Debating With Militant Atheists

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='Aragon' timestamp='1344998444' post='2467734']
The "credentials for salvation" are simple: membership in the Catholic Church and dying in a state of grace.
[/quote]
That has been debated numerous times on this forum and it's off topic, so I'm not going there again. But there is a scripture regarding making judgments. On that basis I personally am not prepared to say that a person does or does not have salvation because of xyz. I am allowed to have the hope of salvation for all people. Whether that is by eventual admission to the Catholic Church or simply by Gods awsome love of all creation I will leave to him.

[quote name='Aragon' timestamp='1344998444' post='2467734']
- and we do a discredit and injustice to non-Catholics when we give them the impression that they're fine and dandy as they are.
[/quote]
Non of us are fine and dandy and it does a discredit and injustice to Catholics to let them think that all they have to do is go to Mass, confess to a priest whether repentant or not and they are fine. God has much expectation from those to what talents he gives.

Edited August 15, 2012 by Mark of the Cross

[Amory]

[quote name='Aragon' timestamp='1344998444' post='2467734']
The "credentials for salvation" are simple: membership in the Catholic Church and dying in a state of grace. Membership in the Catholic Church is ordinarily by water baptism and the ordinary means of acquiring and maintaining a state of grace are the Catholic sacraments. In extraordinary circumstances, for those who through no fault of their own do not know the Truth, they might be united to the Church [i]in voto - [/i]by baptism of desire.
[/quote]

I'd actually say that dying in the state of grace is the only requirement for attaining salvation, but that membership in the Church is a necessary condition for attaining the state of grace.

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1344956470' post='2467509']
Fanaticism on either end of the spectrum doesn't make it true.
I identify as atheist, but I would sacrifice my life for my wife, children, family, friends. I have been in situations that I've risked my safety for a stranger. As you well know, people have different depths of understanding and commitment to what we think we believe.

I'm annoyed at militant 'anything' that refuse to consider a different perspective or challenge their own understanding.
[/quote]

Possibly you have that sacrificial love because of christ, he is everywhere you know. And based on the fact that the U.S.A 's foundation is prodomitaley christian whether catholic christian or not. Many outside of the church still retain certain morals of holy scripture and chusrch tradition. OH MY GOD (covers face.) it's true.

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

[quote name='Amory' timestamp='1345014156' post='2467830']
I'd actually say that dying in the state of grace is the only requirement for attaining salvation, but that membership in the Church is a necessary condition for attaining the state of grace.
[/quote]

I would say jesus said "be baptised and believe and you will be saved." "there are other flocks that belong to me." "those outside will be judged by the law written on there own heart." "any one whom speaks in my name can eventually do no evil."

[Slappo]

[quote name='Amory' timestamp='1345014156' post='2467830']
I'd actually say that dying in the state of grace is the only requirement for attaining salvation, but that membership in the Church is a necessary condition for attaining the state of grace.
[/quote]

[b]Membership [/b]in the Church is not a necessary condition for attaining the state of grace, but baptism is. Unless you use a very broad sense of the word "membership" and by "membership" mean all Christians (baptized with water using the approved trinitarian formula).

A baptized protestant can be in the state of grace if invincibly ignorant or makes a perfect act of contrition.

[Nihil Obstat]

These days I don't really have much interest at all in debates, so if I'm going to talk with an atheist I'd rather talk about what they believe, and what I believe, and why I think what I believe is important. If they want to listen, then we talk more. If all they want to do is mock Christianity, then fine. I haven't really lost anything.
I had a rather fruitful discussion with an atheist once. Not a debate, but a discussion. We talked about the concepts of love and sacrifice and happiness. I asked him if he believed in love, how he could 'prove' love. It wasn't exactly a rigorous philosophical debate, but I think he really stopped to think after I had to go.
In that same vein, that's why I'm interested right now in phenomenology.

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='Tab'le Du'Bah-Rye' timestamp='1345016786' post='2467838']
I would say jesus said "be baptised and believe and you will be saved." "[b]there are other flocks that belong to me." "those outside will be judged by the law written on there own heart.[/b]" "any one whom speaks in my name can eventually do no evil."
[/quote]
Thanks for that, I just wish to add that those are members of the catholic (universal) Church which is inclusive of but not specifically limited to the Roman Catholic Church. People are often confused into thinking it is. I recently had a debate with one of our colleagues. I thought I had him cornered when I threw a few CCC's at him, but he then tells me he is Eastern Catholic and not bound by CCC's or Vatican 2.

[quote name='Slappo' timestamp='1345062267' post='2468180']
[b]Membership [/b]in the Church is not a necessary condition for attaining the state of grace, but baptism is. Unless you use a very broad sense of the word "membership" and by "membership" mean all Christians (baptized with water using the approved trinitarian formula).

A baptized protestant can be in the state of grace if invincibly ignorant or makes a perfect act of contrition.
[/quote]
I'd like to make a note also that baptism is not complete with just water. Baptism by the Holy Spirit is the important condition and the former may be attained by desire. I recommend people view Father Barron's video[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZ1pLyLdnhM"]' Born again!'[/url] and [url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5GIRMwCk1o0"]additional commentary[/url] particularly note starting at 35sec.

Invincible Ignorance
Some people also seem to consider invincible ignorance as a rare condition. Undoubtedly there are some who know all about Jesus but have a burning hatred of God and refuse to accept him. But I would ask if in general a person[b] knew [/b]the requirement for salvation why would they not accept it? You can't say to an atheist "unless you become a Catholic and confess your sins you can't be saved." and consider that they know. How do they know that you know what you are talking about. The only way that they can know is if the Holy Spirit guides them into listening to you. Therefore it is impossible for anyone to state who is or isn't invincibly ignorant. So I would suggest that such determinations should be avoided with discussions with atheists.

[Slappo]

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' timestamp='1345072363' post='2468288']
I'd like to make a note also that baptism is not complete with just water. Baptism by the Holy Spirit is the important condition and the former may be attained by desire. I recommend people view Father Barron's video[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZ1pLyLdnhM"]' Born again!'[/url] and [url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5GIRMwCk1o0"]additional commentary[/url] particularly note starting at 35sec.
[/quote]

can't watch the video right now (at work), but if you're referring to some sort of baptism in the spirit as indicated by the charismatic renewal, that would not be sufficient "baptism" for salvation.

Water and the Trinitarian formula is the accepted sacramental baptism that washes away the stain of original sin. There is a baptism of desire or baptism of blood, but there is no way to know if they actually had a baptism of desire or baptism of blood. I wouldn't refer to people who [b]may or may not [/b]have recieved a baptism of desire or baptism of blood as Christians, as we don't really know if they were baptized upon death.

[CatherineM]

I don't debate with atheists anymore. Life is too short to hit your head bloody against the wall. There are so many Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses to debate with instead.

[Anomaly]

An atheist isn't too concerned about making the grade for an afterlife. We live in the now. Nor do we have to "prove" love. We see it, and feel it. The leap is for theists who try to attribute human love completely to some cognizant and omnipotent deity that parcels it out according to capricious whims.
I would think most theists and atheists could easily coexist quite happily until either tries to convince the other they can't possibly experience the live that both experience.

[r2Dtoo]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1344961421' post='2467523']
[color=#282828][font=Segoe UI', 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]“Supposing there was no intelligence behind the universe, no creative mind. In that case, nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking. It is merely that when the atoms inside my skull happen, for physical or chemical reasons, to arrange themselves in a certain way, this gives me, as a by-product, the sensation I call thought. But, if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true? It’s like upsetting a milk jug and hoping that the way it splashes itself will give you a map of London. But if I can’t trust my own thinking, of course I can’t trust the arguments leading to Atheism, and therefore have no reason to be an Atheist, or anything else. Unless I believe in God, I cannot believe in thought: so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God.” - C.S. Lewis, The Case for Christianity, p. 32 [/font][/color]
[/quote]
Well, yes, none of us can ultimately trust in our own thoughts. Consider the plight of the insane man who genuinely believes that he is actually sane as almost always is the case. Therefore, someone honest with reason and logic would have to conclude that anyone of us could be insane at this very moment and have no idea of our condition. Arguing that this means I should trust in the thought processes of others, who have just as much of a chance of being insane as I do is ridiculous, however. Of course one could try and say that the term "insane" is really just a label given to those not within the mental norms of the majority, and therefore one should democratically conclude that God must exist due to the commonness of belief vs disbelief, but why should I trust in that definition of insanity? Is it not possible that through evolution a minority can come to surpass a majority through enhanced survivability traits?

[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1344956470' post='2467509']
Fanaticism on either end of the spectrum doesn't make it true.
I identify as atheist, but I would sacrifice my life for my wife, children, family, friends. I have been in situations that I've risked my safety for a stranger. As you well know, people have different depths of understanding and commitment to what we think we believe.

I'm annoyed at militant 'anything' that refuse to consider a different perspective or challenge their own understanding.
[/quote]
What on earth? Two atheists have actually agreed upon something! I believe this is the part where the universe is supposed to implode.

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1345066082' post='2468220']
These days I don't really have much interest at all in debates, so if I'm going to talk with an atheist I'd rather talk about what they believe, and what I believe, and why I think what I believe is important. If they want to listen, then we talk more. If all they want to do is mock Christianity, then fine. I haven't really lost anything.
[b]I had a rather fruitful discussion with an atheist once. Not a debate, but a discussion. We talked about the concepts of love and sacrifice and happiness. I asked him if he believed in love, how he could 'prove' love. It wasn't exactly a rigorous philosophical debate, but I think he really stopped to think after I had to go.[/b]
In that same vein, that's why I'm interested right now in phenomenology.
[/quote]
Interesting. Ok, I'll play. Love originated as a survivability trait in female [i]homo sapiens[/i] as the motivation to protect their offspring so that they could survive to be able to pass along their genes. Proof? I think we can reasonably agree that most mothers would die for their offspring, and well, we're here aren't we?

[Jaime]

[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1345080044' post='2468330']
An atheist isn't too concerned about making the grade for an afterlife. We live in the now. Nor do we have to "prove" love. We see it, and feel it. The leap is for theists who try to attribute human love completely to some cognizant and omnipotent deity that parcels it out according to capricious whims.
I would think most theists and atheists could easily coexist quite happily until either tries to convince the other they can't possibly experience the live that both experience.
[/quote]

My personal experience is that most if not all atheists double dip their chips in the community dip.

[Groo the Wanderer]

they pee in the pool too

[Adrestia]

C. S. Lewis. He makes the most scientific and logical arguments for the existence of God. [i]Miracles[/i]. It's a great book. No atheist with a brain can refute his arguments. They would need a leap of faith to continue being atheist.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1345080044' post='2468330']
An atheist isn't too concerned about making the grade for an afterlife. We live in the now. Nor do we have to "prove" love. We see it, and feel it. The leap is for theists who try to attribute human love completely to some cognizant and omnipotent deity that parcels it out according to capricious whims.
I would think most theists and atheists could easily coexist quite happily until either tries to convince the other they can't possibly experience the live that both experience.
[/quote]
[quote name='r2Dtoo' timestamp='1345082909' post='2468358']
Interesting. Ok, I'll play. Love originated as a survivability trait in female [i]homo sapiens[/i] as the motivation to protect their offspring so that they could survive to be able to pass along their genes. Proof? I think we can reasonably agree that most mothers would die for their offspring, and well, we're here aren't we?
[/quote]

As I said, it wasn't supposed to be a rigorous 'scientific' argument. What I'm getting at is that you can't prove that somebody loves somebody else. You can't even prove that you yourself love anybody. Like Anomaly said, you see it and feel it. And that's great. It doesn't have to be proven.