Patrick Madrid: Turning the Tables on Atheists

Ickle Magoo

He was my favourite turtle, too - is nothing sacred any more? :mad:

Donatello

AhSureTisGrand wrote: »

And when they do these things...?

Are they being faithful to the author of life?

dvpower

Donatello wrote: »

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.

Nothing bad happens when 'atheistic principles' overtake a society.
Once you've read all the posts here, come back to me. For now, that is a rabbit hole.

AhSureTisGrand

AhSureTisGrand wrote: »

And when they do these things...?

They cease to follow in and love Jesus! It's a perfect definition. By it no true Christian can do wrong because, if they do, the very act of them doing wrong results in them no longer being a true Christian.

It's a logical masterpiece.

yawha

Guys, it's simple.

Every time you do something bad it's because you're not following Jesus Christ.

Every time you do something good it's because you're following Jesus Christ. Even if you don't believe in or think you are following Him, you were doing it in the name of our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ.

AhSureTisGrand

Donatello wrote: »

Are they being faithful to the author of life?

Yes

Chuck Stone

Stop shouting yahew - that's what evangelicals do.

Donatello

dvpower wrote: »

Nothing bad happens when 'atheistic principles' overtake a society.
Once you've read all the posts here, come back to me. For now, that is a rabbit hole.

I've made the point before; let me make it again: the Christian faith is the only defense against absolute humanism which results in absolute despotism. Are all atheists despots? No. Is the Christian faith the only sure defense against atheistic despotism? Yes.

Only the Catholic faith defends and protects the dignity of all human persons, born and unborn.

(I realise the sexual abuse crisis causes some to find this claim hard to accept. That is most unfortunate, both the abuse inflicted on innocent victims, but it in no way diminishes the truth of that claim. Does it damage the mission of the Church? You bet.

robindch

Donatello wrote: »

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.

A couple of things that you might not have learned in the local church-controlled schools:

1. The treaty concluded between the Nazi's and the Vatican is still used to regular the relationship between the modern German state and the Vatican.

2. Hitler gained dictatorial powers only because a right wing catholic political party (which was run by an ordained catholic priest) gave him the Reichstag votes he needed.

3. Hitler was baptized a catholic and attended catholic religious services as a boy. I don't believe that the Vatican ever excommunicated him, either while he was alive, nor since his death.

Donatello

yawha wrote: »

Guys, it's simple.

Every time you do something bad it's because you're not following Jesus Christ.

Every time you do something good it's because you're following Jesus Christ. Even if you don't believe in or think you are following Him, you were doing it in the name of our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ.

You are on to something. God is love, God is truth and goodness. God is the author of life.

Whenever you do something that is good, then yes, you are serving God!

Donatello

Donatello wrote: »

I've made the point before; let me make it again: the Christian faith is the only defense against absolute humanism which results in absolute despotism. Are all atheists despots? No. Is the Christian faith the only sure defense against atheistic despotism? Yes.

Only the Catholic faith defends and protects the dignity of all human persons, born and unborn.

(I realise the sexual abuse crisis causes some to find this claim hard to accept. That is most unfortunate, both the abuse inflicted on innocent victims, but it in no way diminishes the truth of that claim. Does it damage the mission of the Church? You bet.

Now you're just making stuff up.

You've far too high a regard for the church. I wish you could see it for what it really is, but, being so close to it, that's probably impossible.

robindch

Donatello wrote: »

I've made the point before; let me make it again: the Christian faith is the only defense against absolute humanism which results in absolute despotism.

Yes, sitting down an discussing in depth with one's neighbours, finding out what's important to them, listening to their views and accommodating them where possible is just so frightfully despotic, isn't it?

I vote that we should copy the catholics and find a few overweight, elderly, cossetted and sexless men so that, on our behalf, then can elect a former Nazi to run our little in-group!

No chance of despotism then, eh?

Chuck Stone

Donatello wrote: »

Only the Catholic faith defends and protects the dignity of all human persons, born and unborn.

And has killed hundreds of thousands of people because condoms are more evil than having sex in an environment with life threatening diseases.

:rolleyes:

yawha

Donatello wrote: »

You are on to something. God is love, God is truth and goodness. God is the author of life.

