(January 7, 2017 at 10:16 pm)Balaco Wrote: It's been quite a while, so I should probably pop in and mention that I'm still looking into the validity of religion, though I've toned it down over the past few weeks due to various reasons. Tomorrow I'm planning on setting aside a lot of time to focus more on the facts and the "strongest" theistic arguments, now that I've gotten a clear picture on the general perspective of atheists and theists.

Can I just say, I think it's kinda grim that the first thing you're reaching for when it comes to support for theism is arguments, and not... you know, evidence?

Arguments are not evidence, and in fact in cases like this they're most often what people use because they don't have evidence. Theistic apologetics largely just try to arrange gaps in knowledge into a god-shaped hole because they don't actually have anything to fill it. Why god must exist, because they have nothing to show that he does.

And here you are, buying into it. My suggestion to you would be to raise your standards.

I would like you, Balaco, to consider the following paragraph written by a traditional Roman Catholic priest and theologian (emphasis mine):
       

Quote:When it comes to the moral legitimacy of repressing the spread of false doctrine within the Christian commonwealth, however, we are faced with a solid block of near-unanimous and unwavering insistence, for over a thousand years, on the part of the pastors of the universal Church in communion with Peter's successor. We are talking about a doctrine which Pope Leo XIII declared personally in the encyclical Immortale Dei to be "the necessary growth of the teachings of the Gospel." 6 In regard to the contrary doctrine (i.e., that government repression of anti-Catholic doctrine for the sake of the common good is intrinsically evil and unjust), Pius IX declared that this "evil opinion" must be "absolutely held as reprobated, denounced and condemned by all the children of the Catholic Church." 7 We are looking at a doctrine to which the Bishops of the Catholic world gave their absolute and zealous support, endorsing its enforcement by the civil arm, with varying degrees of severity, for century after century; a doctrine with the gravest practical implications for the lives of millions of people, both Catholic and non-Catholic; a doctrine which formed one of the pillars of that whole world-view and civilization known historically as Catholic Christendom; a doctrine which the learned and holy Pontiff Pius XII endorsed as recently as 1953, when his Concordat with the Spanish government prohibited all exterior manifestations of non-Catholic religions in that nation. If the Church had really taught at Vatican II (as is claimed by my critic Anthony Lo Bello 8) that all this was "intrinsically wrong" - an absolute, per se violation of a natural human right - then I say that the Church would have utterly destroyed her claim to be the divinely-appointed interpreter of the moral law, guarded from error in her definitive teaching by the Holy Spirit in every age of history. Roma locuta est, cause finita est would in that event have become nothing more than a hollow boast, a cynical joke, an untenable superstition. How could any intelligent person ever trust a supposed oracle of truth which contradicted itself so calamitously and ignominiously as this?

http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt57.html

Note the last two lines.

Now, if you have a Roman Catholic priest and theologian, who is highly educated, acknowledging the fact that the Catholic Church's Magisterium has contradicted itself, how can you possibly continue to believe that any of it is true?  Especially, with Francis now allowing unrepentant, public adulterers to receive the Holy Eucharist, the so-called Blessed Sacrament, the "Sacrament of Sacraments"?

The so-called "genetic fallacy" applies in multiple instances here.  Muslims, even educated ones, are not converting en mass to Christianity, and nor vice-a-versa.  Therefore, the arguments of so-called Christian apologists are not convincing.  However, even the Iranian Academy of Sciences accepts Darwinian evolution:

http://www.interacademies.net/10878/13901.aspx

What does that tell you?

(January 7, 2017 at 11:54 pm)Stimbo Wrote: I'd just like to emphasise the distinctions between religion, theism/atheism and gods. As in they're not even close to being the same thing, though there is a degree of overlap. Proving the existence of a god, for instance, has no bearing on any religion; they could all still be wrong.

Yes, like Christianity, all the schisms, every last one of them, all wrong. And Mormonism, every last schism of every church that traces back to Joe Smith, all wrong.


If this turns out to be the One True God of our universe, it is clear every single human gestated religion got it wrong wrong wrong.

