(January 18, 2011 at 6:46 pm)dqualk Wrote: One must accept certain a-priori beliefs, like I exist, which also cannont be proven.

Alright, I accept that I exist. I still fail to see how you automatically jump from 'I exist' to 'I have a soul, which will endure forever in a metaphysical realm.' There is evidence for our existence. There is none for your supernatural and metaphysical assumptions.

(January 18, 2011 at 6:46 pm)dqualk Wrote: There is a perfectly legitimate and rational reason why homosexuality is wrong.

I'd love to hear your reason. Although there's a separate thread for this topic, you might want to check that out first.

(January 18, 2011 at 6:46 pm)dqualk Wrote: We can do no good thing apart from God's grace.

I'm a good, moral person who lacks the grace of a non-existent god. I do not expect any eternal reward for being good. Doing the right thing is a reward in itself.

(January 18, 2011 at 6:46 pm)dqualk Wrote: God knows the condition of man's heart and what he would have done in any given situation. For this reason it is certainly possible that God's salvation has extened beyond the visible walls of the Church.

I resepect all thouse who seek truth in charity.

And yet, if I do good in this world and live a life of charity, but I still reject the idea of a god, I'm going to hell anyway, right?

(January 18, 2011 at 6:46 pm)dqualk Wrote: Christ teaches that all of the law is summarized in this, love God and love your neighbor as yourself, he further states the golden rule, do unto others as you would have them do to you.

How about I just love my neighbour as myself, and do unto others as I would have them do unto me? There you have it, a recipe for a good life, no gods necessary.

(January 18, 2011 at 6:46 pm)dqualk Wrote: You were created with value, and you were further purchased at the highest price, the life of Christ.

No. You can believe your fairy tale all you want, but don't come in here and foist it upon others.

(January 18, 2011 at 6:46 pm)dqualk Wrote: There is no form of you floating about in a metaphysical realm.

You got that right! Oh wait, you were being sarcastic...

(January 18, 2011 at 6:46 pm)dqualk Wrote: I trust my reason before my senses

Apparently not. 'Reasonable' is not how I'd describe anything you've said. If anything, you're only trusting your emotions because it just 'feels' right to you.

I don't know why I even bother. You come in here with your a priori assumptions, insisting that nothing and no one will ever change your mind. What a waste of time. *sigh* 'If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people,' so damn true...

Quote:Here is some evidence for you. Do you exist? Do you have intrinsic value? Is there an objective right and wrong? If the answer to these are yes, then there must be a God. If you are so delusional and removed from yourself that you deny these basic axioms then enjoy your fake mechanical atomic colliding life. I'll contine you to REASON with my RATIONAL soul.

You have provided no evidence. Does the word 'empiricism' ring a bell? Perhaps familiarise yourself with the meaning of 'evidence' and 'burden of proof'.

There is no evidence for existence of the soul.Nor have I ever seen any evidence that human beings are capable of consistent rational thought or behaviour.

I reject the notion that the existence of God can be proved OR falsified though logical inference alone. I demand evidence.This is called 'Platonic method'. Not to be confused with the neo Platonism used by Ptolemy and his geocentric solar system and Christian apologists from Augustine to the present day.


It is not my habit to argue with apologists,so I have nothing further to say to you.;there is no common ground.

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Wikipedia gives quite good explanations of 'evidence' and "burden of proof"

Quote:Evidence in its broadest sense includes everything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion. Giving or procuring evidence is the process of using those things that are either (a) presumed to be true, or (b) were themselves proven via evidence, to demonstrate an assertion's truth. Evidence is the currency by which one fulfills the burden of proof.

Many issues surround evidence, making it the subject of much discussion and disagreement. In addition to its subtlety, evidence plays an important role in many academic disciplines, including science and law, adding to the discourse surrounding it.

An important distinction in the field of evidence is that between circumstantial evidence and direct evidence, or evidence that suggests truth as opposed to evidence that directly proves truth. Many have seen this line to be less-than-clear and significant arguments have arisen over the difference.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence

Quote:The burden of proof (Latin: onus probandi) is the obligation to shift the accepted conclusion away from an oppositional opinion to one's own position.

The burden of proof is often associated with the Latin maxim semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit, the best translation of which seems to be: "the necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges."[1] This is a statement of a version of the presumption of innocence that underpins the assessment of evidence in some legal systems, and is not a general statement of when one takes on the burden of proof. The burden of proof tends to lie with anyone who is arguing against received wisdom, but does not always, as sometimes the consequences of accepting a statement or the ease of gathering evidence in its defense might alter the burden of proof its proponents shoulder. The burden may also be assigned institutionally.

