Author Topic: Catholicism [#2759]  (Read 5148 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2278
  • Darwins +415/-8
  • Ex-rosary squad
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Catholicism [#2759]
« Reply #58 on: September 16, 2013, 10:54:40 AM »
As far as I am concerned, I don't need to read the reams of apologia describing the wonders of the Emperors new clothes, and why they must necessarily exist because of Ontology, to point out the fact that there is no evidence the he is wearing anything.
I find it necessary to bring out the ole Courtier's Reply:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/12/24/the-courtiers-reply/
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

- Eddie Izzard

http://deepaksducttape.wordpress.com/

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12704
  • Darwins +337/-85
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Catholicism [#2759]
« Reply #59 on: September 16, 2013, 04:15:56 PM »
Okay, well I've read through the posts and no one has referenced any specific work s/he has read that is written with a pro-God/Catholic perspective.

Still looking for other people to do your work for you?

What is it about Catholics that they insist on this? We had a particularly rabid female Catholic on here not so long ago who claimed to have spent many years studying all this guff and was most upset when it was pointed out that none of it was evidence for anything except prepositional-ism.

Mind you, I suspect the realisation that they've wasted a lifetime will inevitably result in angry denial.

Maggie-the-paranoid?

;)

-Nam
This thread is about lab-grown dicks, not some mincy, old, British poof of an actor. 

Let's get back on topic, please.


Offline Anfauglir

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6198
  • Darwins +408/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: Catholicism [#2759]
« Reply #60 on: September 17, 2013, 06:24:35 AM »
It's difficult for me to understand how one could take a position about whether or not there is a God (which is, as you've experienced, one of the most -if not the most- important questions we can ask ourselves) without trying to "disprove" him/herself first.....

I quite agree - that's exactly the position I take, agnostic in the general, atheist in the specific. 

More than happy to take a look at your particular god, as soon as you specify some testable and falsifiable characteristics for it. 
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?

Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3950
  • Darwins +265/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
Re: Catholicism [#2759]
« Reply #61 on: September 17, 2013, 07:23:52 AM »
As far as I am concerned, I don't need to read the reams of apologia describing the wonders of the Emperors new clothes, and why they must necessarily exist because of Ontology, to point out the fact that there is no evidence the he is wearing anything.
I find it necessary to bring out the ole Courtier's Reply:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/12/24/the-courtiers-reply/

and then there's this "refutation" of the Dawkins and the Courtiers reply.  The issue of course is the enitre article IS the Courtier reply, and all hinging on very circular reasoning

http://www.american.com/archive/2010/march/the-new-philistinism

I am a philistine. One who does not care about this or that philosopher's particular take, but the essential question "Is this distinguishable from fiction?"

An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

And you should feel guilty for this. Give me money.

Offline epidemic

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 908
  • Darwins +61/-14
Re: Catholicism [#2759]
« Reply #62 on: September 17, 2013, 07:26:47 AM »
It's difficult for me to understand how one could take a position about whether or not there is a God (which is, as you've experienced, one of the most -if not the most- important questions we can ask ourselves) without trying to "disprove" him/herself first.....

I quite agree - that's exactly the position I take, agnostic in the general, atheist in the specific. 

More than happy to take a look at your particular god, as soon as you specify some testable and falsifiable characteristics for it.

Me thinks that Anne may have flown the coupe.

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12704
  • Darwins +337/-85
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Catholicism [#2759]
« Reply #63 on: September 17, 2013, 07:45:21 AM »
Chickens don't fly. Too fat.

;)

-Nam
This thread is about lab-grown dicks, not some mincy, old, British poof of an actor. 

Let's get back on topic, please.


