there is no God entails the claim that there is no absolute standard of morality. And if there is no absolute standard of morality, then what is "right" and "wrong" is simply what the individual or groups of individuals decide is "right" or "wrong." In this scenario -- as countless doomed Russians, Ukrainians, Chinese, and others discovered -- what is expedient, what promotes the consolidation of power and privilege, what facilitates the elimination of resistance and ideological competition (Christianity, for example) is "good."

Among the more ominous characteristics of the early 21st century is the rise of the "new atheists," men such as Christopher Hitchens ("God is Not Great"), Richard Dawkins ("The God Delusion"), Sam Harris ("Letter to a Christian Nation"), and Greg Epstein ("Good Without God"). These new atheists are militant in their commitment to atheism, ferociously anti-religion, and quite prepared to engage in a public struggle with theists through their books, movies, DVDs, Web sites, magazines and public lectures.

What separates the new atheists from previous generations of less combative and, frankly, more intellectually formidable atheists such as Bertrand Russell, is that the new atheists are actively, relentlessly "proselytizing" for converts among Christians. And unlike the earlier, more staid, Bertrand-Russell brand of intellectual atheists, Dawkins, Hitchens, and the rest of the new atheists see their worldview as a righteous cause that must be carried forward aggressively with the goal of converting as many believers as possible so as to free the world of the evils they argue are inevitably fomented by religion and religious people.

As atheists often proclaim: "Religion Kills." They see ridding the world of religion to be a singularly worthy goal that will bring about enlightenment, happiness, and freedom from "superstition," ignorance, suspicion of science and violence perpetrated in the name of God.

Obviously, we Christians have a lot of work to do to help atheists see that even if individual Catholics are guilty of such things, the question of whether God does or does not exist is in no way predicated upon the behavior of those who believe he exists.

[Extracts from this Zenit article.]

MagicMarker

Gordon

Donatello wrote: »

even if individual Catholics are guilty of such things

lol, put your foot in a bit of a plural/collective admittance of guilt there

Donatello

It's just a bit of fish food to provoke discussion. As I see it, Madrid's arguments are irrefutable.

I couldn't read past the first line - facepalm

"If you want to know what happens when atheistic principles overtake a society, look no further than the totalitarian regimes of Joseph Stalin and Mao Tse-tung, says Patrick Madrid."

See that up there? That's the answer to the question you imply. In the very first sentence you post, too.

Stalin and Mao didn't do what they did in the name of atheism. They did it because they wanted to impose totalitarianism. They wanted control over everything, especially control over what people believed in. Atheism didn't do the damage, totalitarianism did.

Donatello

bluewolf wrote: »

I couldn't read past the first line - facepalm

Yeah, but that's just an excuse not to address the author's points. :rolleyes:

Pygmalion

Donatello wrote: »

If you want to know what happens when atheistic principles overtake a society, look no further than the totalitarian regimes of Joseph Stalin and Mao Tse-tung, says Patrick Madrid.

Yeah, I guess you could do that.

I guess you could also look at the likes of Estonia, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, <insert other country that wasn't run by an insane dictator> etc., but then you wouldn't be able to claim a load of extreme **** about atheists.

Edit: Actually France, the Czech Republic, Belgium and the Netherlands are apparently better examples of "Atheist" societies in terms of percentage of people who don't believe in "any sort of spirit, God or life force".
Estonia, Sweden, Denmark and Norway have the lowest percentage of people who claim that religion places an important role in their lives though.

MagicMarker

Donatello wrote: »

Yeah, but that's just an excuse not to address the author's points. :rolleyes:

They've all be addressed before, countless times, search the forum.

/thread.

Turtwig

Oh sweet lord in heaven, what is with the recent barrage of ****ty thread topics of late. I vaguely remember Donatello's last thread where he barely even tried to communicate. So I'll just say this as bluntly as I can, next time you try to start a thread criticising atheism at least have some decent understanding of the concept. Perhaps if you spent two weeks in a role reversal trying to make criticisms of Christianity from an atheist's point of view you might gain some sense of understanding. As of now though your quality of topics and engagement in said topics stinks more than the foul stench of a stagnant water pool with rotting fish corpses floating inside.

