Theism vs. Atheism ... will it ever be settled? - Progressive Rock Music Forum

Author

Message

Topic Search

Topic Options

Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557

Posted: July 22 2010 at 23:40

Thanks JJ, means a lot for me.

Iván

Mr ProgFreak View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195

Posted: July 23 2010 at 00:34

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Textbook wrote:

Ivan: You've solved nothing there. What is "true and holy" and how was that decided? You come back to the exact same problem.

What are you asking for?

A 150,000 pages document mentioning what is true and holy for other religions?

Please Textbook!

Iván

Some proof would be nice, instead of circular references within Catholic documents or scripture. I know that you don't have proof, what's annoying me is that you keep presenting this stuff like it could possibly mean anything to non-Catholics.

Mr ProgFreak View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195

Posted: July 23 2010 at 00:37

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

CPicard wrote:

Words are one thing, acts are another one.

The Pope visited the Mosque of Istambul to apologise for previous acts of the church and shows high, and here are previous signs of respect for Islam:

“On May 14th I was received by the Pope, together with a delegation composed of the Shiite imam of Khadum mosque and the Sunni President of the council of administration of the Iraqi Islamic Bank. At the end of the audience the Pope bowed to the Muslim holy book the Koran presented to him by the delegation and he kissed it as a sign of respect. The photo of that gesture has been shown repeatedly on Iraqi television and it demonstrates that the Pope is not only aware of the suffering of the Iraqi people, he has also great respect for Islam.”

http://www.traditioninaction.org/RevolutionPhotos/A055rcKoran.htm

You now who attacked this gesture? Some Christian fundamentalists.

This photo is common:

This is not so common but....

This one with the Archbishop of Canterbury is a solid prove of tolerance:

Acts, not words.

Iván

It's surely nice to know that there are no differences between all these churches anymore. Wait ... there are! Maybe these "actions" are just some efforts in diplomacy and PR work in order to give these religions a superficial image of openness?

Textbook

Forum Senior Member

Joined: October 08 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 3281

Posted: July 23 2010 at 00:38

Ivan: I remain confused that one with faith worries about showing others it doesn't have holes in it- I thought the holes were what made it faith.

However, I'm not confused that you've had enough of going back and forth with me ;) Thanks for the debate likewise.

Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557

Posted: July 23 2010 at 01:22

Mr ProgFreak wrote:

It's surely nice to know that there are no differences between all these churches anymore. Wait ... there are! Maybe these "actions" are just some efforts in diplomacy and PR work in order to give these religions a superficial image of openness?

Mike, I know tolerance is beyond your understanding, but this photos don't show there are no differences, and that's the greatest achievement.

We have differences, and strong ones in matter of doctrine (In a lesser degree with Anglicans who are also Catholics), but we respect our differences, because we know each and every one of us is searching for God according to our beliefs.

There's no merit in respecting those who don't have differences with us, the real merit is to respect those who have very little in common with us.

And believe me, no PR attempt will force the Pope, to write an ecumenical document accepting our differences.

Iván

Jim Garten View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Retired Admin & Razor Guru

Joined: February 02 2004
Location: South England
Status: Offline
Points: 14693

Posted: July 23 2010 at 02:05

Sorry - couldn't resist posting this here as well...

Jon Lord 1941 - 2012

Mr ProgFreak View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195

Posted: July 23 2010 at 02:27

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Mike, I know tolerance is beyond your understanding, but this photos don't show there are no differences, and that's the greatest achievement.

There's no merit in respecting those who don't have differences with us, the real merit is to respect those who have very little in common with us.

And believe me, no PR attempt will force the Pope, to write an ecumenical document accepting our differences.

Iván

I'm actually a very tolerant person. But maybe our definition of "tolerance" differs. To me it means that I leave Catholics (or any other religious group) alone as long as their beliefs, and the actions they take based on them, don't infringe my freedom of expression (or religion).