Whenever you do something that is good, then yes, you are serving God!

You do realise you're not making any points? You're just preaching at us. You're not getting through to anyone. We don't even think any kind of gods exist in the first place.

dvpower

Donatello wrote: »

I've made the point before; let me make it again: the Christian faith is the only defense against absolute humanism which results in absolute despotism. Are all atheists despots? No. Is the Christian faith the only sure defense against atheistic despotism? Yes.

I wasn't even aware of the threat of atheistic despotism. What exactly is it?
Are you inventing an illness that only your snake oil can cure?

Galvasean

Donatello wrote: »

God is removed, misery and killing on a massive scale result.

So why is it that the people of the Czech Republic aren't slaughtering each other on a massed scale?

(yah, I didn't read the full thread. Sorry if someone has made this point already)

Pygmalion

yawha wrote: »

You do realise you're not making any points? You're just preaching at us. You're not getting through to anyone. We don't even think any kind of gods exist in the first place.

He's sticking to what he knows, and rational debate clearly isn't something he's familiar with.
Probably for the best he's not trying to actually debate.

Donatello

robindch wrote: »

A couple of things that you might not have learned in the local church-controlled schools:

1. The treaty concluded between the Nazi's and the Vatican is still used to regular the relationship between the modern German state and the Vatican.

2. Hitler gained dictatorial powers only because a right wing catholic political party (which was run by an ordained catholic priest) gave him the Reichstag votes he needed.

3. Hitler was baptized a catholic and attended catholic religious services as a boy. I don't believe that the Vatican ever excommunicated him, either while he was alive, nor since his death.

1. The treaty sought to protect the interests of the Church in its freedom to further its salvific mission.

2. Catholics and the Nazi vote 1932

3. Hitler was responsible for murder of innocents, which incurs latae sententiæ excommunication. He was also extremely active in the occult. This is heresy and likewise incurs automatic excommunication. If Hitler actually WERE a catholic when he started his evil acts, his very first ones automatically excommunicated him anyway. Hitler had left the faith by the age of 21. Apostasy is already excommunication in fact. By his own actions, it was clear he had apostatized. Excommunication is simply a statement by the Church that a person is no longer in communion with the Church. Sometimes it is not obvious, and the Church declares publicly what has already happened. I think of the case of abortion, which is commonly made light of today. Abortion incurs a latæ sententiæ excommunication (by the very act of abortion it is incurred automatically). The Church uses excommunication declarations to warn the faithful about dangers to the faith. like I said, many people make light of abortion and attempted women's ordination, so the Church announces infractions against this. All Catholics in Germany knew what Hitler was doing. The Church condemned him. There was no need for excommunication- Hitler had already excommunicated himself by his apostasy, and as if that weren't enough, his multitude of mortal sins committed after that event.

Excommunication is not a political action used to seperate the Church from evildoers. I think people are confused about the purpose and nature of ecommunication. It isn't to punish a person and let the world know that the Church disagrees with their actions, it is to let the faithful know that the actions or theological beliefs of a so-called Catholic, are heretical. This is to prevent others from being led astray.

There are many excommunicated Catholics. They do this to themselves by their actions. Not everyone's excommunication is formally announced. Excommunication is the consequence of an action, not a punishment by the Church meant to prove something to the world. I excommunicate myself if I fall into mortal sin.

You can't be excommunicated after death! That makes no sense. It reveals a misunderstanding about what excommunication is and is not.

yawha

Donatello does machines!!!

dvpower

Donatello wrote: »

3. Hitler was responsible for murder of innocents, which incurs latae sententiæ excommunication.

Problem solved so. Catholics can do no wrong, because those who do wrong are no longer Catholics.

Corkfeen

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.

Pope Urban 2 sent Armies to fight for Jerusalem, in the process of capturing Jerusalem, they slaughtered all Christians and Muslims present. They were promised indulgences and it was considered a holy war. I would consider it a Christian plan considering the church themselves organised it. But this is only one example from just the first of the crusades. But the Church defined it as moral at the time, so it was okay, right?