Mark200

Donatello wrote: »

It's just a bit of fish food to provoke discussion. As I see it, Madrid's arguments are irrefutable.

Do you have your eyes closed? First of all, its quite pathetic if Christians think that they wouldn't know right from if morals weren't imposed on them. Actually these people don't belong in society if they wouldn't see the problem with going on killing rampages if they found out there was no god. Second of all, its equally pathetic to say one should hold a belief because you think it would benefit society. You should believe in something if its true. If its not true then you shouldn't believe in it. The benefits of holding a belief are irrelevant

Bloody Nipples

Donatello wrote: »

If you want to know what happens when atheistic principles overtake a society, look no further than the totalitarian regimes of Joseph Stalin and Mao Tse-tung, says Patrick Madrid.

According to Madrid, "the atheist claim that there is no God entails the claim that there is no absolute standard of morality," which in turn means that "what is 'right' and 'wrong' is simply what the individual or groups of individuals decide is 'right' or 'wrong.'"

He explains that in this situation, what is "good" is often what is "what is expedient, what promotes the consolidation of power and privilege, what facilitates the elimination of resistance and ideological competition (Christianity, for example)."

ZENIT: You address in your book the problem of proselytism by atheists. First, why is it important for atheists to push their non-belief in God? Second, what happens to society if they succeed?

Madrid: Perhaps the most vividly convincing evidence of what happens to a society when atheist principles are put into practice on a grand scale are the repressive, totalitarian, genocidal horrors wrought by atheists during the 20th century. Avowed atheists such as Stalin and Mao systematically imposed atheist principles as state policy, and in the processes liquidated more than 100 million men, women and children.

As we discuss in "The Godless Delusion," the atheist claim that there is no God entails the claim that there is no absolute standard of morality. And if there is no absolute standard of morality, then what is "right" and "wrong" is simply what the individual or groups of individuals decide is "right" or "wrong." In this scenario -- as countless doomed Russians, Ukrainians, Chinese, and others discovered -- what is expedient, what promotes the consolidation of power and privilege, what facilitates the elimination of resistance and ideological competition (Christianity, for example) is "good."

Among the more ominous characteristics of the early 21st century is the rise of the "new atheists," men such as Christopher Hitchens ("God is Not Great"), Richard Dawkins ("The God Delusion"), Sam Harris ("Letter to a Christian Nation"), and Greg Epstein ("Good Without God"). These new atheists are militant in their commitment to atheism, ferociously anti-religion, and quite prepared to engage in a public struggle with theists through their books, movies, DVDs, Web sites, magazines and public lectures.

What separates the new atheists from previous generations of less combative and, frankly, more intellectually formidable atheists such as Bertrand Russell, is that the new atheists are actively, relentlessly "proselytizing" for converts among Christians. And unlike the earlier, more staid, Bertrand-Russell brand of intellectual atheists, Dawkins, Hitchens, and the rest of the new atheists see their worldview as a righteous cause that must be carried forward aggressively with the goal of converting as many believers as possible so as to free the world of the evils they argue are inevitably fomented by religion and religious people.

As atheists often proclaim: "Religion Kills." They see ridding the world of religion to be a singularly worthy goal that will bring about enlightenment, happiness, and freedom from "superstition," ignorance, suspicion of science and violence perpetrated in the name of God.

Obviously, we Christians have a lot of work to do to help atheists see that even if individual Catholics are guilty of such things, the question of whether God does or does not exist is in no way predicated upon the behavior of those who believe he exists.

[Extracts from this Zenit article.]

Utter utter shíte, not a sentence there worthy of discussion. You can claim it as an attempt to avoid discussing your "points" but until you stop comparing atheists to genocidal maniacs I will absolutely refuse to engage with you.

pH

Donatello wrote:

According to Madrid, "the atheist claim that there is no God entails the claim that there is no absolute standard of morality,"

Well seeing as you're here, I'm not really interested in the above, but why say it if you don't believe the corollary is true -

Do you thinks that "belief in God entails the claim that there is an absolute standard of morality" is true?