Offline Anne

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 6
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Female
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Catholicism [#2759]
« Reply #64 on: September 17, 2013, 09:55:45 PM »
Again, thanks for reading, and for viewing!
I want to clear something up - the wwgha website says that you can "Contact us" and if there is not enough time to get back to an individual question, it may be posted to the forum instead. So, I did, assuming (always a mistake, I admit!) that the standard was a personal response, and the back-up was post-to-a-forum. So, long story short, I didn't particularly intend to begin a thread that would require daily check-ins. When I realized a thread had been started, I began to participate. I should have said at the outset that I am not going to be able to keep up on this through daily check-ins. From the beginning, though, I checked "yes" to the option that allows persons to email me individually and I would be happy to exchange emails with you personally.
That said, I respect that you do not want a list of things to read because your journey is not the same as mine - a list of things to read might not be meaningful to you. I came to the faith through reason and research (And yes, included looking into other faiths & systems of belief. My undergraduate degree was in Anthropology; so research, particularly regarding systems of belief, is something I value quite a bit.), but that doesn't mean that you came to atheism in the same way. And, just as all Catholics are not the same, all atheists are not the same; this is, of course, because all people are not the same.
My assumption that some research or reading had taken place was based on WWGHA itself, which talks about Jesus, the Bible, etc. The reason I asked the question in the first place (again, intending it to go to an individual) was because so many of the things in WWGHA indicate that the writer(s) did research about Christianity, but missed what a basic Freshman/Sophomore-level course in Western Humanities would consider significant works. In other words, I'm not asking whether s/he read every work on Catholicism (the Courtier's Reply); I'm trying to get to the bottom of what was read in order to conclude WWGHA's conclusions. (And, after the thread was posted, to find out what readers'/contributors' research has entailed, since WWGHA doesn't seem to have a specific spokesperson to describe what was read about Christianity in order to come to the conclusions drawn in WWGHA itself.)
Presumably, if someone were going around saying things like “your mother’s a whore,” or “your father is a greedy, lying son-of-a…”, or “You have no sense of reason, intelligence, or the capacity to use your eyeballs and review evidence,” you would at the very least ask him/her: “Where are you getting your information?”
So, since not the least of this has been said about the Church and those who believe in her, I asked “Where are you getting your information?”
And if you would like evidence for whether or not such things are said, please review the rest of this thread.
Again, if this WWGHA were a website refuting the Muslim God, or Hindu gods, I wouldn’t have been inclined to ask such a question. WWGHA focuses on Jesus and Christianity, so I responded because I could see that what was known about Christianity, even at its most basic beliefs, was misunderstood - clearly based on popular media and modern-day American Fundamentalist Christianity.
Being that I am, like you, a person, and therefore have a husband and dinner and all those good things to attend to, I must stop here for now. I will check in again soon, and thank you again for reading…




Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12704
  • Darwins +337/-85
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Catholicism [#2759]
« Reply #65 on: September 17, 2013, 11:53:45 PM »
Again, thanks for reading, and for viewing!
I want to clear something up - the wwgha website says that you can "Contact us" and if there is not enough time to get back to an individual question, it may be posted to the forum instead. So, I did, assuming (always a mistake, I admit!) that the standard was a personal response, and the back-up was post-to-a-forum.

The creator of this forum hasn't been here in years, and though he still owns this place (sadly), no one really expects he'll ever come back.

Quote
So, long story short, I didn't particularly intend to begin a thread that would require daily check-ins. When I realized a thread had been started, I began to participate. I should have said at the outset that I am not going to be able to keep up on this through daily check-ins.

No one is expecting you to respond to everything at once. Take time, we're not going anywhere (figuratively speaking).

Quote
From the beginning, though, I checked "yes" to the option that allows persons to email me individually and I would be happy to exchange emails with you personally.

Not a good idea. This is a way for bots to send you unwarranted e-mail, or, even have a member harass you or vice versa. It's sort of like giving out your address to strangers. Not really a good idea.

Quote
That said, I respect that you do not want a list of things to read because your journey is not the same as mine - a list of things to read might not be meaningful to you. I came to the faith through reason and research (And yes, included looking into other faiths & systems of belief. My undergraduate degree was in Anthropology; so research, particularly regarding systems of belief, is something I value quite a bit.), but that doesn't mean that you came to atheism in the same way. And, just as all Catholics are not the same, all atheists are not the same; this is, of course, because all people are not the same.
My assumption that some research or reading had taken place was based on WWGHA itself, which talks about Jesus, the Bible, etc. The reason I asked the question in the first place (again, intending it to go to an individual) was because so many of the things in WWGHA indicate that the writer(s) did research about Christianity, but missed what a basic Freshman/Sophomore-level course in Western Humanities would consider significant works. In other words, I'm not asking whether s/he read every work on Catholicism (the Courtier's Reply); I'm trying to get to the bottom of what was read in order to conclude WWGHA's conclusions. (And, after the thread was posted, to find out what readers'/contributors' research has entailed, since WWGHA doesn't seem to have a specific spokesperson to describe what was read about Christianity in order to come to the conclusions drawn in WWGHA itself.)

Atheism, to my recollection, is not about "conclusions". It's just the agreement that god/s do not exist. Past that the argumentation of subjects of religion, such as Christianity, is differing in many views, on many subjects even within one particular sect.

Former Catholics here would probably suit to your needs. Some of us are former protestants. I am a former Southern Baptist.

Quote
Presumably, if someone were going around saying things like “your mother’s a whore,” or “your father is a greedy, lying son-of-a…”, or “You have no sense of reason, intelligence, or the capacity to use your eyeballs and review evidence,” you would at the very least ask him/her: “Where are you getting your information?”
So, since not the least of this has been said about the Church and those who believe in her, I asked “Where are you getting your information?”