He who does not carry the burden of proof carries the benefit of assumption, meaning he needs no evidence to support his claim. Fulfilling the burden of proof effectively captures the benefit of assumption, passing the burden of proof off to another party. However the incidence of burden of proof is affected by common law, statute and procedure.

The burden of proof is an especially important issue in law and science.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_burden_of_proof

(January 18, 2011 at 6:46 pm)dqualk Wrote: @Jaysyn Indentured servants are different than slaves. The Bible is consistent in teaching, especially the New Testament which supercedes the old, that all men are children of God.

---

Bzzt, wrong!

Quote:Slaves, be subject to your masters with all reverence, not only to those who are good and equitable but also to those who are perverse." (1 Peter 2:18)

Quote:Jesus believed that the Old Testament was divinely inspired, the veritable Word of God. He said, "The Scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35). He referred to Scripture as "the commandment of God" (Matthew 15:3) and as the "Word of God" (Matthew 15:6). He also indicated that it was indestructible: "Until Heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the law, until all is accomplished" (Matthew 5:18). Notice that he mentions even the words and letters!

When dealing with the people of His day, whether it was with the disciples or religious rulers, Jesus constantly referred to the Old Testament: "Have you not read that which was spoken to you by God?" (Matthew 22:31); "Yea; and have you never read, 'Out of the mouth of infants and nursing babes thou hast prepared praise for thyself'?" (Matthew 21:16, citing Psalm 8:2); and "Have you not read what David did?" (Matthew 12:3). Examples could be multiplied to demonstrate that Jesus was conversant with the Old Testament and its content. He quoted from it often and He trusted it totally.

He confirmed many of the accounts in the Old Testament, such as the destruction of Sodom and the death of Lot's wife (Luke 17:29, 32), the murder of Abel by his brother Cain (Luke 11:51), the calling of Moses (Mark 12:26), the manna given in the wilderness (John 6:31-51), the judgment upon Tyre and Sidon (Matthew 1-1:21), and many others.

Also, the OT also talks about slaves taken from conquest. Typical, you don't know what is espoused in your "holy" book.

@Rayaan I will continue to use the term atheist until a better term is presented to me. I understand that not all atheists are materialists, but for the sake of my point I am using a different defintion of atheists, one whic his commonly used.

@Only Natural

Quote: And yet, if I do good in this world and live a life of charity, but I still reject the idea of a god, I'm going to hell anyway, right?

Not necessarily. If you consistently reject the Truth of God you will go to hell. However, it is possible that you have not recieved the gift of faith, as faith is a gift of God, and if this is the case then such a sin will not necessarily be held against you as you are not responsible for that sin. However, if there were a time where you were certain that God exists but you insisted upon blaspheming Him by continuing to say He doesn't exist even though you know He does, then you would go to hell. So if you genuinely do not believe that God exists, becuase of your decision to seek out Truth in charity, I do not hold that against you and I do not believe God does either.

However, I would compel you to always be open to the idea that God exists, in case something happens that convinces you of the Truth of God, like say He came down from heaven or something crazy, at that point you should be ready to accept the Truth and reject your former false assumption. And I hope just about anybody would.

Quote:No. You can believe your fairy tale all you want, but don't come in here and foist it upon others.

I apologize I do not mean to force my belief on anybody. I am only telling you what I believe. I do not expect you to suddenly agree with me, and I can understand why you would not, as I believe this is a very difficult issue, and its not all that surprising that you ended up on the other side of a most difficult question.

Quote:You got that right! Oh wait, you were being sarcastic...

I was not being sarcastic, I was explaing why I think it does not make sense to say you actually exist within atheism (or whatever you want to call it, dialectical materialism or whatever).

Quote:Apparently not. 'Reasonable' is not how I'd describe anything you've said. If anything, you're only trusting your emotions because it just 'feels' right to you.

I don't know why I even bother. You come in here with your a priori assumptions, insisting that nothing and no one will ever change your mind. What a waste of time. *sigh* 'If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people,' so damn true...

I hope you do not really believe that, becuase that would be sad. I am willing to reason with you, its uncomfortable for you to accept the validity of my beliefs. Its uncomfortable for me to accept the validity of a Muslims beliefs but I do. I do not believe a Muslim is right, likewise I do not believe an atheist is right, but I accept the validity of their beliefs. The fact is one must draw the line somewhere, as you what beliefs are properly basic (a-priori) and which are not. I sincerely believe that belief in God can be properly basic, especially as a rational explanation for intrinsic value, and existance in general. Many of the greatest minds of all time have come to the conclusion, like Leibniz, Decarts, Aristotle, Aquinas, et al.

I understand that great minds have come to the decision that atheism is reality, like Bertrand Russel, and David Hume. I just recepectfully disagree with their assumptions and rationale.