(January 8, 2017 at 4:30 am)robvalue Wrote: And even if they are right, they can still be morally bankrupt. God can be an arsehole. If Christianity is to be believed for example, that's exactly what he is. The idea that God has to be good is a massive unfounded assumption.

They have to be morally bankrupt, practically by definition, by requiring their followers to submit their own moral compass to the pronouncements set out in a book deemed inviolable and unquestionable. It's equivalent to getting them sign over all control of their bank details to an anonymous team of financial wizards, whom they never see and who are only spoken about, in reverent tones, and how dare you say it's a scam, you blasphemous heathen!

(January 8, 2017 at 9:13 am)Esquilax Wrote:

(January 7, 2017 at 10:16 pm)Balaco Wrote: It's been quite a while, so I should probably pop in and mention that I'm still looking into the validity of religion, though I've toned it down over the past few weeks due to various reasons. Tomorrow I'm planning on setting aside a lot of time to focus more on the facts and the "strongest" theistic arguments, now that I've gotten a clear picture on the general perspective of atheists and theists.

Can I just say, I think it's kinda grim that the first thing you're reaching for when it comes to support for theism is arguments, and not... you know, evidence?

Arguments are not evidence, and in fact in cases like this they're most often what people use because they don't have evidence. Theistic apologetics largely just try to arrange gaps in knowledge into a god-shaped hole because they don't actually have anything to fill it. Why god must exist, because they have nothing to show that he does.

And here you are, buying into it. My suggestion to you would be to raise your standards.

Maybe I should've put more clarification into that post. I'm not going to just use arguments (from either theists or atheists) as pure evidence, but I'm going to be looking for evidence to supplement them, to see for myself if a/theistic arguments hold any ground.

At this point I'm more or less neutral rather than buying into theistic arguments, with my mind beginning to lean away from the Church if anything -- due to how valid atheist explanations/evidence against God seem to be, and due to the many apparent logical fallacies I'm beginning to see within religions.

---

(January 8, 2017 at 10:35 am)Jehanne Wrote: I would like you, Balaco, to consider the following paragraph written by a traditional Roman Catholic priest and theologian (emphasis mine):
       

Quote:When it comes to the moral legitimacy of repressing the spread of false doctrine within the Christian commonwealth, however, we are faced with a solid block of near-unanimous and unwavering insistence, for over a thousand years, on the part of the pastors of the universal Church in communion with Peter's successor. We are talking about a doctrine which Pope Leo XIII declared personally in the encyclical Immortale Dei to be "the necessary growth of the teachings of the Gospel." 6 In regard to the contrary doctrine (i.e., that government repression of anti-Catholic doctrine for the sake of the common good is intrinsically evil and unjust), Pius IX declared that this "evil opinion" must be "absolutely held as reprobated, denounced and condemned by all the children of the Catholic Church." 7 We are looking at a doctrine to which the Bishops of the Catholic world gave their absolute and zealous support, endorsing its enforcement by the civil arm, with varying degrees of severity, for century after century; a doctrine with the gravest practical implications for the lives of millions of people, both Catholic and non-Catholic; a doctrine which formed one of the pillars of that whole world-view and civilization known historically as Catholic Christendom; a doctrine which the learned and holy Pontiff Pius XII endorsed as recently as 1953, when his Concordat with the Spanish government prohibited all exterior manifestations of non-Catholic religions in that nation. If the Church had really taught at Vatican II (as is claimed by my critic Anthony Lo Bello 8) that all this was "intrinsically wrong" - an absolute, per se violation of a natural human right - then I say that the Church would have utterly destroyed her claim to be the divinely-appointed interpreter of the moral law, guarded from error in her definitive teaching by the Holy Spirit in every age of history. Roma locuta est, cause finita est would in that event have become nothing more than a hollow boast, a cynical joke, an untenable superstition. How could any intelligent person ever trust a supposed oracle of truth which contradicted itself so calamitously and ignominiously as this?

http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt57.html

Note the last two lines.

Now, if you have a Roman Catholic priest and theologian, who is highly educated, acknowledging the fact that the Catholic Church's Magisterium has contradicted itself, how can you possibly continue to believe that any of it is true?  Especially, with Francis now allowing unrepentant, public adulterers to receive the Holy Eucharist, the so-called Blessed Sacrament, the "Sacrament of Sacraments"?