One tends to research things by multiple sources. Most of those in Christianity research from the Bible and books written in contention to it to validate it. Atheists tend to research those materials and find information from sources outside those sources to cut the overall bias.
 
Quote
And if you would like evidence for whether or not such things are said, please review the rest of this thread.
Again, if this WWGHA were a website refuting the Muslim God, or Hindu gods, I wouldn’t have been inclined to ask such a question. WWGHA focuses on Jesus and Christianity, so I responded because I could see that what was known about Christianity, even at its most basic beliefs, was misunderstood - clearly based on popular media and modern-day American Fundamentalist Christianity.
Being that I am, like you, a person, and therefore have a husband and dinner and all those good things to attend to, I must stop here for now. I will check in again soon, and thank you again for reading…

This website doesn't discriminate against other religions, just that most members here are former Christians, and the website is based in a predominantly Christian area.

People here tend to research the validity of a claim rather than listen to a biased source. You should look into that.

-Nam
« Last Edit: September 17, 2013, 11:55:19 PM by Nam »
This thread is about lab-grown dicks, not some mincy, old, British poof of an actor. 

Let's get back on topic, please.


Offline Anfauglir

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6198
  • Darwins +408/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: Catholicism [#2759]
« Reply #66 on: September 18, 2013, 02:43:12 AM »
I respect that you do not want a list of things to read because your journey is not the same as mine - a list of things to read might not be meaningful to you. I came to the faith through reason and research .....

Excellent news!  So my offer.....

More than happy to take a look at your particular god, as soon as you specify some testable and falsifiable characteristics for it.

.....should present no problems for you, since you will (presumably) already have identified its characteristics and been able to verify them.  Looking forward to you presenting them - don't feel you have to do loads at once, feel free to start with just a couple if you would prefer.
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?

Online Fiji

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1323
  • Darwins +89/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: Catholicism [#2759]
« Reply #67 on: September 18, 2013, 03:10:11 AM »
*Raises hand*
Ex-Catholic here. Well, not entirely as I started moving away from Catholicism as early as the age of five. At age eleven, the catechism pretty much drove the final nail into the coffin of Catholicism for me. Especially the realization that the catechism and the bible had little if anything to do with eachother and that the 'catechism lite' we were taught was entirely different take, yet again, on (what should have been) the same material.
Now, this was in an age before the Internet was widely available. Hell, only years later did we purchase a C64[1] and that was state of the art! But still I had come across non-canon fiction based on the Star Wars universe and couldn't help but notice the similarities between that and the bible-catechism-catechismlite disaster.
So, which do you go for? The oldest or the most recent? There was stuff in the catechism that could only be found in the bible in such a twisted and mangled form that they basically amounted to wild guesses. Turning to the bible only made things worse; that thing is a mess!
In short, by the time I was confirmed into the Catholic church, I had already abandoned Catholicism.

BTW, all of this happened over a quarter of a century ago, so don't expect me to pluck specifics from the back of my mind.
 1. The '64' refers to kilobytes... btw ... KILOBYTES!!! I kid you not
Science: I'll believe it when I see it
Faith: I'll see it when I believe it

Schrodinger's thunderdome! One cat enters and one MIGHT leave!

Without life, god has no meaning.

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12704
  • Darwins +337/-85
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Catholicism [#2759]
« Reply #68 on: September 18, 2013, 04:04:33 AM »
^yer old.

;)

-Nam
This thread is about lab-grown dicks, not some mincy, old, British poof of an actor. 

Let's get back on topic, please.


Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12583
  • Darwins +703/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Catholicism [#2759]
« Reply #69 on: September 18, 2013, 08:53:09 AM »
Being that I am, like you, a person, and therefore have a husband and dinner ...

You monster.  You are nothing like me.  I have no husband.  But if I did, I certainly would not think of him as dinner.

Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3950
  • Darwins +265/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
Re: Catholicism [#2759]
« Reply #70 on: September 18, 2013, 12:41:48 PM »
That said, I respect that you do not want a list of things to read because your journey is not the same as mine - a list of things to read might not be meaningful to you. I came to the faith through reason and research (And yes, included looking into other faiths & systems of belief. My undergraduate degree was in Anthropology; so research, particularly regarding systems of belief, is something I value quite a bit.),


If so, differentiate your belief in a cosmology that conflicts with other cosmology beliefs without commiting a logical fallacy.