Tonyandthewhale

Donatello wrote: »

2. Catholics and the Nazi vote 1932

That map shows that nazi's weren't as popular in the Catholic areas of Germany. This is down to politics, demographics and the pragmatic priorities of the voters, not morality. Many Catholics in Germany instead voted for the deeply conservative Catholic party who went into coalition with the Nazi's, allowing them to seize power. That's hardly a compelling argument for impeachable Catholic morality.

Chuck Stone

Corkfeen wrote: »

Pope Urban 2 sent Armies to fight for Jerusalem, in the process of capturing Jerusalem, they slaughtered all Christians and Muslims present. They were promised indulgences and it was considered a holy war. I would consider it a Christian plan considering the church themselves organised it. But this is only one example from just the first of the crusades. But the Church defined it as moral at the time, so it was okay, right?

Yes because you kill everyone and God will look after the details.

That's theist logic 4ya.

Religion is evil.

robindch

Donatello wrote: »

1. The treaty sought to protect the interests of the Church [...]

Agreed. The morality of the Nazi state was irrelevant to the Vatican.

Donatello wrote: »

2. Catholics and the Nazi vote 1932

You perhaps didn't read the point I made, but Father Ludwig Kaas and the catholic Center Party of which he was chairman, provided the crucial votes which enabled Hitler to assume dictatorial powers via the Enabling Act. More on that here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act_of_1933

Donatello wrote: »

3. [...] blather about Hitler [...]

Hitler was born and raised a catholic. This does faintly suggest that your claim that the catholic church is necessary to prevent despotism may not be fully accurate.

BTW, I mentioned above that Ratzinger was a Nazi. I stand corrected. He was of course for several years a member of the Hitler Youth, which I had incorrectly assumed implied that he was, de facto, a member of the Nazi Party. Ratzinger -- according to his own account in his pompous, dreary and self-exculpating memoir "The Salt of the Earth" -- also helped the German army by manning an anti-aircraft battery and by doing so, chose to put his life on the line for the benefit of the Nazi state.

.

CerebralCortex

Donatello wrote: »

You are on to something. God is love, God is truth and goodness. God is the author of life.

Whenever you do something that is good, then yes, you are serving God!

Don't forget that the god you speak of is the author of everything by your definition thus is a contradiction in terms because he created evil too. Does that not bother you?

Donatello

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Don't forget that the god you speak of is the author of everything by your definition thus is a contradiction in terms because he created evil too. Does that not bother you?

Evil is the privation of good.

oldrnwisr

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

They cease to follow in and love Jesus! It's a perfect definition. By it no true Christian can do wrong because, if they do, the very act of them doing wrong results in them no longer being a true Christian.

It's a logical masterpiece.

I wouldn't mention logic if I were you JammyDodger, it's not really Donatello's strong suit. A quick summary so far:

Donatello wrote: »

Is the Christian faith the only sure defense against atheistic despotism? Yes.

Appeal to Consequences of a Belief

Donatello wrote: »

[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.]

No True Scotsman


Anyway back to Donatello's "points".

Donatello wrote: »

when God is removed, misery and killing on a massive scale result.

Hmm, lets see about that. Let's have a look at murder rates:




Look what we have here. Top of the pile is Mexico, a country where 92.4% of the population is Christian. In last place Japan where less than 1% is Christian.

As for rape:



What do you know, Japan has the lowest rate again. And this time it's Australia at the top with a 64% Christian population.

It's the same story with other societal health factors as well such as teen pregnancy, divorce, abortion. When it comes to abortion for example the statistics show that the largest number of women having abortions is Protestants with 37.4% followed by Catholics with 31.3%. The preponderence of studies dealing with societal health show a strong negative correlation with religiosity, particularly Christianity.

Donatello wrote: »

For the Catholic, there is indeed an absolute moral code.

Bull****. The church keeps changing its mind all the time. Take abortion for example. Early christians considered abortion to be a sin but Catholic theologians beginnning with Augustine of Hippo began to use Aristotle's idea of delayed ensoulment namely that the foetus developed in three stages of vegetable, animal and rational. Anselm of Canterbury in the 11th century wrote that abortion was acceptable within the first 116 days saying "no human intellect accepts the view that an infant has the rational soul from the moment of conception." This view was echoed by Thomas Aquinas and was the official church position until being prohibited by Pope Pius IX in 1869.