The so-called "genetic fallacy" applies in multiple instances here.  Muslims, even educated ones, are not converting en mass to Christianity, and nor vice-a-versa.  Therefore, the arguments of so-called Christian apologists are not convincing.  However, even the Iranian Academy of Sciences accepts Darwinian evolution:

http://www.interacademies.net/10878/13901.aspx

What does that tell you?

Let me make sure I understand your points.

--

The Roman Catholic Church prides itself on being correct on every last one of its claims and teachings (and from what I understand, the Church uses this as a primary basis for its "validity"). The Pope is traditionally seen as being absolutely infallible in all of his teachings. Yet here we see blatant examples of apparent contradictions in the Catholic Church. We see Pius IX not merely altering Catholic teachings from what Leo XIII asserted...we see him absolutely condemning his teachings and calling them evil. Even today, Francis is now going against previously "solid" Church teachings.

In short, the fact that the Catholic Church has ever changed its teachings or has ever had contradictions renders the Church as invalid -- considering it insists that it has never changed its teachings.

--

If I'm gathering this all correctly, I think I may have to agree with these points. To be fair I haven't looked into the Catholic perspective/counterarguments of these points as of posting this response, so I'll have to see if they have any validity.

(January 8, 2017 at 12:51 pm)Stimbo Wrote:

(January 8, 2017 at 4:30 am)robvalue Wrote: And even if they are right, they can still be morally bankrupt. God can be an arsehole. If Christianity is to be believed for example, that's exactly what he is. The idea that God has to be good is a massive unfounded assumption.

They have to be morally bankrupt, practically by definition, by requiring their followers to submit their own moral compass to the pronouncements set out in a book deemed inviolable and unquestionable. It's equivalent to getting them sign over all control of their bank details to an anonymous team of financial wizards, whom they never see and who are only spoken about, in reverent tones, and how dare you say it's a scam, you blasphemous heathen!

Absolutely. Any attempt to codify morality into being "objective" is highly dangerous and should be fought against; religious or not. It's completely futile of course; morality remains entirely personal no matter what anyone says about it. All that changes is whether someone tries to force their version onto others.

The act of picking a religion, and then filtering its texts until it matches what you want morality to be anyway is so hopelessly subjective that I don't know how anyone can think there's any objectivity to be found in the whole process. Although the "picking" is most likely done for you by your parents, before you've developed proper thinking skills.

(January 8, 2017 at 4:29 pm)Balaco Wrote:

(January 8, 2017 at 9:13 am)Esquilax Wrote: Can I just say, I think it's kinda grim that the first thing you're reaching for when it comes to support for theism is arguments, and not... you know, evidence?

Arguments are not evidence, and in fact in cases like this they're most often what people use because they don't have evidence. Theistic apologetics largely just try to arrange gaps in knowledge into a god-shaped hole because they don't actually have anything to fill it. Why god must exist, because they have nothing to show that he does.

And here you are, buying into it. My suggestion to you would be to raise your standards.  

Maybe I should've put more clarification into that post. I'm not going to just use arguments (from either theists or atheists) as pure evidence, but I'm going to be looking for evidence to supplement them, to see for myself if a/theistic arguments hold any ground.

At this point I'm more or less neutral rather than buying into theistic arguments, with my mind beginning to lean away from the Church if anything -- due to how valid atheist explanations/evidence against God seem to be, and due to the many apparent logical fallacies I'm beginning to see within religions.

---

(January 8, 2017 at 10:35 am)Jehanne Wrote: I would like you, Balaco, to consider the following paragraph written by a traditional Roman Catholic priest and theologian (emphasis mine):
       

http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt57.html

Note the last two lines.

Now, if you have a Roman Catholic priest and theologian, who is highly educated, acknowledging the fact that the Catholic Church's Magisterium has contradicted itself, how can you possibly continue to believe that any of it is true?  Especially, with Francis now allowing unrepentant, public adulterers to receive the Holy Eucharist, the so-called Blessed Sacrament, the "Sacrament of Sacraments"?

The so-called "genetic fallacy" applies in multiple instances here.  Muslims, even educated ones, are not converting en mass to Christianity, and nor vice-a-versa.  Therefore, the arguments of so-called Christian apologists are not convincing.  However, even the Iranian Academy of Sciences accepts Darwinian evolution:

http://www.interacademies.net/10878/13901.aspx

What does that tell you?

Let me make sure I understand your points.

--

The Roman Catholic Church prides itself on being correct on every last one of its claims and teachings (and from what I understand, the Church uses this as a primary basis for its "validity"). The Pope is traditionally seen as being absolutely infallible in all of his teachings. Yet here we see blatant examples of apparent contradictions in the Catholic Church. We see Pius IX not merely altering Catholic teachings from what Leo XIII asserted...we see him absolutely condemning his teachings and calling them evil. Even today, Francis is now going against previously "solid" Church teachings.

In short, the fact that the Catholic Church has ever changed its teachings or has ever had contradictions renders the Church as invalid -- considering it insists that it has never changed its teachings.

--

If I'm gathering this all correctly, I think I may have to agree with these points. To be fair I haven't looked into the Catholic perspective/counterarguments of these points as of posting this response, so I'll have to see if they have any validity.

And then when we see in Holy Scripture the Apostle Paul superseding and overruling some of Jesus' edicts and strictures.


On who's authority did Paul take it upon himself to do that ??


Surely not Jesus' as Jesus would have simply preached the correct doctrine in the first place.

(January 8, 2017 at 12:27 am)Keith Wrote: I became an agnostic due to proof reasons. And I'm happy to be one

Got to admit I'm curious what you mean by "proof reasons".  Also, did you move to becoming an agnostic from being a theist (as most would assume), as opposed to giving up hard atheism?

Regardless, it would be good to hear more from you and I hope you'll start your own intro thread and take part in any threads that interest you.

(November 22, 2016 at 6:44 pm)Balaco Wrote: Atheists, why do you reject the idea of God, and why should I? I know that your answers will include "there's no evidence" and all that, but please try to explain.

Hi,
I know I'm very late to this thread, but I just joined and was raised Catholic so thought I would give you my two cents.
 
Just to be clear, I went to public Catholic school from JK to grade eight, then private Catholic high school to Grade 13 (which they used to have) The high school (boys only) was run by priests and I had several teachers of various subjects who were priests but many other teachers who were not clergy including a couple of female teachers. I’m very familiar with Catholicism!
 
To answer your question, I think you could ask yourself a few more questions the answers to which might help. For example:
 
1)   Why would god need middle men?
 Seriously, why would such an omniscient, omnipotent being need a group of men to tell everyone else what he really wants from us? Doesn't it seem to you that this arrangement benefits and empowers those men more than it does god?
 
2)   Why has the Catholic church committed crime after crime for centuries now if a benevolent god was actually behind this organization?
The child rape and cover up scandal is only the tip of a long ugly sword. You can go back to hundreds of years of inquisitions (torturing men to death), witch hunts in which thousands of women were burned to death, the selling of indulgences, imprisoning young women as slave labour in the Magdalene Asylums, and on and on… Note that these are systemic crimes and not just the crimes of a few individual bad eggs.
 
3)   Why were we forced to replace theocracy with secular government in order to make moral progress?
It seems to me that separating church from state (or even the attempt) has been a major improvement over any theocracy. If God were truly behind the Catholic church or any religion, why would the church not be the best possible source of governance? The answer is obviously that the claim of divinity is false. 
 
Leaving the church was easy for me, but I do understand that for many people the social implications may be very difficult depending on your specific circumstances. 
Best of luck.
 

(January 8, 2017 at 4:29 pm)Balaco Wrote: If I'm gathering this all correctly, I think I may have to agree with these points. To be fair I haven't looked into the Catholic perspective/counterarguments of these points as of posting this response, so I'll have to see if they have any validity.

Are you sure that you were raised as a Roman Catholic?  If so, it seems for someone like you, a "cradle Catholic", not to know about this aspect regarding the infallibility of the ordinary and supreme Magisterium of the Church.