Really, I'd like you to do the following three things:
(1)Define God.
(2)Prove that that definition is not a logical paradox
(3)Show proof that differs from the other ten thousand dieties man has worshipped

 Until you do those three things....I am not going to take what you say as different from just a gibbering tribal primitive.
An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

And you should feel guilty for this. Give me money.

Offline Chronos

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 2434
  • Darwins +130/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Born without religion
    • Marking Time
Re: Catholicism [#2759]
« Reply #71 on: September 18, 2013, 08:37:44 PM »
I want to clear something up - the wwgha website says that you can "Contact us" and if there is not enough time to get back to an individual question, it may be posted to the forum instead. So, I did, assuming (always a mistake, I admit!) that the standard was a personal response, and the back-up was post-to-a-forum. So, long story short, I didn't particularly intend to begin a thread that would require daily check-ins. When I realized a thread had been started, I began to participate. I should have said at the outset that I am not going to be able to keep up on this through daily check-ins.

A daily visit and daily reply is not required. The forum is designed for visiting when you can or desire.


From the beginning, though, I checked "yes" to the option that allows persons to email me individually and I would be happy to exchange emails with you personally. That said, I respect that you do not want a list of things to read because your journey is not the same as mine - a list of things to read might not be meaningful to you.

Many of us have read many things on various reading lists. Those of us who are atheists come to the same conclusion regardless of what we read.


I came to the faith through reason and research (And yes, included looking into other faiths & systems of belief. My undergraduate degree was in Anthropology; so research, particularly regarding systems of belief, is something I value quite a bit.), but that doesn't mean that you came to atheism in the same way. And, just as all Catholics are not the same, all atheists are not the same; this is, of course, because all people are not the same.

As a person who has studied anthropology, I find it more amazing that you believe in any god. But as you say, all people are not the same.

Many of us have experienced various religions and/or various denominations of particular religions. I have attended services for Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian and Catholic churches. I have read various materials issued by these respective denominations. For me, regardless of the denomination, the basic theme is that there is an all-powerful god who created everything. I see no evidence for such an entity, regardless of the variations (minor) in how the god is defined. Once I concluded that a god as defined cannot exist, then reading additional materials from a particular religion will not alter my conclusion.


My assumption that some research or reading had taken place was based on WWGHA itself, which talks about Jesus, the Bible, etc. The reason I asked the question in the first place (again, intending it to go to an individual) was because so many of the things in WWGHA indicate that the writer(s) did research about Christianity, but missed what a basic Freshman/Sophomore-level course in Western Humanities would consider significant works. In other words, I'm not asking whether s/he read every work on Catholicism (the Courtier's Reply); I'm trying to get to the bottom of what was read in order to conclude WWGHA's conclusions.

I cannot verify the exact books the author read before he wrote the WWGHA book. The entire point of the WWGHA book is that these readings or investments in Western Humanities are irrelevant, at least with respect to the existence of a god. The book demonstrates the methods of reasoning used in the conclusions reached by the author. It is a book more about philosophy, specifically, than the broader subject of humanities. Additionally, and most importantly, the book relies on proof, reasoning and rationality, inasmuch as any scientific exercise would require. The only difference is that since god is not an entity in which one can interact in a defined and definitive way, the end result is that the dependence on a god is not a reliable or rational dependence. The god described has abandoned his children.


(And, after the thread was posted, to find out what readers'/contributors' research has entailed, since WWGHA doesn't seem to have a specific spokesperson to describe what was read about Christianity in order to come to the conclusions drawn in WWGHA itself.)

While I can appreciate that you were wanting contact from a particular person who could answer your question(s), one person cannot spend his days replying to hundreds of queries each week. Well, he could but he would slowly go insane. The responses one person may provide would likely depend on boilerplate texts in order to effectively reply on a timely basis. The book itself is that reply.

It appears to me that you accept the premise of a god as defined by Catholicism. Given that you accept this premise, you can argue about how one interprets such a god, or the supposed writings of such a god (inspired or not), or the moral and ethical quandaries about how such writings apply to our daily lives. You can argue that Catholicism is better than Methodism or Buddhism or whatever religion you like.

The WWGHA book rejects the initial premise of a god as defined because it demonstrates in various ways that the god cannot exist. The god does not participate in or affect our daily lives, individually or collectively. I came to the same conclusion long ago. So, to discuss what particular writings support the positions of a particular religion, or to demonstrate the commonly-held beliefs, morals or actions of the general membership of a particular religion, is like rearranging chairs on a ship that is going down.

It is an amazing moment when one realizes that there cannot be a god.


Presumably, if someone were going around saying things like “your mother’s a whore,” or “your father is a greedy, lying son-of-a…”, or “You have no sense of reason, intelligence, or the capacity to use your eyeballs and review evidence,” you would at the very least ask him/her: “Where are you getting your information?”