You seem to think that being tolerant means to never ever criticise another person's beliefs. I find that ridiculous. I can strongly criticise a person's beliefs and still be tolerant of them. When I say "I think that your religion is ridiculous" - what's the big deal? I'm sure that many Christians find it ridiculous to think that there is no God. Should they bite their lips in discussions like this in order not to offend any Atheists? Of course not. Speak your mind - *please*. It's the only way to have a honest discussion.

Edited by Mr ProgFreak - July 23 2010 at 02:29

Any Colour You Like View Drop Down

Prog Reviewer

Joined: May 15 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 12294

Posted: July 23 2010 at 02:53

Unbelief is the state of existence whereby everything interacts in harmony, as there is no fundamental reason to act in any state other than what is.

That is my opinion anyway.

Atavachron View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Offline
Points: 65505

Posted: July 23 2010 at 02:56

^ cool

Textbook

Forum Senior Member

Joined: October 08 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 3281

Posted: July 23 2010 at 03:44

Mr PF: I agree with the presentation of "things that could only be meaningful to Catholics being presented to non-Catholics" thing. Good example is the "ex cathedra" documents. The idea seems to be that any document with the linguistic term "ex cathedra" applied to it is magically true because this phrase "ex cathedra" has a special truth conferring power. But of course this just bounces off a non-believer, despite it being used here as though it's some sort of trump card.

"I'm sorry, you can't call ex cathedra announcements PR."

"But I don't believe in the ex cathedra authority so I can."

"No actually you can't because they have the ex cathedra authority."

It would be interesting to see what a Catholic would do if an ex cathedra announcement stated that the sky was orange. That it never would is irrelevant- we are testing the depths of faith here. There are two choices:

i) Disagree with it demonstrating that the faith is not absolute and that you will only go along with the church until it says something you're not comfortable with.

ii) Agree and demonstrate mental illness.

There is the third "escape route" where the believer says "I wouldn't know how I would react until it happened" but I think most people would suspect this of being avoidance.

Also, yeah, I'm puzzled that people are surprised that some people here are taking the kid gloves off and being direct in their criticism of others' views. This is the "Theism vs Atheism" thread. It necessarily requires statements from one party that the other's beliefs are false. How could this be done uncontentiously?

For the conversation to be meaningful, we must be honest. If I were to go "Ooh I see a problem in his argument there but pointing it out wouldn't be friendly" the dialogue becomes a farce of no value. You will note that I am not posting in the Christian thread and am not going to because that thread is intended to be a place for Christians to share their views in peace. This thread is, once again, the Theism vs Atheism thread and as such, I will treat any views expressed as fair game for rebuttal and cannot imagine how I could sensibly express surprise and alarm at others doing the same to me.

"I know the pieces fit
'Cause I watched them tumble down
No fault, none to blame
It doesn't mean I don't desire to
Point the finger, blame the other
Watch the temple topple over
To bring the pieces back together
Rediscover communication"

Mr ProgFreak View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195

Posted: July 23 2010 at 04:50

^ Agreed - and very well put! Smile

Trademark

Forum Senior Member

Joined: November 21 2006
Location: oHIo
Status: Offline
Points: 1009

Posted: July 23 2010 at 08:59

"I can strongly criticise a person's beliefs and still be tolerant of them."

Theoretically, Mike this could be possible, but you have not accomplished the goal.

My son once had a baseball coach who tried to make this same argument and it failed just as badly then as this does. He sat all the parents down on the first day of practice and told us we would see him yelling and screaming all the time, but we (the parents) had to be sure to remember that he was not yelling at our kids, he was yelling at their "lack of ability". You've fallen into the same trap.

Edited by Trademark - July 23 2010 at 11:22

Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557

Posted: July 23 2010 at 10:53

Mr ProgFreak wrote:

I'm actually a very tolerant person. But maybe our definition of "tolerance" differs. To me it means that I leave Catholics (or any other religious group) alone as long as their beliefs, and the actions they take based on them, don't infringe my freedom of expression (or religion).

One thing is to criticize when some person or group does something that is intrinsically wrong

But you attack because "you don't believe", which is pretty arrogant being that the only person or groups free of your criticism are the ones that think like you....But you don't stop there, yo try to ridicule and humiliate those who believe and what is worst, treat them as stupid idiots who don't deserve any respect, that's abusing your freedom of speech and expression.

And no Mike, you are not tolerant, you are one of the most intolerant persons I ever found .

Mr ProgFreak wrote:

You seem to think that being tolerant means to never ever criticise another person's beliefs. I find that ridiculous. I can strongly criticise a person's beliefs and still be tolerant of them. When I say "I think that your religion is ridiculous" - what's the big deal? I'm sure that many Christians find it ridiculous to think that there is no God. Should they bite their lips in discussions like this in order not to offend any Atheists? Of course not. Speak your mind - *please*. It's the only way to have a honest discussion.

The point is that we respect your disbelief, but again that's beyond your ubnderstanding.

Mr ProgFreak wrote:

Some proof would be nice, instead of circular references within Catholic documents or scripture. I know that you don't have proof, what's annoying me is that you keep presenting this stuff like it could possibly mean anything to non-Catholics.

Mike, you keep presenting offensive videos as if they meant something to us, accept it or not, all this threads are to try to convert us to your own particular form of being atheist.

Textbook wrote:

Good example is the "ex cathedra" documents. The idea seems to be that any document with the linguistic term "ex cathedra" applied to it is magically true because this phrase "ex cathedra" has a special truth conferring power. But of course this just bounces off a non-believer, despite it being used here as though it's some sort of trump card.

"I'm sorry, you can't call ex cathedra announcements PR."

"But I don't believe in the ex cathedra authority so I can."

"No actually you can't because they have the ex cathedra authority."

You are very clever telling people that I'm trying to convince you that the documents "Ex Cathedra" are a proof of divinity or something.

No, I know you don't believe in them, but you are questioning our coherence and writing untrue facts about the things we believe in.

This documents and photos only prove the coherence between what we say, how we act and what is in our doctrine, a proof that there is no contradiction between what we say and what we belief in.

You don't believe in the absolute validity of an "Ex Cathedra" document, but it means a lot for us and if you say we discriminate from salvation those persons who are not Catholics, I proved you that this is false, because an official document of the church is an evidence that we believe that a member of any religion can be saved.

I'm not trying to convince you that this person will go to heaven or even that there exists a heaven, but our doctrine is an evidence that we believe anybody can be safe, and that's all I can proof you.

I you say, there is no salvation, I can't give you an evidence of it's existence, but if you say "Catholics condemn all the other religions to hell", I can give you solid evidence that we believe that anybody could reach salvation

In the same way, photos I posted don't prove that the Pope, Dalai Lama, Rabbi and Archbishop of Canterbury are divine or something soimilar, this photos only prove that they are head of their churches (not sure about the Rabbi) and that there's tolerance between them.

Textbook wrote:

It would be interesting to see what a Catholic would do if an ex cathedra announcement stated that the sky was orange. That it never would is irrelevant- we are testing the depths of faith here. There are two choices:)

11)Disagree with it demonstrating that the faith is not absolute and that you will only go along with the church until it says something you're not comfortable with.

ii) Agree and demonstrate mental illness.

There is the third "escape route" where the believer says "I wouldn't know how I would react until it happened" but I think most people would suspect this of being avoidance

About your statement of the Pope declaring in an "Ex Cathedra" document that the sky is orange, how can I answer you withjout being rure...Well I can't, so I'll be honest, it's pure bull sh!t.

Seems I have lost my time explaining you about this documents, as I said before: The Pope can only write "Ex Cathedra" documents about issues of faith and doctrine, his opinion about the color of the sky or who will be world champion in 2014, are personal opinions as the ones of any of us, and we don't have to believe them.