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.

Quick question at this point. Is it your opinion that the Catholic Church's teaching with their foundations in the ten commandments is the only absolute moral code? If so, then how do you explain countries which retain morality in the absence of religion i.e. Japan, and countries which had moral codes before the introduction of Christianity (e.g. England) or before the birth of Christianity (e.g. Sumeria). If not, then on what basis do you claim that Christianity is the only defense against totalitarianism.

Donatello wrote: »

the Christian God, a God Who is reasonable and good, unlike the capricious God of Islam, which is unreasonable

Don't make me laugh. Your God is just as capricious as Allah (given that they're both based on the same stories) if not more so. The God of your Bible advocates or condones animal cruelty, human sacrifice, murder, genocide, child abuse, child molestation, incest etc. etc. Your God's a prick, pure and simple. The stories written about him such as they are were written by a bunch of ignorant, tribal savages and have inspired more bloodshed than any other religion. If the Bible is an accurate character portrayal of your God then I'll take a first class window seat straight to hell thanks very much. Aint no way I'm spending eternity with that small-minded, petty little sadist.

B_Fanatic

Hitler? Mustache. Stalin? Mustache. That creepy guy who sits on park bench over looking the jungle gym children's area? You guessed it, Mustache. Obviously the only logical explanation is that all mustached men are killer, sadistic, child molesting bastards.

On another note: yes, I do believe that morales are concepts developed by society and that is the only reason why I tolerate religion. It promotes a set of morals that is more productive for everyone once applied right. And why do i believe this? Children reared by wolves do not have morales that are on par with standard human morals.

Psychopaths. Psychopaths aren't 'souless maniacs.' (Unless your definiton of a soul is a consious being with morals?) Accompanying this lack of morals is often a severe change in the working of the brain. This suggests that there is one variable changing that has several outcomes, in opposed to *pang* demon spawn. You could argue that god made chromosomes and everything but you'd be a person who, if immortal, would continuously change his/her beliefs with scientific development all in a bid to make it easier for your mind to justify your beliefs.

Another note: One of the reasons video gaming is addictive is because after hours of playing it, your mind says, 'hey, I just spent hours playing this game. Therefore it must be worth my time because I'M doing it.' You could apply the same thing to religion. You spend your entire life following it so changing your beliefs now would render all of the efforts you put into your religion meaningless.

"The biggest enemy of truth is not lies, but beliefs." - a horrible paraphrase of an awesome quote by... ?

Edit: Wow you guys are making some serious arguments. I kind of regret chiming in... Not entirely sure what I got myself into.

Donatello

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Bull****. The church keeps changing its mind all the time. Take abortion for example. Early christians considered abortion to be a sin but Catholic theologians beginnning with Augustine of Hippo began to use Aristotle's idea of delayed ensoulment namely that the foetus developed in three stages of vegetable, animal and rational. Anselm of Canterbury in the 11th century wrote that abortion was acceptable within the first 116 days saying "no human intellect accepts the view that an infant has the rational soul from the moment of conception." This view was echoed by Thomas Aquinas and was the official church position until being prohibited by Pope Pius IX in 1869.

Were the debates about ensoulment connected with a desire to justify abortion in some cases? Here's some background reading on that issue: http://usccb.org/prolife/constantchurchteaching.shtml

Re: Your other point: cultural Christians who do not live the faith from the heart are not, by definition, true Christians. Mock away, but it's true.

The Mad Hatter

Donatello wrote: »

Were the debates about ensoulment connected with a desire to justify abortion in some cases? Here's some background reading on that issue: http://usccb.org/prolife/constantchurchteaching.shtml

Re: Your other point: cultural Christians who do not live the faith from the heart are not, by definition, true Christians. Mock away, but it's true.

No true Scotsman (again)...

CerebralCortex

Donatello wrote: »

Evil is the privation of good.

Yes but still created by your god.

liamw

Logical Fallacies 101 - Donatello's thread in A&A.

I love how you think your have an objective morality just becuase human morals from thousands of years ago were written in a book by ignorant desert goat herders.

sponsoredwalk

Malty_T wrote: »

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.

