Debating With Militant Atheists

[LittleWaySoul]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1345066082' post='2468220']
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.
[/quote]
I had a very similar discussion with an atheist on the same topic! Except I approached it more from the angle of, "Do you believe in 'love' outside of the scientific, chemical stuff that happens in peoples' brains?" She said "No," and I was wondering how she would account for sacrifices people make out of love. Where did that come from? And are animals capable of love like humans are? She said that she basically believed that animals may have different ways of showing their love than we do, and also said that she needed a more scientific or concrete reason to believe in God than that. But I felt good that we had a nice discussion on it It made her think, at least

[LittleWaySoul]

Note: She isn't a militant atheist, though. I just liked what Nihil Obstat said about love

[Amory]

[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).[/quote]

Everyone who is validly baptized[i] ipso facto[/i] becomes a member of the Catholic Church until he or she rejects one of the truths necessary for Catholics to believe. A baptized Anglican baby, then, would be a member of the Catholic Church until he became old enough to choose of his own volition to profess Anglican beliefs incompatible with the Catholic faith. Obviously, in the case of those who are baptized as adults into a Protestant group such as the Southern Baptists, one would never be a member of the Church at all, as at the very moment of baptism one would (presumably) be rejecting Catholic truth.

[quote name='Slappo' timestamp='1345062267' post='2468180']
A baptized protestant can be in the state of grace if invincibly ignorant or makes a perfect act of contrition.
[/quote]

Historically, any baptized non-Catholic Christian who was around thirteen years old or older was assumed (at least in law) no longer to be invincibly ignorant and had to be absolved of the [i]latae sententiae[/i] excommunication for heresy upon conversion to Catholicism.

And, of course, an act of perfect contrition would only be possible if one were, in fact, invincibly ignorant of the truth of the Catholic religion. If one is either aware of its truth or culpably ignorant thereof, then one is incapable of making an act of perfect contrition until one renounces the sin of heresy.

[Ice_nine]

I've gotten really sick of debating people of late. Especially people who are interested in scoring points and lollerskating and painting caricatures and reducing my beliefs to little strawmen. I pray for them, and I don't tell them that I pray for them, because the mockery can get a little bit redic u know?

I just mainly pray that before people die, they get a chance, even if a brief moment of understanding, to repent and be saved. In the end, that's all I really care about. If they are going to be insufferable arse portals until3 seconds before they die . . . great. Those who arrive at the last hour will earn a full day's wage and all that. And lately the most efficacious way of making this happen is prayer and living your faith, not so much debating. Although I appreciate apologists and the good fight they are fighting, I just think how I conduct myself, and the works of mercy I commit myself to will be much more useful. Plus debates can turn into a contest of egos. I think I'm most tired of that.

So yeah, my answering to debating militant atheists is . . . don't. They're not open to truth, for whatever reason. A priest who often visits my parish says the opposite of faith isn't doubt, or sin, but hardness of heart. I'm inclined to believe him. Rather, pray and offer up sacrifices for their salvation. It's less satisfying than totally pwning n00bs in debate, but if we actually believe in what we say we do, then I think this is the route to go.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Amory' timestamp='1345103118' post='2468557']
Everyone who is validly baptized[i] ipso facto[/i] becomes a member of the Catholic Church until he or she rejects one of the truths necessary for Catholics to believe. A baptized Anglican baby, then, would be a member of the Catholic Church until he became old enough to choose of his own volition to profess Anglican beliefs incompatible with the Catholic faith. Obviously, in the case of those who are baptized as adults into a Protestant group such as the Southern Baptists, one would never be a member of the Church at all, as at the very moment of baptism one would (presumably) be rejecting Catholic truth.



Historically, any baptized non-Catholic Christian who was around thirteen years old or older was assumed (at least in law) no longer to be invincibly ignorant and had to be absolved of the [i]latae sententiae[/i] excommunication for heresy upon conversion to Catholicism.

And, of course, an act of perfect contrition would only be possible if one were, in fact, invincibly ignorant of the truth of the Catholic religion. If one is either aware of its truth or culpably ignorant thereof, then one is incapable of making an act of perfect contrition until one renounces the sin of heresy.
[/quote]This makes me miss Cam42.

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='Groo the Wanderer' timestamp='1345085452' post='2468407']
they pee in the pool too
[/quote]
Don't they question if there really is chlorine in the water?

[quote name='Amory' timestamp='1345103118' post='2468557']
Everyone who is validly baptized[i] ipso facto[/i] becomes a member of the Catholic Church until he or she rejects one of the truths necessary for Catholics to believe. A baptized Anglican baby, then, would be a member of the Catholic Church until he became old enough to choose of his own volition to profess Anglican beliefs incompatible with the Catholic faith. Obviously, in the case of those who are baptized as adults into a Protestant group such as the Southern Baptists, one would never be a member of the Church at all, as at the very moment of baptism one would (presumably) be rejecting Catholic truth.



Historically, any baptized non-Catholic Christian who was around thirteen years old or older was assumed (at least in law) no longer to be invincibly ignorant and had to be absolved of the [i]latae sententiae[/i] excommunication for heresy upon conversion to Catholicism.