I haven't read every response in this thread to know if our members have responded with the quotes you have made above. As you stated, we are all not the same. Some of us have better debate skills, social skills or diplomatic skills than others. While this is not a tit-for-tat situation, nor a justification for such, some responses you receive may be a reflection of the responses we as atheists often receive when we visit other religious forums (primarily Christian forums).

Here, the predominant theme is that we use our own intellect, reasoning and integrity to conclude whether a god may exist or not. We do not rely on the specific writings of anyone about atheism or religion. The more information we consume, on either side of the issue, the more likely that information will reinforce our conclusion. In fact, it is obvious to us that most people make their conclusions about the positive existence of god with less and less information. Ignorance is bliss.


Again, if this WWGHA were a website refuting the Muslim God, or Hindu gods, I wouldn’t have been inclined to ask such a question.

The WWGHA also refutes the Muslim "god" or the Hindu "gods" or the Jewish "god" or any other god you would like to describe. The book was written by a person who lives in a predominantly Christian country (the USA) and a predominantly Christian state (in the South). Ergo, his audience for the book was the Christians who surrounded him. Replacing the words Christian, Catholic, god, or Jesus for other words aligning with other religions is merely an abstraction with the same result.


WWGHA focuses on Jesus and Christianity, so I responded because I could see that what was known about Christianity, even at its most basic beliefs, was misunderstood - clearly based on popular media and modern-day American Fundamentalist Christianity.

If you read the WWGHA book and only conclude that the book refutes only fundamentalist Christianity, l have to question your critical thinking skills. The reasoning and conclusions in the book are quite easily abstracted to Catholicism with no real mental effort. Catholicism has an all-powerful God who came to the earth in flesh and blood as Jesus. This is the same in every Christian religion. Everything else is just window dressing.


Being that I am, like you, a person, and therefore have a husband and dinner and all those good things to attend to, I must stop here for now. I will check in again soon, and thank you again for reading…

I am also quite busy, so I visit every 4-5 days, sometimes every 10-14 days. I do appreciate you visiting the forum and taking time to reply to us. If you received negative responses, I hope you will continue to visit and reply to the members who are engaging to you.

« Last Edit: September 22, 2013, 09:54:21 AM by Chronos »
John 14:2 :: In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12704
  • Darwins +337/-85
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Catholicism [#2759]
« Reply #72 on: September 18, 2013, 11:25:21 PM »
^you're so professional in your reply, making the rest of us look bad. Stop it. :P

-Nam
This thread is about lab-grown dicks, not some mincy, old, British poof of an actor. 

Let's get back on topic, please.


Online Fiji

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1323
  • Darwins +89/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: Catholicism [#2759]
« Reply #73 on: September 19, 2013, 12:58:28 AM »
^yer old.

;)

-Nam

Fair warning ... never get me started on Cold War stories
Science: I'll believe it when I see it
Faith: I'll see it when I believe it

Schrodinger's thunderdome! One cat enters and one MIGHT leave!

Without life, god has no meaning.

Offline Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6778
  • Darwins +546/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: Catholicism [#2759]
« Reply #74 on: September 19, 2013, 09:09:10 AM »
[...] I responded because I could see that what was known about Christianity, even at its most basic beliefs, was misunderstood - clearly based on popular media and modern-day American Fundamentalist Christianity.

Thank goodness for that! At last, someone who knows exactly what God means whatever and wherever he spoke!

I, for one, am sick and tired of Christians coming here who only say they know what God means and only say they know what Christianity is but now we have the definitive version. I'm so happy.
Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Offline epidemic

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 908
  • Darwins +61/-14
Re: Catholicism [#2759]
« Reply #75 on: September 19, 2013, 09:30:53 AM »
Anne,

You may not just visit on occasion.  You have to be all in or concede defeat and admitt atheism is correct.  Your home life is irrelevant!!!  ;D



But seriously, I came to my agnostic atheism through light review of the bible, personal observation of the world, and deductive reasoning through my own personal biases and knowledge. 

I have concluded with almost complete certainty on my part that the christian bible can not describe a benevolent hands on God that some people describe.  A hands on god seems unbelievable because it requires a superbeing with more character flaws then I have. 


I think it is unlikely that a hands off god is required to create the universe and even if he did how am I to deal with a god who never makes himself known.  Why should I believe in something that leaves no evidence of his existence let alone his desires.

So having deduced there is no credible book (because I don't believe the bible), and absence of any evidence, I can not believe in god.