Remembering this was enough to tell me it wasn't worth posting a serious
argument.

B_Fanatic wrote: »

Hitler? Mustache. Stalin? Mustache. That creepy guy who sits on park bench over looking the jungle gym children's area? You guessed it, Mustache. Obviously the only logical explanation is that all mustached men are killer, sadistic, child molesting bastards.

This sums up the logic of the arguments put forth.

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.

This video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZr-JZYctvA

is evidence of your claims, I advise you to watch it to see how well
the evidence supports your claims.

Donatello wrote: »

the Christian God, a God Who is reasonable and good, unlike the capricious God of Islam, which is unreasonable

This video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PK7P7uZFf5o

justifies your claim here, again I advise you to see it to garner more
evidence of how with god all is not possible (but arrows drunk with
blood certainly are).

MrPudding

liamw wrote: »

Logical Fallacies 101 - Donatello's thread in A&A.

I love how you think your have an objective morality just becuase human morals from thousands of years ago were written in a book by ignorant desert goat herders.

Not only that, those morals existed for many years prior to the ignorant goat herders writing them down.

The thing I find funny is this attitude that mankind could not survive and society would crumble without christianity. Mankind, and civilisation such as it was, survived a lot longer without christianity than it has with it.

Many societies managed to decide, all by themselves, that certain behaviours were wrong. How come history is littered with the discovery of tribe that never heard of christianity? How did they survive?

This is yet another example of donattello trying to project his inadequacies on everyone else. I pity people like him. Hating and doubting yourself so much that you have to resort to a despicable organisation like the rcc, lead by a child rape enabler to tell you how to live your life is a very sad place to be.

MrP

liamw

MrPudding wrote: »

Not only that, those morals existed for many years prior to the ignorant goat herders writing them down.

Of course, our 'morals' have shifted (for the better). The writings in the bible are merely a snapshot of what was deemed right and wrong at the time. Of course if you and I were born back then, it's likely we wouldn't see an issue with slavery either.

Donatello seems to have a notion that since this sense of right and wrong changes somewhat with the times, in a few decades we'll be back thinking slavery is OK. On the contrary, it would seem that our ethical guidelines over the centuries have adhered more to the Golden Rule and strived to minimize affliction of pain on other sentient beings.

It wouldn't surprise me if, in a few decades, that we look at one eating meat with disgust. That is, if we cannot grow our meat artficially through stem cells in the laboratory by then.

The thing I find funny is this attitude that mankind could not survive and society would crumble without christianity. Mankind, and civilisation such as it was, survived a lot longer without christianity than it has with it.

Many societies managed to decide, all by themselves, that certain behaviours were wrong. How come history is littered with the discovery of tribe that never heard of christianity? How did they survive?

Don't you know, before the Bible was written there was no sense of right and wrong anywhere! People used to go around stabbing and raping each other for fun.

Wait, how come chimpanzee are altruistic and display 'good' behaviour even though they can't read or understand the Bible? Hmmm Donatello help me out here.

Monty Burnz

Donatello wrote: »

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.'"

I thought that what is 'good' and 'bad' is only so because 'God' deems it to be good or bad? A central tenet of Christianity is that there is no absolute standard of right and wrong, only God's subjective view on things. Whereas I do have an absolute standard - things that harm people are bad, and things that help them are good.

Whereas if God decides that it is good to kill babies or whatever, then that is good according to Christians.

Monty Burnz

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I thought that what is 'good' and 'bad' is only so because 'God' deems it to be good or bad? A central tenet of Christianity is that there is no absolute standard of right and wrong, only God's subjective view on things. Whereas I do have an absolute standard - things that harm people are bad, and things that help them are good.

Whereas if God decides that it is good to kill babies or whatever, then that is good according to Christians.

But god wouldn't kill babies. Because that is wrong. Why is it wrong? Because my conscience says so. Where do I get my moral conscience? From god alone - what god says is good!

etc

oh and p.s. - free will & mysterious ways!
:rolleyes:

Zombrex

Donatello wrote: »

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.'"
...
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.

Wow, what a whopper of a contradiction.

So God existing doesn't stop believers from doing bad things. But God not existing is some how bad because then people will do bad things?

