Theism vs. Atheism ... will it ever be settled?

Chris S wrote: Mike, I am curious...are you sure you are not a closet Theist desperately trying to " come out"? You are searchin endless responses to find the right connection or button? For someone who thinks that there is ' Nothing" and just this, you are certainly putting a lot of energy into disproving Theism. Is it the fact that devoted or religious belief infuriates you?   Do you at least accept that there is no right or wrong answer to this debate? Trying to strip down respondee replys and words structures is merely clutching at straws and exposes a perception of desperation on your part. You are still searchin my firend. Maybe the skeptic in you should try the experience of a seance or such like, at the very least to humor you   Respect.

^ Right ... one angry, petty grinch does not a campaign make.

I guess the Pope infallibility figure is like a General in an army... Of course he's human and quite capable of all kind of atrocities and mistakes, but to maintain the coherence and the well-being of the system, a clear head has to be given some kind of absolute power over what they represent. I'm sure most reasonable catholics won't believe the Pope is infallible in regards to science, to economy, and plenty other things. But when talking about religion, he has to be infallible. This is no democracy after all. To keep the church healthy, there has to be a clear head from whom the ultimate answer in matters of faith comes. If there wasn't such a head, imagine the chaos it would've produced in the catholic church, probably driving it to total collapse. 

The T wrote: . I'm sure most reasonable catholics won't believe the Pope is infallible in regards to science, to economy, and plenty other things

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:   Don't you read my response is only about you claiming I said that in 1893 all the Catholics believed in Evolution when I never said it?   About the second part of your quote: Maybe there are some Catholics that don't accept  evolution today....Yes of course there may be some (Pr0obably there are some atheists who don't agree with the evolution theory as it is known today and others who don't believe in the Big Bang), but that's a personal choice, not a dogma or an order of the Church,...But again we are guessing (Your link takes me nowhere BTW)

We entered this tangent when you posted something about an official document or statement made in 1893, and my point was that this most likely did not speak for all, and not even most Catholics at the time. I think we even agree on that.

BTW: Most Atheists indeed accept Evolution and the Big Bang, and there may be some who don't - but technically it's besides the point, since Atheism does not include any dogmatic teachings that depend upon Evolution or the Big Bang to have happened.

Iván wrote:   Mr ProgFreak wrote: All I'm saying is that you're in a position that you cannot defend with honesty - you'll either have to betray your principles or misrepresent your position (which, indeed is "lying"). I fail to see though how this is my fault. Please Iván!!!!! Why can't I defend with honesy my beliefs? I believe in God and in evolution, this is totally accepted by my religion, I'm betraying nobody.   Your fault is in your position, which consists: If Catholics believe in Adam & Eve as a literal truth...They are idiots that believe in fairy tales If Catholics believe in evolution according to the Cathechism of the Church and the opinion of the Pope...Catholics are liars that are betraying their faith.

The way you put it shows that you misunderstood me - or I failed to make it clear to you. First of all, you don't believe in Adam & Eve as a literal truth yourself. Yet you wouldn't necessarily call those who do "idiots". Please don't infer that because I think that someone holds a belief that's in my opinion false that also means that I think they're stupid. That is not the case. Secondly, I said that they cannot defend their belief in honesty. That's not the same as calling them "liars". I think that most Theists just never really think their position through. When they happen to be asked to defend their position, they run into contradictions. At that point they have can either admit that or make up excuses. Since admitting it is not an acceptable choice for most, they make up excuses, and I consider that to be a dishonest strategy in a discussion.

An example would be this:

"God moves in mysterious ways"

You can use it as a trump card whenever something happens that shouldn't happen if your theology was correct. Instead of admitting that your theology fails to explain reality, you simply argue that we cannot possibly know God's mind, although the very premise of your position was that we can - at least to the extent that he supposedly revealed his plans to us.

Iván wrote: That's your fault, you say you want the world to evolve, but you deny us that possibility, because you need an excuse to attack us noi matter what our position is...And then you talk in a later quote about "Religious freedom"..That's hilarious. Mr ProgFreak wrote: Well, if you still continue to believe in the infallibility of the pope, there's another position that you simply can't defend with honesty.   I have to believe in the Pope's ifallibility in matters of Dogma and faith when talking "Ex Cathedra", because it's in what we consider a historcal book of  the Bible.

You don't have to - you decide to do it. The pope says something that makes no sense to you and instead of saying so, you try to ignore it since your religion simply defined that he's always right. I simply don't call that an intellectually honest position.