If not, then you're in the same boat as atheists, so why bring it up, of not, please explain how a "belief in God" gives you an absolute standard of morality? I'm genuinely interested, I can't see how it does, but if you believe that it does then I'd be grateful to have it explained to me.

Donatello

My take on Madrid's position is this: in the absence of God (the Christian God, a God Who is reasonable and good, unlike the capricious God of Islam, which is unreasonable), there is no objective morality. Without that, might is right, and totalitarian regimes will be the result. Christian faith is a defense against totalitarianism. Of course not every avowed atheist is a genocidal maniac.

The point is, without God, all things are permissible, and in the history of the world, when God is removed, misery and killing on a massive scale result.

pH

Donatello wrote: »

My take on Madrid's position is this: in the absence of God (the Christian God, a God Who is reasonable and good, unlike the capricious God of Islam, which is unreasonable), there is no objective morality. Without that, might is right, and totalitarian regimes will be the result. Christian faith is a defense against totalitarianism. Of course not every avowed atheist is a genocidal maniac.

The point is, without God, all things are permissible, and in the history of the world, when God is removed, misery and killing on a massive scale result.

Yes fine, without god etc etc, but what about with God? Does belief in God give you an objective morality, if so how?

Donatello

pH wrote: »

Do you thinks that "belief in God entails the claim that there is an absolute standard of morality" is true?

For the Catholic, yes of course, without a doubt - the Commandments, and all the faith & moral teaching of the Church, which we hold as the teaching of God in Scripture and Tradition.

For the Catholic, there is indeed an absolute moral code. The relativists, on the other hand, hold to a subjective view: your truth is yours and mine is mine, if it works for you etc... But truth is of its nature absolute and objective.

Pygmalion

Donatello wrote: »

My take on Madrid's position is this: in the absence of God (the Christian God, a God Who is reasonable and good, unlike the capricious God of Islam, which is unreasonable)

I was going to point out that much more people throughout history have died by the hands of Christians than Muslims.

Then I realised it's not even worth pointing out, both groups worship the same god.
The god that supposedly killed every first-born child in an entire country to get back at a single Monarch (who was unharmed).
The god that supposedly drowned the entire world save for a single family, and the bare minimum of animals.
The god who specifically allowed the destruction of entire cities and the enslavement of all survivors.

pH

Donatello wrote: »

For the Catholic, yes of course, without a doubt - the Commandments, and all the faith & moral teaching of the Church, which we hold as the teaching of God in Scripture and Tradition.

For the Catholic, there is indeed an absolute moral code. The relativists, on the other hand, hold to a subjective view: your truth is yours and mine is mine, if it works for you etc... But truth is of its nature absolute and objective.

Well then please explain, how you go from "belief in God" to an objective moral
code ... I'm really interested in how you get from one to the other, as I can't see a route myself.

oldrnwisr

Donatello wrote: »

Christian faith is a defense against totalitarianism.

Really?

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people."

Adolf Hitler, April 12, 1922.


"I have been attacked because of my handling of the Jewish question. The Catholic Church considered the Jews pestilent for fifteen hundred years, put them in ghettos, etc., because it recognized the Jews for what they were. In the epoch of liberalism the danger was no longer recognized. I am moving back toward the time in which a fifteen-hundred-year-long tradition was implemented. I do not set race over religion, but I recognize the representatives of this race as pestilent for the state and for the Church, and perhaps I am thereby doing Christianity a great service by pushing them out of schools and public functions."

Adolf Hitler, Reichskonkordat, April 26, 1933.

Donatello

pH wrote: »

Well then please explain, how you go from "belief in God" to an objective moral
code ... I'm really interested in how you get from one to the other, as I can't see a route myself.

God gave us the Ten Commandments. But you will see that Catholic moral teaching is based on the Natural Law. The Natural Law is knowable to all, even non-believers. Hence we all know that it is wrong to kill innocent human life, and it is also wrong to steal etc...