As I see it, based on history, there are 4 possibilities

God exists/People believe he exists
Totalitarian regimes that abuse power, kill innocent people, oppress right and liberties exist in the world.

God exists/People don't believe he exists
Totalitarian regimes that abuse power, kill innocent people, oppress right and liberties, exist in the world.

God doesn't exists/People believe he exists
Totalitarian regimes that abuse power, kill innocent people, oppress right and liberties, exist in the world.

God doesn't exists/People don't believe he exists
Totalitarian regimes that abuse power, kill innocent people, oppress right and liberties, exist in the world.

You will notice the existence of God either way does nothing. Neither does the belief in God. The Popes and Kings of Europe were running totalitarian regimes for centuries before Lenin came along.

As we like to say around these parts the existence of a God that doesn't interact with anyone looks the same as the non-existence of God. There has never been a single verifiable event where God has done anything to stop a war or genocide.

What is bad is absolutism, whether it is the doctrine of Communism in Russia, or the authority of Rome in Europe. Lenin and Stalin maintained absolute power and authority in Russia under the cause that they knew what was best, and anyone who disagreed with them was not only wrong but evil and working against society.

Sound familiar?

While the absolutism of Marxism barely managed to last a century (it is very difficult to imagine the October revolution happening again in the western world where we scrutinize every political leader and debate every political idea with modern technology) religious absolutism continues because unlike Stalin and Lenin you never get to pull back the curtain behind God and see that it is just a man pulling levers and dials.

robindch

Wicknight wrote: »

What is bad is absolutism, whether it is the doctrine of Communism in Russia, or the authority of Rome in Europe.

It's not so much absolutism, but rather totalitarianism -- the idea that all authority in all spheres does, or should, reside within the ambit of a single individual or organization. An entity which, having acquired power, then devotes its time and energy to preserving it.

Totalitarian creeds tend to be characterized by personality cults, lengthy and contradictory ideologies, pervasive propaganda, intense politicization, and a belief that the law doesn't apply to it, particularly when the ism has acquired state backing.

In these terms, communism, catholicism and nazism are simple examples of totalitarian creeds.

Zombrex

Donatello wrote: »

Evil is the privation of good.

Evil is anything that is not God's will. Since God's own existence was not a product of God's will (it wasn't a product of anything, he just exists and always has) then by definition God's existence is evil.

This is why definitions of good that are tied to God are paradoxical.

Zombrex

Donatello wrote: »

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

And which Christian moral did they disregard exactly?

Zombrex

robindch wrote: »

It's not so much absolutism, but rather totalitarianism -- the idea that all authority in all spheres does, or should, reside within the ambit of a single individual or organization. An entity which, having acquired power, then devotes its time and energy to preserving it.

Totalitarian creeds tend to be characterized by personality cults, lengthy and contradictory ideologies, pervasive propaganda, intense politicization, and a belief that the law doesn't apply to it, particularly when the ism has acquired state backing.

In these terms, communism, catholicism and nazism are simple examples of totalitarian creeds.

Yes totalitarian creed is probably a better term for it. Ultimately what I mean, and I may not be using the right word, but is the absolute belief in an idea or doctrine so much so that the idea that it might be wrong is not simply considered a difference of opinion but considered evil in of itself.

robindch

Wicknight wrote: »

the absolute belief in an idea or doctrine so much so that the idea that it might be wrong is not simply considered a difference of opinion but considered evil in of itself.

Hmm... not sure what you'd call that. Moral totalitarianism, perhaps?

Anyhow, now that you mention it, you're quite right -- most totalitarian creeds insist that they're morally perfect, and that anybody who disagrees is, de facto, a moral threat to the ideology, and hence to the community; thus neatly legitimizing threats and more of violence of one kind or another against the unfortunate perp. And also, if somebody breaches the actual (rare) or perceived (very common) moral code, you'll normally see that the totalitarianism will immediately claim that since the code is perfect, that the person must have been a bad apple.

Of course, you can't have it both ways -- either the ideology is responsible for social behaviour (in which case, the ideology is responsible for what its adherents do and can't wash its hands of them), or it isn't responsible for social behaviour (so why all the hectoring, and the claims of moral authority and perfection?)

And thus, we end up with donatello claiming above somewhere that societies without catholicism are doomed, despite the stench of corruption which clings, greasily and very unhappily, to the Vatican from the very bottom, to the very top.

Donatello

Wicknight wrote: »

Evil is anything that is not God's will. Since God's own existence was not a product of God's will (it wasn't a product of anything, he just exists and always has) then by definition God's existence is evil.

This is why definitions of good that are tied to God are paradoxical.

I said evil was the privation of Good. In any case, God's will is for the good, the true, and the beautiful. Sin fails on all counts.

God is love. God is ultimate, eternal being. I therefore reject your false claim that God's existence is evil. Back to the drawing board with that one!

Mark200

Donatello wrote: »

I said evil was the privation of Good. In any case, God's will is for the good, the true, and the beautiful. Sin fails on all counts.

God is love. God is ultimate, eternal being. I therefore reject your false claim that God's existence is evil. Back to the drawing board with that one!

How do you know God is good, if your morals come from him?

Also just because you happen to 'reject' a claim that you don't agree with, does not mean it's wrong.

You saying over and over to yourself (like you're brainwashing yourself) "God is love" does not make it so, and is just as valid as someone saying over and over that he's not.

robindch

Mark200 wrote: »

"God is love" does not make it so

Was it last year, perhaps the year before, where there was a thread which discussed the banality and meaninglessness of most religious language. Several religious posters objected, so they were asked to explain in clear and unambiguous terms what some religious phrase actually meant. I think it was Wicknight who suggested that somebody explain "God is love".

Unfortunately, we never heard back from anybody on the topic :rolleyes:

Monty Burnz

Donatello wrote: »

I said evil was the privation of Good. In any case, God's will is for the good, the true, and the beautiful. Sin fails on all counts.

God is love. God is ultimate, eternal being. I therefore reject your false claim that God's existence is evil. Back to the drawing board with that one!

But your God (I'm not sure about the other ones, to be honest) doesn't have any absolute values of good or evil, does he? A lot of the time, he's blasting people with his wrath, or killing the world's population bar 8 people or whatever. The next thing, he's telling us that killing is wrong.

My value system is absolute - his isn't. He seems to think that killing people willy-nilly is bad one day, and good the next.

Now, other gods may be more consistent than your one - but don't you think it's a bit odd to accuse me of having no absolute moral values, when the god in your stories behaves in that fashion?

Zombrex

Donatello wrote: »

I said evil was the privation of Good. In any case, God's will is for the good, the true, and the beautiful. Sin fails on all counts.

God is love. God is ultimate, eternal being. I therefore reject your false claim that God's existence is evil. Back to the drawing board with that one!

It is not my claim, I don't think God exists in the first place. It is though unfortunately for Christians an inevitable conclusion of defining good and evil in direct relation to God.

Perhaps you don't do this, but many Christians do. They believe good is what God does, rather than God does good (which requires good to be something separate from God that he follows).

While you are listing off the tired old chants of Christianity (God is good! God is love!) you will actually find that most atheists have given this issue a lot more consideration than most Christians.

Zombrex

robindch wrote: »

Was it last year, perhaps the year before, where there was a thread which discussed the banality and meaninglessness of most religious language. Several religious posters objected, so they were asked to explain in clear and unambiguous terms what some religious phrase actually meant. I think it was Wicknight who suggested that somebody explain "God is love".

Unfortunately, we never heard back from anybody on the topic :rolleyes:

Every night at midnight I return to that thread to sit solemn and somber and await a response. It never comes...
:pac:

krudler

Monty Burnz wrote: »

But your God (I'm not sure about the other ones, to be honest) doesn't have any absolute values of good or evil, does he? A lot of the time, he's blasting people with his wrath, or killing the world's population bar 8 people or whatever. The next thing, he's telling us that killing is wrong.

My value system is absolute - his isn't. He seems to think that killing people willy-nilly is bad one day, and good the next.

Now, other gods may be more consistent than your one - but don't you think it's a bit odd to accuse me of having no absolute moral values, when the god in your stories behaves in that fashion?

Better than with piss anyway