About the only inkling left for me of a possibility of a god is the god of my absence of knowledge.  Where did all this stuff come from defies my understanding of the universe.  But is that enough reason to believe, and if so what am I to do with a hands off God.

« Last Edit: September 19, 2013, 09:39:21 AM by epidemic »

Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3950
  • Darwins +265/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
Re: Catholicism [#2759]
« Reply #76 on: September 19, 2013, 09:31:42 AM »
[...] I responded because I could see that what was known about Christianity, even at its most basic beliefs, was misunderstood - clearly based on popular media and modern-day American Fundamentalist Christianity.

Thank goodness for that! At last, someone who knows exactly what God means whatever and wherever he spoke!

I, for one, am sick and tired of Christians coming here who only say they know what God means and only say they know what Christianity is but now we have the definitive version. I'm so happy.

Catholicism; an Institution for true Scotsmen across the globe.
An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

And you should feel guilty for this. Give me money.

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6888
  • Darwins +927/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Catholicism [#2759]
« Reply #77 on: September 20, 2013, 04:37:25 PM »
If there was a super powerful being who wanted every human being to know that it existed, we would all know that it existed. He could speak to everyone in their brains in their own language, and explain his existence and what he wanted from us. He could change every tv show and radio program and book to explain his existence. He could put the information on the internet and on every cell phone in the language that the person looking at it understood.

Any number of ways to communicate to everyone efficiently and accurately. There would be no doubt, confusion or debate about it unless that being wanted people to have doubts and confusion. If Catholicism had been all that and a bag of wafers, there would never have been any other religion after it arrived on the scene. There would be only the one religion and it would be as obvious as the existence of the sun.[1]

The true religion should have easily smashed all the competition. It would be impossible (or at least extremely difficult) to defeat the efforts of a supernatural being with something like "sin", "hard-heartedness" or disobedience. No need to wipe out the planet with sh!t like a global flood only to have all the bad people come right back. How could a weak ordinary human defeat the efforts of a supernatural god? It would be like a toddler trying to arm wrestle the Hulk. There should not be hundreds of different religions-- unless god wanted there to be all those alternatives to trick people into hell. Bwahahahaha!

But this is not the case. The supposedly one true god has acted exactly the same way as all the fake gods that people no longer worship. Inefficiently, slowly, capriciously, and inaccurately.  The god(s) appear to one special guy, who goes around telling a few special people and there is all this magic, so they tell other people and eventually someone writes some stuff down.

With each retelling and translation and cultural adaptation, the message changes and gets more complicated, until nobody is practicing the same religion as the first group. And amazingly, the magic disappears right about the time people start to use critical thinking and science. Gods in these days of cellphone cameras and youtube are conveniently invisible and work in mysterious ways.  They answer prayers at the same rate as random chance.

Would the most powerful entity ever, who created the entire universe, have to communicate by a primitive form of the telephone game? He can be defeated by a talking snake and some fruit. He maims and kills and destroys sh!t. In order to understand him, each generation of believers has to create thousands of pages of new explanations.

We have to conclude that either there is no supernatural being, that it is an evil SOB, or that it has no interest in human beings at all. Clearly, it wants the world to be exactly the way it is, with hundreds of religions, lots of problems that people have to solve on their own-- and many unbelievers.
 1. Interesting how we think people who worship the sun and the moon or natural phenomena are ignorant and primitive. At least those things really exist.
« Last Edit: September 20, 2013, 04:39:16 PM by nogodsforme »
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline Tero

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 727
  • Darwins +18/-5
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Catholicism [#2759]
« Reply #78 on: September 21, 2013, 10:53:14 PM »
I never quite got the opening post. These crazy American Christians are imbeciles? And somewhere in the world are brilliant scientists who are god fearing Catholics?

Offline Anne

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 6
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Female
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Catholicism [#2759]
« Reply #79 on: September 28, 2013, 12:15:02 AM »
Thanks for the assurance about there being no necessity to keep up with this forum regularly.
I know that I won't be able to. Thanks for the information about the original author, and load of traffic on the site, etc., as well; I had no idea wwgha received so many questions on a daily basis.

Because it's remotely isolated and of particular interest to me, and because it's a response to the question about what people have read, I'll respond to Hatter23's comments:

After reading part of "that Hideous Strength," I cannot believe Lewis was an atheist of any intellectual stripe. It is just a big strawman cartoon depiction of atheists.

Seriously, atheists who worship Satan?....that's beyond stupid.