---

@padraic, I don't know if you cannot read or if you just did not read, but it clearly points out "(a) presumed to be true" this is using properly basic, or a priori assumptions to build upon, like I exist, right and wrong exist, intrinsic value exists, etc. Also, "An important distinction in the field of evidence is that between circumstantial evidence and direct evidence" curcumstancial evidence is still evidence, it may not sufficiently fulfill the burden of proof but it can strengthen an argument to the point of rational assent, for example, scientist have strengthened their myth of the big bang to such a degree that I have given it rational assent and a I now believe it.

ALSO lol " "the necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges." The FACT is that man has ALWAYS and EVERYWHERE believed in God. Atheists are a NEW phenomenon, and therefore in my opinion the burden of proof lies upon YOU sir. There are very few examples of atheists in history, and they are always a novelty, they always reject the mainstream. I would say the earliest argueable athiests appeared in ancient Greece, many were called Sophists, and they were considered novel. After Plato and Aristotle sufficiently destroyed there arguments, they would not reemerge until the enlightenment for the most part. Therefore the burden of proof is on you. Also, I assume you were a Christian before you became an atheist, or at least most are, and therefore you gave up your beautiful tradition handed down to you by your daddy's daddy, all the way back, and you rejected it without proof, that is you rejected the notion that God exists, that intrinsic value exists, and that right and wrong exists.

---

@Jaysyn, I have read the Bible more than you have googled it lol. I know everything the Bible says about slavery as I have studied the particular issue for quite some time. The fact is many historians beleive that slavery only finally died because of Christianity. This is because the first person in history to call for its complete end was St. Gregory of Nyssa. Also, when Americans capture prisoners of war we put them into prison. Why is this not slavery? We are taking away their rights and we are commanding them what they can and cannot do. The Jews did something similar. Slavery is this, when a man is believed to become property in a basic sense. Christiantiy teaches that it is impossible to make a man into property, and so does the OT. Yes indentured servants were in the OT, and yes people had to work hard for their food, and the times were cruel, but the Bible teaches against slavery, as it has a universal mesage that we are all created in the image of God, and this implies that we all are equal in dignity.

Of course Jesus believed in the OT, and so do I. I also believe that WW II happened, this does not mean that I agree with the vile murder of Jews etc. And once again Jesus superceded the OT, by hitting at the spirit of God's laws.

(January 18, 2011 at 6:46 pm)dqualk Wrote: You said right here, "You're asking me to respect a belief that the supernatural exists? Like ghosts, warlocks, witches, zombies, Harry Potter and such? Sorry, can't do that. I refuse to respect those beliefs [b]and quite frankly I'm not going to respect the people that hold them."

And that equates to atheists think they are the only intelligent ration people on earth? How does "I refuse to respect religious beliefs or the people that hold them" equal "You think you are the only intelligent people on earth"? It doesn't.

Quote:There is a perfectly legitimate and rational reason why homosexuality is wrong.

Lay it on me then man! I've been looking for one of those. Keep in mind though, because God/Jesus/Lord Zenu/FSM said so doesn't count.

Quote:At the same time we believe that we are correct, but those Christians who use their belief that they are correct as a way to be arrogant, they are disobeying the spirit of Christ, as the Church teaches....

You maintaining your beliefs and continually argueing they are fixed in reality in the face of all evidence and reason IS arrogance.

Quote:It is true that some Christians use their faith as a way to be arrogant. In this regard they are being terrible witnesses. The Church recognizes that there are good things within all religions and even within atheism. The Church also recognizes taht God is not bound by the visible boundaries...

More PR for your chruch. Really man, you can keep that shit to yourself

Quote:Also if you are going to be critical about Christianity than be real about what we believe.

What is it about what you believe did I get wrong? Please show me this strawman you claim I am building.

Quote:I understand it is far easier to attack a straw man

Just like the strawman you have constructed about atheism?

Quote:but at some point you have to grow up

Fuck you.

Quote: It is true that to often people abuse the name of Christ and scandalize the Church, but at some point you have to see through men's failures and see the truth of what Christ teaches.

Nevermind us protecting the child molesters in our ranks That's just "men's failures". Nothing important really, nothing to see here, move along. I don't give a flying fuck what christ teaches if his representatives here are molesting little children and he, if he be truely a 'God', stands by and does nothing to prevent it. If he be truely a God and continues in his silence and allows the guilty to be 'covered up' AND allowing the one suspected of covering up such incidents to be elected as the leader of his representatives.

Please remove your blinders and rose colored glasses and take a look at your church again.

Quote:His message is of love and peace, simply. Christ teaches that all of the law is summarized in this, love God and love your neighbor as yourself, he further states the golden rule.....,

Sounds preachy. No need for the sunday school lesson.