If the Pope wrote an article saying "Germany will be World Champion", I could write another one saying, No, I believe Brazil is local and they will win and I wouldn't be in fault or excommunicated, because this papal article would be an opinion of a German fan and nothing more.But if he declares that X person is a saint, we must believe in this, because it's an "Ex Cathedra" documentn on issues of doctrine and faith.

I hope that after many attempts you understand this and won't question me again about something I explained several times.

Iván

Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - July 23 2010 at 11:08

Mr ProgFreak View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195

Posted: July 23 2010 at 11:07

Trademark wrote:

"I can strongly criticise a person's beliefs and still be tolerant of them."

Theoretically, Mike this could be possible, but you have not accomplished the goal.

You really can't compare these situations. First of all, I am not denying that I'm criticising these beliefs. It's not like I'm saying "you'll see me criticising you, but I'm really not". I'm being tolerant in that I let Catholics do their "thing". I may not like it, I may strongly criticise it, but except for discussions like this one I'll leave them alone. Being tolerant means not interfering IMO, and it's really different from "not criticising".

Mr ProgFreak View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195

Posted: July 23 2010 at 11:11

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

One thing is to criticize when some person or group does something that is intrinsically wrong

And no Mike, you are not tolerant, you are one of the most intolerant persons I ever found .

I think that the doctrine of transsubstantiation is idiotic. It's ridiculous. It's laughable. It's silly. It requires people to pretend that the wafer is the actual flesh of Jesus Christ, even though they can clearly see that it isn't. It's like Captain Picard in the TNG episode Chain of Command, being forced by the Cardassian to say "there are five lights" when there in fact only are four.

I will not lie to you - which seems to be your idea of tolerance. I will let you practice your religion, but when you come to this thread, which should be an open forum for discussions about religion and atheism, and then attack people for speaking their mind, then it's *you* who are out of line.

Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557

Posted: July 23 2010 at 11:15

Mr ProgFreak wrote:

I will not lie to you - which seems to be your idea of tolerance. I will let you practice your religion, but when you come to this thread, which should be an open forum for discussions about religion and atheism, and then attack people for speaking their mind, then it's *you* who are out of line.

And if you could....Would you ban religion?

Iván

PS: Remember I'm very good finding quotes.

Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - July 23 2010 at 11:42

Slartibartfast View Drop Down

Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam

Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630

Posted: July 23 2010 at 11:32

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

PS: Remember I'm very god finding quotes.

Did you run out of "o"s or something? LOL

Edited by Slartibartfast - July 23 2010 at 11:33

Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...

jampa17

Prog Reviewer

Joined: July 04 2009
Location: Guatemala
Status: Offline
Points: 6802

Posted: July 23 2010 at 11:34

Mr ProgFreak wrote:

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

One thing is to criticize when some person or group does something that is intrinsically wrong

And no Mike, you are not tolerant, you are one of the most intolerant persons I ever found .

I think that the doctrine of transsubstantiation is idiotic. It's ridiculous. It's laughable. It's silly. It requires people to pretend that the wafer is the actual flesh of Jesus Christ, even though they can clearly see that it isn't. It's like Captain Picard in the TNG episode Chain of Command, being forced by the Cardassian to say "there are five lights" when there in fact only are four.

I will not lie to you - which seems to be your idea of tolerance. I will let you practice your religion, but when you come to this thread, which should be an open forum for discussions about religion and atheism, and then attack people for speaking their mind, then it's *you* who are out of line.

If you came to a public site and said that things, you are being disrespectful. If you don't understand that those things are sacred for us, then you are not taking the chance to understand us, to flow with it. That is an attack.

Tolerance is I don't f*ck with you and you don't f*ck with me or the things are important to me. You proved once again that you are not tolerant. It's not about lie, it's about *respect* each others ideas, behaivors or believings. You are disrespectful with faith and that's your problem. You just can't put in anybodies shoes and try to understand others feelings.

I thought we could argue about something. Now I know everything we said to you is waste our words...

Change the program inside... Stay in silence is a crime.

Slartibartfast View Drop Down

Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam

Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630

Posted: July 23 2010 at 11:39

OK, but can we funk with you?