Another obvious case is that of human sexuality. It is obvious to sensible observers that sex was made ofr reproduction - the parts fit, and the whole biology behind it is designed for the creation of new life.

But I don't want to allow this thread to move off track. My point is that atheism paves the way for totalitarianism.

More background reading here:

Nazi and Stalinist Genocides were Inspired by Atheism: German Bishop Who Compared Abortion to Nazism

"...a twilight where everything remains seemingly unchanged..."

In his Encyclical Letter Centesimus Annus, Pope John Paul II reminded us that:

"Authentic democracy is possible only in a State ruled by law, and on the basis of a correct conception of the human person. It requires that the necessary conditions be present for the advancement both of the individual through education and formation in true ideals, and of the "subjectivity" of society through the creation of structures of participation and shared responsibility. Nowadays there is a tendency to claim that agnosticism and sceptical relativism are the philosophy and the basic attitude which correspond to democratic forms of political life. Those who are convinced that they know the truth and firmly adhere to it are considered unreliable from a democratic point of view, since they do not accept that truth is determined by the majority, or that it is subject to variation according to different political trends. It must be observed in this regard that if there is no ultimate truth to guide and direct political activity, then ideas and convictions can easily be manipulated for reasons of power. As history demonstrates, a democracy without values easily turns into open or thinly disguised totalitarianism.

Nor does the Church close her eyes to the danger of fanaticism or fundamentalism among those who, in the name of an ideology which purports to be scientific or religious, claim the right to impose on others their own concept of what is true and good. Christian truth is not of this kind. Since it is not an ideology, the Christian faith does not presume to imprison changing socio-political realities in a rigid schema, and it recognizes that human life is realized in history in conditions that are diverse and imperfect. Furthermore, in constantly reaffirming the transcendent dignity of the person, the Church's method is always that of respect for freedom.

But freedom attains its full development only by accepting the truth. In a world without truth, freedom loses its foundation and man is exposed to the violence of passion and to manipulation, both open and hidden. The Christian upholds freedom and serves it, constantly offering to others the truth which he has known (cf. Jn 8:31-32), in accordance with the missionary nature of his vocation. While paying heed to every fragment of truth which he encounters in the life experience and in the culture of individuals and of nations, he will not fail to affirm in dialogue with others all that his faith and the correct use of reason have enabled him to understand." (No. 46).

Ickle Magoo

I suppose it depends how you define "moral code"...as it appears to mean being complicit in child rape, flying planes in to buildings and homophobia then you'll excuse me if I just live my law-abiding, egalitarian, "immoral" life. :rolleyes:

Donatello

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Really?

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people."

Adolf Hitler, April 12, 1922.


"I have been attacked because of my handling of the Jewish question. The Catholic Church considered the Jews pestilent for fifteen hundred years, put them in ghettos, etc., because it recognized the Jews for what they were. In the epoch of liberalism the danger was no longer recognized. I am moving back toward the time in which a fifteen-hundred-year-long tradition was implemented. I do not set race over religion, but I recognize the representatives of this race as pestilent for the state and for the Church, and perhaps I am thereby doing Christianity a great service by pushing them out of schools and public functions."

Adolf Hitler, Reichskonkordat, April 26, 1933.

In the early 1940s, under the Nazi regime itself, Archbishop Clemens August von Galen, the bishop of Münster, infuriated the Nazi regime by denouncing it as a godless ideology opposed to Christianity.

Archbishop von Galen, who would become known to history as the Lion of Münster and who was beatified in 2005 by Pope Benedict XVI, campaigned against the atheistic racialist theories of National Socialism, the euthanasia programs and the Nazi efforts to halt religious instruction in Catholic schools.

In 1941, von Galen began publicly to attack the regime from his cathedral pulpit. In his sermons, he blasted the Nazi regime for its closing of Catholic institutions and deporting and jailing of clergy, for the desecration of Catholic churches, closing of convents and monasteries, and the deportation and euthanasia of mentally ill people.

Von Galen also opposed Stalinist communism for its persecution of Christians since the 1918 revolution, during which virtually all Catholic bishops were killed or imprisoned.

Currently, the movement to reinstate legal euthanasia in Germany and throughout Europe for the mentally ill and physically disabled is being spearheaded and funded by secularist atheist organisations and individuals. As of the beginning of 2009, some form of legal euthanasia have been reinstated in Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Switzerland.

The international academic and scientific world is also seeing a revival of the eugenic theories that formed a significant part of the Nazi ideologies, particularly in the fields associated with genetics and artificial procreation, cloning technologies and in vitro fertilisation. Some prominent atheists in these fields have openly called for the implementation of eugenic policies using modern technologies, including, most prominently, James Watson, the Nobel Prize winning molecular biologist who co-discovered DNA.

[Source]

The Catholic Church also condemned Nazism in MIT BRENNENDER SORGE.

[Needless to say, Hitler was not obedient to the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, and he trampled roughshod (that's putting it mildly) over the the Church's moral teachings.]

Donatello

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I suppose it depends how you define "moral code"...as it appears to mean being complicit in child rape, flying planes in to buildings and homophobia then you'll excuse me if I just live my law-abiding, egalitarian, "immoral" life. :rolleyes:

This hardly justifies a response, but you are just being silly. The Church teaching (moral code) condemns all forms of sexual abuse. I'm sure you like to think of yourself as a logical thinker, but your above post proves otherwise. Also, I don't think the 9/11 hijackers were Catholic. I reject your use of the term homophobic. The Catholic Church teachings are not 'homophobic' - whatever that means.

[Now, no more silly talk - please step away from the rabbit hole. No further correspondence will be entered into on this, I just felt it needed correction.]

Donatello

Donatello wrote: »

The Catholic Church also condemned Nazism in MIT BRENNENDER SORGE

[Needless to say, Hitler was not obedient to the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, and he trampled roughshod (that's putting it mildly) over the the Church's moral teachings.]

So when he was using his faith to justify his beliefs, he was lying?
Do you believe that he never actually held the beliefs he is saying he did there?

Mark200

I know religious people are probably sick of atheists quoting Dawkins etc, but it really has been answered quite a lot already.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxdgCxK4VUA

And if there is such a thing as absolute morality, then why has morality changed over time? Things that were once ok are now seen as immoral. For example, slavery.

Ickle Magoo

Donatello wrote: »

This hardly justifies a response, but you are just being silly.

Hello pot...

Yours,

Black kettle

Pygmalion

Donatello wrote: »

The Catholic Church also condemned Nazism in MIT BRENNENDER SORGE

[Needless to say, Hitler was not obedient to the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, and he trampled roughshod (that's putting it mildly) over the the Church's moral teachings.]

So when he does it it doesn't reflect badly on the Church, because they disagreed, and it's just a one-off thing?

When Stalin did it, on the other hand, it reflects horribly on all Atheists, whether or not they're a supporter of his actions, and any atheist society will inevitably turn out the same?

MagicMarker

Donatello wrote: »

This hardly justifies a response, but you are just being silly. The Church teaching (moral code) condemns all forms of sexual abuse. I'm sure you like to think of yourself as a logical thinker, but your above post proves otherwise. Also, I don't think the 9/11 hijackers were Catholic. I reject your use of the term homophobic. The Catholic Church teachings are not 'homophobic' - whatever that means.

[Now, no more silly talk - please step away from the rabbit hole. No further correspondence will be entered into on this, I just felt it needed correction.]

So where was the Pope's moral code when he participated in the cover up of child sex abuse? Or the Pope before him? Or any of the priests who raped countless children?

AhSureTisGrand

This isn't so much about atheists as about non-Catholics. Trouble is, all the "One True Church" crap gets locked in the Christianity forum, so now we're getting it

I always find this type of reasoning funny. I mean, when Stalin and Mao inflicted pain and misery upon millions it was inherently because of their atheism. But, when Hitler, the systematic rape of children by RCC priests, the Crusades, etc., etc., are brought up religion had nothing to do with it. It's completely one sided and, frankly, trying to convince you otherwise is probably a pointless excercise.

Pygmalion

tl;dr version of the thread.

"Look, 2 high profile Atheists were horrible people, Atheism is bad"

"Here are atheists who don't support these actions, and here are high profile Theists who were horrible people"

"Atheists can't be good, even when a mountain of evidence seems to contradict this statement, and don't worry, those weren't true scotsmen theists."

Donatello

Pygmalion wrote: »

So when he does it it doesn't reflect badly on the Church, because they disagreed, and it's just a one-off thing?

When Stalin did it, on the other hand, it reflects horribly on all Atheists, whether or not they're a supporter of his actions, and any atheist society will inevitably turn out the same?

What Stalin and Hitler both had in common was that they disregarded Christian morality. It matters not a jot what Hitler said, it is what he did that matter. Hitler tried to couch his plans in Christian terms, but his was no Christian plan.

Absolute humanism is the sure road to absolute despotism. Denial of God as truth begets the imprisonment of man in the self-imposed darkness of his own myths. Flight from total dependence on God guarantees for man the utter loss of his freedom in a brutal enslavement either to sheer anarchy or to the tyrant who must eventually arise to impose upon the chaos of limitless human liberty the artificial, inhuman order of the concentration camp." URL="http://lasalettejourney.blogspot.com/2008/11/concern-for-national-security-or.html"]Source[/URL

Benedict XVI warned of the impending dangers recently when he said:

"Only at the price of ignoring what is precisely human could the question of morality be analyzed in the ordinary way of human knowing. The fact that this is actually being attempted in various quarters today is the great inner threat to mankind today. The tree of knowledge, from which man eats in this case, does not give the knowledge of good and evil, but rather blinds man to discerning the difference between them. Man will not return to paradise through such blindness, because it is not based on a purer humanity but on the rejection of humanity."

yawha

Donatello wrote: »

What Stalin and Hitler both had in common was that they disregarded Christian morality. It matters not a jot what Hitler said, it is what he did that matter. Hitler tried to couch his plans in Christian terms, but his was no Christian plan.

So basically, what you're saying is any time anyone does anything bad it's due to disregarding Christian morality, and therefore Christianity is the only way to be moral.

Pretty, eh, watertight argument you've got there...

AhSureTisGrand

It seems what you're saying is just as relevant to the Islam forum. You should post it there

Donatello

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

I always find this type of reasoning funny. I mean, when Stalin and Mao inflicted pain and misery upon millions it was inherently because of their atheism. But, when Hitler, the systematic rape of children by RCC priests, the Crusades, etc., etc., are brought up religion had nothing to do with it. It's completely one sided and, frankly, trying to convince you otherwise is probably a pointless excercise.

It's not really. Stalin and Mao were atheistic tyrants. Hitler was not a Christian. He couched his ideology in Christian terms, but his was an ideology that found no support in Catholic teaching, and the CC condemned him. The clerics who abused and covered up disregarded the Law of God as well as Canon and state law. Can you see the common thread here? The rejection of the Catholic Church moral teaching by both atheists, and worse of all, those who were supposed to represent Christ. It is shocking and shameful what happened with regard to Hitler and of course the sex abuse within the CC, but my argument is not one-sided. The common theme is those who reject the Law of God which is written on every human heart. Everyone knows it's wrong to kill and rape. The Catholic Church teaches exactly that so your point is invalid.

Pygmalion

Donatello wrote: »

What Stalin and Hitler both had in common was that they disregarded Christian morality. It matters not a jot what Hitler said, it is what he did that matter. Hitler tried to couch his plans in Christian terms, but his was no Christian plan.

Oh ok.

When an Atheist does it, it's because they're an Atheist.
When a Theist does it, it's because they're secretly an Atheist.

Ickle Magoo

Donatello wrote: »

What Stalin and Hitler both had in common was that they disregarded Christian morality.

You do know that the definition of atheist is not one who disregards christian morality, don't you?

Chuck Stone

Turning the table on atheists? What... making atheists believe in the magic fairy king and making theists believe in being a rational person who isn't a mind slave to an imaginary dictator?

That's interesting!

doomed

I never heard of Patrick Madrid so I am not immediately disposed to regard him as better informed than the average passenger on a Dublin bus.

As to his "argument", dictatorship has nothing to do with the the presence or absence of religious belief. Many of the most repressive regimes in history have had a religious basis of some sort. In the end its about power.

Donatello

Donatello wrote: »

It's not really. Stalin and Mao were atheistic tyrants. Hitler was not a Christian. He couched his ideology in Christian terms, but his was an ideology that found no support in Catholic teaching, and the CC condemned him. The clerics who abused and covered up disregarded the Law of God as well as Canon and state law. Can you see the common thread here? The rejection of the Catholic Church moral teaching by both atheists, and worse of all, those who were supposed to represent Christ. It is shocking and shameful what happened with regard to Hitler and of course the sex abuse within the CC, but my argument is not one-sided. The common theme is those who reject the Law of God which is written on every human heart. Everyone knows it's wrong to kill and rape. The Catholic Church teaches exactly that so your point is invalid.

So, Christianity claims that which humans somehow* know not to do (murder, rape, etc.) as their own, then claims that when people don't do these things, they're not doing them because they're a Christian (or a Muslim, or a Jew). And when they do these things they cease to act as a Christian. I don't see the strength of that argument?

*It's not difficult to explain why we've a natural, internal rejection of acts such as murder and rape. There's no need to invoke a God or objective morality to explain it.

Pygmalion

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

So, Christianity claims that which humans somehow* know not to do (murder, rape, etc.) as their own, then claims that when people don't do these things, they're not doing them because they're a Christian (or a Muslim, or a Jew). And when they do these things they cease to act as a Christian. I don't see the strength of that argument?

It's a pretty strong argument.

Instead of trying to show that Christians (or more specifically Catholics) are better people, which is hard to do (because perhaps it's not true :eek:), you just completely re-define the word "Christian" to mean "Good person".
Then you can honestly say that 100% percent of good people are Christians and 100% of Christians are good people.

The problem arises when for some reason people don't accept your revised version of the dictionary and continue claiming that "Christian" means something to do with belief in Christ.

Donatello

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

So, Christianity claims that which humans somehow* know not to do (murder, rape, etc.) as their own, then claims that when people don't do these things, they're not doing them because they're a Christian (or a Muslim, or a Jew). And when they do these things they cease to act as a Christian. I don't see the strength of that argument?

*It's not difficult to explain why we've a natural, internal rejection of acts such as murder and rape. There's no need to invoke a God or objective morality to explain it.

Do we all have a natural, internal rejection of acts such as murder? Yes, but it can be ignored and suppressed. Abortion, anyone? Let's not forget that the leading abortion campaigners in Ireland are atheists and humanists.

It's funny how an entire quotation was skipped over. Let me present it again:

In the early 1940s, under the Nazi regime itself, Archbishop Clemens August von Galen, the bishop of Münster, infuriated the Nazi regime by denouncing it as a godless ideology opposed to Christianity.

Archbishop von Galen, who would become known to history as the Lion of Münster and who was beatified in 2005 by Pope Benedict XVI, campaigned against the atheistic racialist theories of National Socialism, the euthanasia programs and the Nazi efforts to halt religious instruction in Catholic schools.

In 1941, von Galen began publicly to attack the regime from his cathedral pulpit. In his sermons, he blasted the Nazi regime for its closing of Catholic institutions and deporting and jailing of clergy, for the desecration of Catholic churches, closing of convents and monasteries, and the deportation and euthanasia of mentally ill people.

Von Galen also opposed Stalinist communism for its persecution of Christians since the 1918 revolution, during which virtually all Catholic bishops were killed or imprisoned.