Lewis wrote both fiction and nonfiction. That Hideous Strength was fiction and not meant to be a summary of his conclusions about atheism, nor Christianity. The story of his conversion is in Surprised by Joy, in which he talks about his journey to God in what is now referred to as "the argument from desire." In other words, he found that, since there was a satisfaction for all universal human needs/desires (e.g. food for hunger; relationships for the desire to love & be loved, etc), that there must be a solution for the desire for joy. Joy, here, can be understood as utter fulfillment - non-boring peace; energy that is not wearisome; happiness that is ever new; pleasure that needs no repetition; no suffering but no lack of the benefits of suffering (accomplishment, refinement, etc); something that is special without being rare  - some balance of all the good things with none of the bad. Every earthly source of joy is temporary (and would not be joyful unless it were, indeed, temporary); why is it there a universal longing for untainted happiness -happiness that does not depend on some pain in order to be fully felt or understood- if there is not something to satisfy that desire? That is truly only part of Lewis' story, but it was significant for him.
For a better explanation of the argument from desire, in the style of Aristotle or Aquinas (Premises, Conclusions based on Premises, Objections, & Answers to objections), please see Peter Kreeft's explanation here:
http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/desire.htm.
Kreeft wrote a book where he examines man's search for joy, from the perspective of just about countless philosophers & religions (with myriad references - of course atheist philosophers/observers are included among the arguments & ideas he considers).

Since God, like the theory of evolution or the fact that ancient Egypt existed, is not "testable" (because none of these can be reproduced using the scientific method) but is still provable (because the scientific method is not the only way to gather reliable knowledge and information), this book is a meaningful review using plenty of data. It's called Heaven (the heart's deepest longing)...and, naturally, I highly recommend.

Other nonfiction by CS Lewis includes The Problem of Pain and Mere Christianity. I think that The Problem of Pain is particularly interesting, since the most common objection to God (esp as a loving God) that I've seen has to do with human suffering. I hope to speak to that next time, as it's been a big part of my journey...

Thank you, William, for responding to my Theology of the Body comments & invitation to read; I hope to respond to you soon!
cf:
So I've started reading bits of the John Paul II stuff (not too much yet because it's footy finals season here in Australia) but the first thing that strikes me in all the stuff written about God creating "male and female", "eternal law", "precisely as "male and female,"", and the "rib" thing  &) is the glaring omission that "female" was an afterthought. Actually worse than an afterthought - a concession to give Adam a "helper" in response to Adam's request.  God first paraded all the animals (presumably both sexes) in front of Adam for Adam to name them and find something he liked: 

Quote
Genesis 2 19 Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals.

But for Adam[f] no suitable helper was found.

I've explored this question before, but did God retrofit Adam with a penis including erectile tissue, testicles, sperm etc only after Adam asked for Eve? .... or was all that equipment already there and functioning as intended for the animal parade? :o

For now, I can say that the literal, isolated reading of scripture might lead to such a conclusion, but a better understanding of ancient Judaism, the culture/time period in which this was written, the original language, a comparison of the two separate Genesis stories, (a.k.a. context) leads to the conclusion of the Church: woman is every bit as wonderful, purposeful, and respected as man. More on that in Mulieris Dignitatem (On the Dignity and Vocation of Woman), an apostolic letter...and in countless other works.
Ultimately, I hope you read more about Theology of the Body because it answers the objection you raised above specifically.

That's all I can do for now. More soon?

Thank you again and take care!

Offline jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5095
  • Darwins +586/-18
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Catholicism [#2759]
« Reply #80 on: September 28, 2013, 02:28:00 AM »
Actually, the theory of evolution is provable via the scientific method, and not just through historical data.  We observe evolutionary changes in organisms (mostly ones with short lifespans and thus many generations that can be observed on a human scale) today.  For that matter, we can write programs that mimic environmental influences on life-forms and demonstrate how those spur evolutionary change.  Both of those qualify as valid experimental data and thus support the theory of evolution.

For that matter, Dawkins wrote a computer program which illustrated this by taking a nonsense string of characters and applying the equivalent of environmental pressure to conserve 'correct' letters in order to reproduce the sentence "Methinks it is like a weasel", and it accomplished the goal in 41 iterations.  Other, similar tests have been done, and they ultimately support evolutionary theory.  Anne, while I understand the point you are trying to get across (many things can not currently be broken down into scientific methodology, and perhaps may never be), it's time and long past time to dispel the myth that evolution isn't supported by experimental science.