I'm done for now. This dude just repeats himself over and over no matter how unreasonable his claims and assumptions.

Quote:His message is of love and peace, simply.

The message is one of submission to authority. Authority has always approved of such dictums and the sheep don't know any better.

Quote: You maintaining your beliefs and continually argueing they are fixed in reality in the face of all evidence and reason IS arrogance.

You have shown me no evidence that God does not exist. I AM NOT USING THIS AS AN ARGUEMENT AS TO WHY YOU SHOULD BELEIVE. I am only saying that you cannot say that I am irrational for believing in God when you have shown me no conclusivel, or strong for that matter, evidence as to His non-existance.

Quote: More PR for your chruch. Really man, you can keep that shit to yourself

You may call it PR but it is clearly written in our Catechism and in the Second Vatican Council documents. Further, there are only a few ways by which the Church represents herself as a whole, and that is through Ecumencial Councils and the Pope when speaking on issues of faith and morals, and the ordinary magestirum of Tradition, which is that which taught always and everywhere by Bishop. Therefore this would be a most appropriate way to talk about the Church as a whole. Now one can always find a bad particular Catholic, or you can find a good particular Catholic who makes a stupid mistake, but that would not represent the whole. So I am not saying that there are not arrogant ignorant and rude Catholics who are extremely exclusivest, only that the Church as a whole teaches what I have said.

Quote:
What is it about what you believe did I get wrong? Please show me this strawman you claim I am building.

You said why should we allow people who believe in an evil overlord to pray at public schools. But Christians do not believe in an evil overlord. We believe in an all loving God, who loves all of creation. And who desires that all men should be saved.

Quote:Nevermind us protecting the child molesters in our ranks That's just "men's failures". Nothing important really, nothing to see here, move along. I don't give a flying fuck what christ teaches if his representatives here are molesting little children and he, if he be truely a 'God', stands by and does nothing to prevent it. If he be truely a God and continues in his silence and allows the guilty to be 'covered up' AND allowing the one suspected of covering up such incidents to be elected as the leader of his representatives.

Please remove your blinders and rose colored glasses and take a look at your church again.

I never said nevermind those evil bastards. Shame on them and they have truly scandalized the Church, and I don't blame you for being angry at the Church. I only ask that you overcome your emotions and be reasonable. Once you do this you will see that the Church's Canon Law and the Church's teaching on the subject are both good with regards to child molestation. That is the Church teaches that molestation and cover ups are grave evils and the Canon Law says that such individuals are to be immidiately reported to the secular authorities and they are to be defrocked. So ratioanlly you have to conclude that the Church's teachings are good in this regard, but that some individuals in the Church are stupid despite the teachings of the Church and her laws. In the same way there are child molesting atheists, yet I do not claim that all atheists are molesters and I am not angry at all atheists.

We are all represenatives of God in a sense, as we are all children of God and bear His image. What you are hitting at is truly the most difficult part of an omnipotent and omnibenevelont God and that is the problem of evil. I don't expect you to be convinced by our arguments but they make enough sense to me that I am able to hold on to my faith. My favorite answer to problem of evil is the one Leibniz provides, often times called the best possible of all worlds, and it is sometimes called the soul building theodicy.

With that said I will give a very simple explanation for why God allows His represenativers, that is His children which are all men (and women), and that is the gift of free will which was necessary for men to achieve a greater good. Leibniz has a much better explanation, that is far more in depth. I do not expect you to "convert" on account of it as it is a most difficult problem, and one that is no easily solved.

Quote: Sounds preachy. No need for the sunday school lesson

I do not intend to be preachy, I am only answering you in the best way I know how, which is with what Christ and the Church ACTUALLY teaches, as opposed to what idiots do to scandalize the Church (when I say idiots I'm mostly, in this case, talking about those stupid priests and bishops who did such evil acts).

---

Quote:And that equates to atheists think they are the only intelligent ration people on earth? How does "I refuse to respect religious beliefs or the people that hold them" equal "You think you are the only intelligent people on earth"? It doesn't.

My bad, I just assumed that if you don't respect Theists or their beliefs it is because you thought they were foolish. I shall reword it, you think you and your tiny bunch of atheists are the only people who deserve respect on this earth.

Minimalist it is clear in my experience that all you do is troll on people. You have posted 3 comments on this thread, and not a one was useful in any way form or fashion. All they do is reveal you as a hateful, rude, arrogant, and ignorant person. Perhaps you are actually charitable, kind, humble, intelligent and wise, but you certainly have not acted that way around me. Maybe this is becuase you are just trying to troll me to your level? Either way its sad. I pity the fool.

(January 19, 2011 at 2:03 pm)dqualk Wrote: I pity the fool.

Oh no, he's Mr Thock: