Debating With Militant Atheists

[Mark of the Cross]

[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 that's very charitable of you! But then it raises a question that you as an atheist isn't affected by what the Church teaches. But apparently places value on a persons knowledge of Church teaching.

[i][url="http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=50&ch=3&l=17#x"][17][/url] For God sent not his Son into the world, to judge the world, but that the world may be saved by him. [[url="http://drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=50&ch=3&l=17#x"]John 3:17[/url]][/i]
The Church teaches that as disciples of Christ we should be aiming at teaching salvation. Telling people that unless they become a Roman Catholic or an Eastern Catholic they are lost ???( Apparently they're different, but the same which confuses me.) So you tell an Anglican or a Baptist or a Jehovah witness or an atheist or a Jew that unless they do this, that and the other they are not saved the probable outcome is that you will drive them further away and feed a hatred of Catholicism. you are condemning them! That's what gets up my nose when people come out with these very complex rules and regulations which they cannot possibly really know and which the Catholic Church does not appear to endorse. I don't know nor do I care where that comes from but the Holy Mother Church says [url="http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a9p3.htm"]Ref CCC 836 to 848[/url] Supposedly obtained from scripture such as What ' Tab' was quoting. I think it is from Romans 2
[i][sup]13 [/sup](God does not say people are good because they have heard the law. But people who obey the law will be called good people.[/i]
[i][sup]14 [/sup]Some people do not have the law. But they do what the law says because their own hearts tell them to. They have a law of their own, even though they do not know the law.[/i]
[i][sup]15 [/sup]They show that the law is written in their hearts. They know what is right to do and what is wrong to do. Their own thoughts tell them they have done what is wrong or what is not wrong.)[/i]
[i][sup]16 [/sup]This will be on the day when God judges the things men have kept secret. Jesus Christ will be the judge. That is part of the good news I tell people.[/i]

And then there's John 10:16
[i][url="http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=50&ch=10&l=16#x"][16][/url] And other sheep I have, that are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice, and there shall be one fold and one shepherd.[/i]

Regarding what the Church teaches there are two distinctly different sets. The teachings regarding procedures such as bowing before taking the Eucharist, having fasted and been to confession etc are teachings for Catholics. Other denominations/faiths are not bound by them. The other Church teachings on the teachings of Christ are what all humans are bound to obey whether by the Church or by what is written in their hearts.

[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]

This wasn't a very good post.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1345249826' post='2469437']


This wasn't a very good post.
[/quote]Sadly, I think it's an excellent point and worthwhile for all people of a philosophical tendency.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' timestamp='1345249350' post='2469431']


Well that's very charitable of you! But then it raises a question that you as an atheist isn't affected by what the Church teaches. But apparently places value on a persons knowledge of Church teaching.
[/quote]i may disagree with his conclusions or even his delivery, but I've respected his depth of knowledge and usually he's very clear.

[quote]Regarding what the Church teaches there are two distinctly different sets. The teachings regarding procedures such as bowing before taking the Eucharist, having fasted and been to confession etc are teachings for Catholics. Other denominations/faiths are not bound by them. The other Church teachings on the teachings of Christ are what all humans are bound to obey whether by the Church or by what is written in their hearts.
[/quote]Exactly. Humanists may disagree on the source of natural law, but they can agree it exists and discuss how to incorporate it into society.

[Groo the Wanderer]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1345217611' post='2469181']
Well, what is the ultimate purpose for dialogue, for a Catholic?
[/quote]


If the other person is a striking left-handed redhead Irish lass with beer, then the purpose changes, eh?

:snicker:

Edited August 18, 2012 by Groo the Wanderer

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Groo the Wanderer' timestamp='1345259202' post='2469527']
If the other person is a striking left-handed redhead Irish lass with beer, then the purpose changes, eh?

:snicker:
[/quote]

I have no idea what this sentence says.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1345269749' post='2469605']
I have no idea what this sentence says.
[/quote]

But I'm sure it was hilarious.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1345257123' post='2469485']
Sadly, I think it's an excellent point and worthwhile for all people of a philosophical tendency.
[/quote]

It's not an excellent point because you ignored the part just before what you bolded, where I was specific in recognizing intermediate purposes to dialogue. If I hadn't included that then yes, you'd be entirely correct, but you either missed it or left it out.

Edited August 18, 2012 by Nihil Obstat

[4588686]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1345269927' post='2469608']
It's not an excellent point because you ignored the part just before what you bolded, where I was specific in recognizing intermediate purposes to dialogue. If I hadn't included that then yes, you'd be entirely correct, but you either missed it or left it out.
[/quote]

I think you missed his point, respectfully. Right. You can have intermediate purposes. But those intermediate purposes must be ordered towards the ultimate goal of salvation. It is an objectifying view of the other. I don't mean that in any way as a comment against your character. I'm sure that you want to be reaching out to the other as somebody who loves them. But you love them because you are commanded to by Christ and you do that as a means to the end of conversion. You can never truly talk to the other as a real human you can only relate to them, while in this mode, as an object of potential religious conversion. I think tat is what Anomoly is getting at. When i was dating my girlfriend I experienced this a lot. People at Newman were very kind to me. But it was always an alienating kindness because they were relating to me not as a being of my own ends but as a potential convert. I don't mean to disparage them either. I don't think they had anything but the best of intentions. But that alienation was still there.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1345271547' post='2469614']
I think you missed his point, respectfully. Right. You can have intermediate purposes. But those intermediate purposes must be ordered towards the ultimate goal of salvation. It is an objectifying view of the other.
[/quote]

I'd have to stop the whole train of thought here. Expressed in its perfect form it's the exact opposite of objectification. If I'm objectifying you, then you're a means to an end. You don't have intrinsic value- only value in the context of some sort of purpose. The [i]perfectly expressed[/i] desire of salvation desires nothing less than your eternal joy, for no other reason than that you are valuable in and of yourself and created for the purpose of entering into that joy.
Objectification assigns you no value in and of yourself, whereas perfect desire for your salvation assigns transcendent value.

[quote]But it was always an alienating kindness because they were relating to me not as a being of my own ends but as a potential convert.[/quote]

I imagine that even a very slight defect in motivation or character, in short original sin, could easily lead to that sense.

[quote]I don't mean to disparage them either. I don't think they had anything but the best of intentions. [/quote]

Indeed. God help us.

[Ice_nine]

Like nihil said, the only reason I would want someone to convert is for their own good, not mine. Not so I can get warm fuzzies or chalk up another point on my souls saved scoreboard. For some people it's like that perhaps, which I could see as a form of objectification, but how is wanting the best for someone objectifying them? I no get.

I also don't understand why "intent to convert" (whatever that means) must always be confrontational.

Edited August 18, 2012 by Ice_nine

[Kia ora]

[quote name='Aragon' timestamp='1344932139' post='2467444']
I'm sure most of us have had the experience of getting into conversations with fairly militant atheists. Sometimes I get the impression that a few are more interested in rhetoric than actually searching for the truth. Last week I spoke to the founder of my university's atheist club, and after speaking for over half an hour he told me he hadn't read one work of Christian apologetics in 10 years. He didn't even know what the 5 ways were. I gave him a book recommendation (The Last Superstition by Edward Feser) but he said he didn't need to read it because he already knew that religious belief was stupid, and reading any apologetical work would only confirm that opinion.

Speaking with these people can be really frustrating, but I feel like I'm failing our evangelical duty if I take the easier way out and fob them off. Do you think it is worth spending time and energy on these people, or should I just pray for them and focus on sharing my faith with people who want to approach the issues objectively?
[/quote]

You're not going to convince them by argument, no matter how well constructed those arguments are or how much evidence you have backing it up. They might protest that they would convert to Christianity if there was any 'real evidence', but I think they're wrong. Not because they're close-minded and would ignore any evidence that you offered, but because the problem rests with the mind, and it doesn't matter how closed or open it is.

Cause it wouldn't matter if they were intellectually convinced of the existence for God. The existence of God changes nothing. The love of God changes everything, and there is no book or prophet, no matter how passionate, that could prove that God [i]loves[/i] me, you and everyone. A person can only be convinced of that through one's own experiences.

Edited August 19, 2012 by Kia ora

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

i've got an idea. Try talking with them and not debating them.

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

[quote name='Tab'le Du'Bah-Rye' timestamp='1345369161' post='2470087']
i've got an idea. Try talking with them and not debating them.
[/quote]

St thomas aquinas "the sanctity of your own life will convert X. Use words when nescisary."
or you could take the saint patrick approach, but not all are called to that approach. Find which catholic spirituality suits you, not all are called to be st patricks nore can they be, though each with there specific part to play in accordance with the will of GOD (not the will of everyone else or whats popular.) and each member being an equally important part of the body of christ on earth.

Edited August 19, 2012 by Tab'le Du'Bah-Rye

[Aragon]

[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]

Having the goal of converting people isn't the same as being confrontational. Aiming to convert someone doesn't mean shoving religion down their throat or being duplicitous - it just means sharing with them the greatest gift we have, and that's a lot more important than dialogue for the sake of dialogue. That's not particularly PC but it's true.

[i]For the greater glory of God and the salvation of souls, [/i]and all that.