Offline Anfauglir

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6198
  • Darwins +408/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: Catholicism [#2759]
« Reply #81 on: September 28, 2013, 03:15:31 AM »
That Hideous Strength was fiction and not meant to be a summary of his conclusions about atheism, nor Christianity. The story of his conversion is in Surprised by Joy, in which he talks about his journey to God in what is now referred to as "the argument from desire." In other words, he found that, since there was a satisfaction for all universal human needs/desires (e.g. food for hunger; relationships for the desire to love & be loved, etc), that there must be a solution for the desire for joy. Joy, here, can be understood as utter fulfillment - non-boring peace; energy that is not wearisome; happiness that is ever new; pleasure that needs no repetition; no suffering but no lack of the benefits of suffering (accomplishment, refinement, etc); something that is special without being rare  - some balance of all the good things with none of the bad. Every earthly source of joy is temporary (and would not be joyful unless it were, indeed, temporary); why is it there a universal longing for untainted happiness -happiness that does not depend on some pain in order to be fully felt or understood- if there is not something to satisfy that desire?

The ultimate source of happiness (as wished for by Lewis) is embodied in Brahma, not Yahweh.  Unless you can show me otherwise?
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?

Offline shnozzola

Re: Catholicism [#2759]
« Reply #82 on: September 28, 2013, 11:16:16 AM »
.............that there must be a solution for the desire for joy. Joy, here, can be understood as utter fulfillment - non-boring peace; energy that is not wearisome; happiness that is ever new; pleasure that needs no repetition; no suffering but no lack of the benefits of suffering (accomplishment, refinement, etc); something that is special without being rare  - some balance of all the good things with none of the bad. Every earthly source of joy is temporary (and would not be joyful unless it were, indeed, temporary); why is it there a universal longing for untainted happiness

I know this feeling.  I have experienced it.  As an atheist I understand this definition as not god, but "joy".   I believe you could also look at Christian Quaker beliefs that this "ultimate joy" definition is a mindset of our individual brains, defined as a piece of "god" by Quakerism, where we are able to experience this ultimate joy any time, no matter the circumstances , probably a result of the evolutionary mental instinct for survival, like a natural drug such as endorphins.

But none of this matters, unless the ultimately joyful people start killing other people.  That could not happen because evolution would prevent it.   But what if a person's ultimate solution for joy is killing - is that the opposite of god, satan, or is that just marked down as mental chemical imbalance?
“The best thing for being sad," replied Merlin, beginning to puff and blow, "is to learn something."  ~ T. H. White
  The real holy trinity:  onion, celery, and bell pepper ~  all Cajun Chefs

Offline Chronos

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 2434
  • Darwins +130/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Born without religion
    • Marking Time
Re: Catholicism [#2759]
« Reply #83 on: September 28, 2013, 07:19:20 PM »
Since God, like the theory of evolution or the fact that ancient Egypt existed, is not "testable" (because none of these can be reproduced using the scientific method) but is still provable (because the scientific method is not the only way to gather reliable knowledge and information), this book is a meaningful review using plenty of data. It's called Heaven (the heart's deepest longing)...and, naturally, I highly recommend.

The premise that a desire to know how we were created means that there must be a god (in essence) is just a premise. It's a premise with a desire that there be a god, not that a god does or should necessarily exist. Beyond that premise are the attributes that such a god must have. Any attempt to define the attributes and abilities of a god necessitates a test of such attributes and abilities. The result is more faulty premises and circular thinking.



Other nonfiction by CS Lewis includes The Problem of Pain and Mere Christianity. I think that The Problem of Pain is particularly interesting, since the most common objection to God (esp as a loving God) that I've seen has to do with human suffering. I hope to speak to that next time, as it's been a big part of my journey...

Perhaps it is the most common (which is an opinion of yours that I will not contest), but it is certainly not the most compelling. Again, the issue of human suffering in relation to a god presumes that the god exists in the first place. A premise has to have some foundation in something that can be tested. Otherwise it is merely desire.


John 14:2 :: In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.

Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3950
  • Darwins +265/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
Re: Catholicism [#2759]
« Reply #84 on: September 28, 2013, 07:54:56 PM »
The argument from desire has a more common name; "Magical thinking"
An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

And you should feel guilty for this. Give me money.

Offline neopagan

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1161
  • Darwins +86/-3
  • Gender: Male
Re: Catholicism [#2759]
« Reply #85 on: September 29, 2013, 09:05:36 AM »
^^^ cupio ergo deus.   :)
If xian hell really exists, the stench of the burning billions of us should be a constant, putrid reminder to the handful of heavenward xians how loving your god is.  - neopagan

Offline Nick

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10503
  • Darwins +189/-8
  • Gender: Male
Re: Catholicism [#2759]
« Reply #86 on: September 29, 2013, 09:10:58 AM »
^^^ cupio ergo deus.   :)
Wow, you know Latin also.  I'm impressed.
Yo, put that in your pipe and smoke it.  Quit ragging on my Lord.

Tide goes in, tide goes out !!!