And, of course, an act of perfect contrition would only be possible if one were, in fact, invincibly ignorant of the truth of the Catholic religion. If one is either aware of its truth or culpably ignorant thereof, then one is incapable of making an act of perfect contrition until one renounces the sin of heresy.
[/quote]
Groo can I borrow a Llama?

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1345119781' post='2468584']
This makes me miss Cam42.
[/quote]
Maybe the mods could check on that! Two people writing the same bagoong does seem improbable.
Yer prolly better off with atheism! It doesn't do as much damage to the forehead.

Edited August 16, 2012 by Mark of the Cross

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' timestamp='1345156923' post='2468846']
Yer prolly better off with atheism! It doesn't do as much damage to the forehead.
[/quote]Cam was stubborn, but I had high level of confidence in his knowledge of Church teaching. I think Armory is slightly off the mark.

I find it interesting that Catholics regularly turn to debating the status of salvation for an atheist when it fundamentally is irrelevant to the atheist. Why is that? Is it because Catholics are trying to figure out if they should even bother dialoging with them? Is it only fruitful for a Catholic to dialog with another with only the sole purpose of changing the others mind in that conversation?

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1345215842' post='2469172']
Cam was stubborn, but I had high level of confidence in his knowledge of Church teaching. I think Armory is slightly off the mark.

I find it interesting that Catholics regularly turn to debating the status of salvation for an atheist when it fundamentally is irrelevant to the atheist. Why is that? Is it because Catholics are trying to figure out if they should even bother dialoging with them? Is it only fruitful for a Catholic to dialog with another with only the sole purpose of changing the others mind in that conversation?
[/quote]


Well, what is the ultimate purpose for dialogue, for a Catholic?

[Papist]

What is the Church's primary mission?

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1345217611' post='2469181']
Well, what is the ultimate purpose for dialogue, for a Catholic?
[/quote]You would have to answer that as a Catholic.
Does every dialogue need to have an ultimate goal to convert, or can it's purpose be for mutual enlightenment, finding common ideas, expanding perspective, raising questions...

[LittleWaySoul]

[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1345218420' post='2469186']
You would have to answer that as a Catholic.
Does every dialogue need to have an ultimate goal to convert, or can it's purpose be for mutual enlightenment, finding common ideas, expanding perspective, raising questions...
[/quote]
It can have both goals! I usually discuss things with my atheist friends for the purpose of, like you said, mutual enlightenment, finding common ideas, expanding perspective, raising questions, etc. But I never stop praying for their conversion. It isn't because I don't think they can get to heaven without being Catholic. It's because I think their salvation would be much more SURE if they were Catholic. It's because I want them to know the joy I feel in my faith. It's because I want to share that joy with them. I love them so much, and because of that, I want them to know how happy my faith makes me! Someday, I hope they can experience that pure joy too! I hope that makes sense

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1345218420' post='2469186']
You would have to answer that as a Catholic.
Does every dialogue need to have an ultimate goal to convert, or can it's purpose be for mutual enlightenment, finding common ideas, expanding perspective, raising questions...
[/quote]

The ultimate goal of everything we do with our lives is our salvation and the salvation of the world. We can have intermediate goals, like mutual understanding and fellowship, research, etc., but everything we do should be ultimately directed to salvation for ourselves and those people whom we can affect. I'm sure you know enough about Catholic theology to understand that, since we believe what we do, we have no more important task than sharing it with those who may not know.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1345220914' post='2469202']
The ultimate goal of everything we do with our lives is our salvation and the salvation of the world. We can have intermediate goals, like mutual understanding and fellowship, research, etc., [b]but everything we do should be ultimately directed to salvation for ourselves and those people whom we can affect.[/b] I'm sure you know enough about Catholic theology to understand that, since we believe what we do, we have no more important task than sharing it with those who may not know.
[/quote]Then if conversion is the primary point and immediate goal of every and any dialogue with an athiest, then you would be no different then any other militant [size=3]__[u]fill in blank[/u]__ [size="3"]. Let me know how that works for you.[/size][/size]
[size=3][size="3"]If your aim is always to be confrontational, (that is the result of intent to convert), then you are conversing on a purely adversarial basis. For example, Humanists, whether secular or religious, shares many values about human dignity, they disagree why. It would seem to me that it would be more productive to work for a common goal of respecting human life then arguing why human life matters.[/size][/size]

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1345229453' post='2469261']
Then if conversion is the primary point and immediate goal of every and any dialogue with an athiest, then you would be no different then any other militant [size=3]__[u]fill in blank[/u]__ [size="3"]. Let me know how that works for you.[/size][/size]
[size=3][size="3"]If your aim is always to be confrontational, (that is the result of intent to convert), then you are conversing on a purely adversarial basis. For example, Humanists, whether secular or religious, shares many values about human dignity, they disagree why. It would seem to me that it would be more productive to work for a common goal of respecting human life then arguing why human life matters.[/size][/size]
[/quote]

That is why I said there can be intermediate, perhaps more immediate goals. Salvation is the ultimate, meaning last and most important, goal.