Currently, the movement to reinstate legal euthanasia in Germany and throughout Europe for the mentally ill and physically disabled is being spearheaded and funded by secularist atheist organisations and individuals. As of the beginning of 2009, some form of legal euthanasia have been reinstated in Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Switzerland.

The international academic and scientific world is also seeing a revival of the eugenic theories that formed a significant part of the Nazi ideologies, particularly in the fields associated with genetics and artificial procreation, cloning technologies and in vitro fertilisation. Some prominent atheists in these fields have openly called for the implementation of eugenic policies using modern technologies, including, most prominently, James Watson, the Nobel Prize winning molecular biologist who co-discovered DNA.

[Source]

dvpower

Donatello wrote: »

Everyone knows it's wrong to kill and rape.

And yet the Catholic church at the highest levels have been willing to protect rapists. Perhaps the Pope is not a true Catholic?

Donatello wrote: »

The Catholic Church teaches exactly that so your point is invalid.

If only the the leaders of the Catholic church would more closely follow their own teachings.

AhSureTisGrand

Donatello wrote: »

Do we all have a natural, internal rejection of acts such as murder? Yes, but it can be ignored and suppressed.

And believing in God makes it impossible to do this?

Donatello

Donatello wrote: »

Do we all have a natural, internal rejection of acts such as murder? Yes, but it can be ignored and suppressed. Abortion, anyone? Let's not forget that the leading abortion campaigners in Ireland are atheists and humanists.

Your argument is a little bit all over the place. Any natural, internal inclination we have can be ignored and surpressed, that doesn't say anything. We still have the inclination or, in this case, rejection. If we have that rejection then we don't need your Bible to tell us to not do it.

Are we talking about abortion now? Probably best to leave that to another thread. I'm pro-choice, and I'd imagine a lot of humanists and atheists are, too; not because they're horrible immoral creatures, but because they don't have religion clouding their rational judgement.

It's funny how an entire quotation was skipped over. Let me present it again:

So one bishop cried out against the Nazis? And that's important, how? I'm sure many atheists cried out against the "atheistic regimes" of Stalin and Mao.

I don't see anything wrong with euthanasia, either. If I'm dying a horribly painful death, bound to my bed with no hope of recovery then I'd love to be euthanised. Does that make me an evil person? Hardly. I'm not afraid of death, I'm afraid of dying; so you can see the appeal a painless death would have. Euthanasia against those unwilling to be euthanised is different, though. Atheism has as much to do with that as having black hair has.

yawha

You do realise that atheism is not a unifying ideology? If someone who is an Atheist does or says something, it says about as much about other Atheists as what someone who doesn't like Marmite says or does says about those who dislike Marmite.

Donatello

dvpower wrote: »

And yet the Catholic church at the highest levels have been willing to protect rapists. Perhaps the Pope is not a true Catholic?

If only the the leaders of the Catholic church would more closely follow their own teachings.

That would be right if it was true. Benedict XVI did not cover up abuse. Once you've read all the posts on this blog, come back to me. For now, that is a rabbit hole.

AhSureTisGrand wrote: »

And believing in God makes it impossible to do this?

Those who follow and love Jesus Christ do not kill, they do not rape, fornicate, debase persons in pornography, lie, steal, or kill the unborn.

The demons believe in God and they tremble, but only those who love Jesus Christ in their heart and seek to follow Him with all their strength can avoid all the evil that floods the earth because of the wickedness of men.

MagicMarker

Is Donatello going to I address anyone's points I wonder...?

Gordon

Donatello wrote: »

Those who follow and love Jesus Christ do not kill, they do not rape, fornicate, debase persons in pornography, lie, steal, or kill the unborn.

Bah, he's a troll. Duped!

Opinicus

Donatello wrote: »

Everyone knows it's wrong to kill and rape.

EVERYONE?

Or just Catholics?


Way to blow your own argument into tiny contradictory pieces.

AhSureTisGrand

Donatello wrote: »

Those who follow and love Jesus Christ do not kill, they do not rape, fornicate, debase persons in pornography, lie, steal, or kill the unborn.

And when they do these things...?