Question: Do condoms exacerbate the spreading of AIDS? Good luck answering this in a rational manner without contradicting the pope.

Iván wrote: Mr ProgFreak wrote: That's not how it started. If people had known about the world what they know today, Catholicism would never have gotten that big to begin with. Of course, if somebody would had talked about Evolution in 1801 people would had never followed that religion or belief because people wouldn't had been able to understand what we know today, the truth doesn't change, what changes is our perception of truth.

1801? I'm talking about 100 CE, where people didn't even know why it rains, or why the sun rises every day. It's in this type of environment that religions rose to power.

What do you mean when you say "perception of truth" ... do you think that we can never be sure of what is actually true? You can start a philosophical argument there, but it's irrelevant - the point is that while there may be an absolute truth that we can never determine with absolute certainty, we can establish truths that are testable - this is what science does, and the truths that we know today would have been applicable back in 100 CE as they are now - there is no indication that they are something that is only true in our perception.

Iván wrote:   Mr ProgFreak wrote: And you think that somehow makes it less ridiculous? The pope has no authority at all. In medieval times there were plenty of popes at a time - fighting over land and power. I don't believe for a second that any of them was somehow special. Ridiculous, nice word for somebody who has claimed a couple posts ago that he believes in religious freedom.

You keep demanding that freedom of religion also includes that people mustn't criticize it. That's nonsense. You're free to follow any religion, but I'm also free to do so, and if I reject your religion and I even find it silly, there's this thing called freedom of speech which I find equally important. In turn, you're free to ignore my criticism. The problem starts in your choice to perceive my criticism as an attack - which in turn tells me something about your faith.

Iván wrote: Now, the Popes can make mistakes as anybody of us,, they can make false wars, insult, get angry, lie, etc, except  when talking about Dogma and faith in an ex cathedra documents, only in that case they're infallible.   That's why John Paul II decided yo ask pardon for mistakes made by other Popes.

Like that would somehow make everything right.

Iván wrote: Mr ProgFreak wrote: Of course you're free to ignore the similarities. But then don't complain when I point out this willful ignorance.   If you call oyur beliefs a virus...you can't expect a reply that will honour your offences.

What's wrong with a virus? It's a form of live, and there simply is an analogy between how viruses spread and how religions do. If you take offense when someone points out these analogies, I'll have to say that you're simply very easily offended. I'll go ahead and say that following the analogy, skepticism and reason can immunize people - provided that (childhood) indoctrination doesn't get them first.

Iván wrote: Mr ProgFreak wrote: I'm clearly talking about a cultural evolution here, and not a biological one.   But still you proclaim yourself more evolved, I'm not lying.

Not in a biological sense. But in a cultural or maybe intellectual sense - yes. I do think that religion is a flawed concept and something to grow out of or leave behind.

Iván wrote: Mr ProgFreak wrote: Likewise. As long as you keep drawing these illogical conclusions, we won't be getting anywhere with this   I know, everybody who doesn't agree with you is illogical, but read your words..

I sense a Trademark in you.

Iván wrote: Mr ProgFreak wrote: We're all different, and we all grow up under different circumstances. Some are more prone to indoctrination, some less. Some parents will try to make sure that their children "inherit" their religion, others will be more inclined to let them make that decision themselves. I'm sure though that if you don't expose children to religious indoctrination and then introduce the topic when they're 14 years old and ask them what they want to do, a huge percentage of them would want to be Atheists - simply because they would be skeptical as to  which of the religions was true, since they all claim to be true and none can prove it. And before you complain: No, I can't prove this claim, it's simply an opinion.   At last you accept something you say  is only your opinion, after calling us ridiculous as if you owned the only truth.  Iván

It's hopeless - you see it through a lense that turns everything into dogmatic teachings. When I make the claim that Evolution is true, I don't expect anyone to accept that as "the only truth". They should go read science textbooks, look at the fossils and DNA and make up their own minds. I'm not asking anyone to "take my word for it". Please, don't try to make it appear like I did.

^ why does god have to test people?

Mr ProgFreak wrote: Proletariat wrote: I tend to find the recent post box useful on occasion... i dont know, you certainly have a point regarding it. By all means continue to use it, I just think that it's not really useful for finding out what is going on in the forum. Here's the two biggest reasons: a) It's limited to 10 entries b) it's not aggregated by thread So essentially as soon as one thread has much more activity than the others, the list becomes completely useless. The active topics page on the other hand is not only aggregated by thread, but also not limited in length. Its main drawback IMO is that it's grouped by forum category - I'd like an active topics page with only one big chronological list of threads. Proletariat wrote: as to your second point, I see no "good reason" for either set of beliefs... If there is not a god then there is no point in either belief or disbeleif other than the ability to say one is right. Only if religion is correct does it matter... and as for definitive evidence, there will never be any either way. if we proved the big bang, evolution, whatever, the religious will say its a lie or that god created big bang, evolution. If the christians are right there proof will be the apocalypse and it will be to late for me, I will have the mark of the beast for sure The problem is that religious beliefs cause people to behave differently - it informs their actions. I am opposed to religion mainly because of these harmful effects, and they are also why I think that these discussions matter. I agree with Dean on "Post-Theism", but as long as - just to give one small example - there are children suffering or even dying because their parents refuse medical treatment or vaccination because of medical reasons, as long as such things are happening, these discussions are relevant IMO.

but... if there is no god then we are animals? were not set apart right, thats a silly belief right? i would have no problem watching a cow die from lack of medication... infact i would probably kill and eat it. not to say that athiests are immoral, but from an athiest stand point morals should not matter... should not even play into the argument because they are based on a nonexsistant moral code and a belief system based on nothing.

How has this discussion gone to over 90 pages?

Although that Wikipedia page is very interesting Mike. I've only had time to glance over it (I'm supposed to be working!) But I'm thinking that mature and morally functioning societies are achieved when it;s individuals reach the 'post conventional' stage, and have a full understanding of the value of another individuals rights, life and wellbeing above rules which have been established, in governing that socieity. Just a thought, but of course modern western socieities have failed, because even in the developed world, many sick people will die if they can't pay to stay alive.



Edited by Blacksword - August 24 2010 at 04:42

1. I don't matter how you entered in this tangent, you implied that I claimed that in 1893 all the Catholics beeieved in evolution, what is FALSE.
2. Mike you said you think that  not all Cathoilics believe in evolution today, and I pointed that probably not all atheists either, your internal motivation is not important, the point is what you said and what i replied

BTW: Neither Evolution or Big Bang (Discovered by a faithful Catholic Priest) attempt against our doctrine, Darwin was never in the list of banned authors of the Codex and since 1893 the high ranks of the Church publicly admit the posibility of an evolution, so our believes don't depend on it being false.

Mr ProgFreak wrote: The way you put it shows that you misunderstood me - or I failed to make it clear to you. First of all, you don't believe in Adam & Eve as a literal truth yourself. Yet you wouldn't necessarily call those who do "idiots". Please don't infer that because I think that someone holds a belief that's in my opinion false that also means that I think they're stupid. That is not the case. Secondly, I said that they cannot defend their belief in honesty. That's not the same as calling them "liars". I think that most Theists just never really think their position through. When they happen to be asked to defend their position, they run into contradictions. At that point they have can either admit that or make up excuses. Since admitting it is not an acceptable choice for most, they make up excuses, and I consider that to be a dishonest strategy in a discussion. An example would be this: "God moves in mysterious ways" You can use it as a trump card whenever something happens that shouldn't happen if your theology was correct. Instead of admitting that your theology fails to explain reality, you simply argue that we cannot possibly know God's mind, although the very premise of your position was that we can - at least to the extent that he supposedly revealed his plans to us.

Mr ProgFreak wrote: Question: Do condoms exacerbate the spreading of AIDS? Good luck answering this in a rational manner without contradicting the pope?

1. Doctrine
2. Faith
3. Cheistian Morals
4. When talking Ex Cathedra

SINCE WHEN IS AIDS A MATTER OF DOGMA, FAITH OR CHRISTIAN MORALS???????

The truths of science are the same today than they were in 100 AD, but people's perception of this laws (Christians and atheists)  is different in both eras, and this...You can't deny.

 

Mr ProgFreak wrote: You keep demanding that freedom of religion also includes that people mustn't criticize it. That's nonsense. You're free to follow any religion, but I'm also free to do so, and if I reject your religion and I even find it silly, there's this thing called freedom of speech which I find equally important. In turn, you're free to ignore my criticism. The problem starts in your choice to perceive my criticism as an attack - which in turn tells me something about your faith.

Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - August 24 2010 at 11:52

You forgot
6. 6. Mention low-carb diet.