Russels Teapot addresses the physically extant. When addressing God this is incomplete.

(May 14, 2012 at 5:45 am)NoMoreFaith Wrote: Then you missed the point of the argument. It highlighted the difficulty in proving negatives and applications of Occams Razor.

The fact you had no problem replacing the teapot with God, seems to indicate you did not understand the relationship between a positive assertion and the burden of proof for complexity over simplicity.

Nothing you are saying here contradicts with my understanding of it. Maybe I'll revisit it, since I suppose I haven't for a very long time.

Quote:To be honest, the most legitimate atheist argument, remains, and will always be religion itself. You are Catholic, they are Muslim, she is Sikh, he is Hindu, they are Jewish, they are Zoroastrian, etc etc.
The fact if you took a census of belief based upon the religions you reject, we are all weak atheists. Even the pope.
The Outsider Test for Faith is one of the strongest arguments, and atheism is potentially the only philosophical position which passes.

Atheism doesn't have to do with rejecting religions--you can be an atheist Christian, for example. Atheism is "The theory or belief that God does not exist", sometimes expanded to "a lack of belief in God" (though that starts getting some weird implications)

The "Outsider Test for Faith" came about a bit after my time as a strong atheist, I'm afraid, and um, I don't see it as a strong argument at all (at least if I am reading the same test you are). It asks me to evaluate my religion as an "outsider". But I was already an outsider to my religion. As are the other ~50% of Americans who belong to a different religion from their parents. And while location can play some role in religion (though it certainly doesn't dictate anything) there's nothing you can say about the relationship between location and religion that you cannot also say about the relationship between location and irreligion.

So you still didn't answer the question of why you chose a religion with a history of corruption and vileness.

(May 14, 2012 at 6:13 am)Aiza Wrote: Nothing you are saying here contradicts with my understanding of it. Maybe I'll revisit it, since I suppose I haven't for a very long time.

The point to it was that there is no reason to posit the existence of the teapot, because it violates occams razor.
God does not escape that violation.

You're comfortable positing a complex answer to something, which is entirely up to you.

(May 14, 2012 at 6:13 am)Aiza Wrote: Atheism doesn't have to do with rejecting religions--you can be an atheist Christian, for example. Atheism is "The theory or belief that God does not exist", sometimes expanded to "a lack of belief in God" (though that starts getting some weird implications)

If you can comprehend a Christian who does not believe in God, then I would agree. I use religion here in terms of theistic belief, I very much doubt you were in any way confused by that usage.

(May 14, 2012 at 6:13 am)Aiza Wrote: It asks me to evaluate my religion as an "outsider". But I was already an outsider to my religion.

Then may I inquire as to why you reject all other religions, and what reasons you have for believing them not to be true.
If you do believe them equiprobable as your own religion, then why not become a high priestess of Aphrodite?

The problem the OTF poses, is that private internal assertion of the truth can no longer be used as evidence for that faith, as in order to do so, you must reject all other private internal assertions of truth, and therefore fail the test as an outsider.

Quote:As are the other ~50% of Americans who belong to a different religion from their parents.

Source please.

Quote:And while location can play some role in religion (though it certainly doesn't dictate anything) there's nothing you can say about the relationship between location and religion that you cannot also say about the relationship between location and irreligion.

I agree. However, the reasoning for rejecting religion, does not lead you to reject atheism.

I would inquire as to your reasoning for rejecting Zoroastrianism, and why that does not apply to Catholicism.

Quote:Like I said, I went from strong atheist to weak atheist; and then from weak atheist to theist.

I know, you said. No matter how often you repeat yourself, I don't believe you. I can't see how a strong atheist, someone who is absalutely certain that there is no god, to end up later as a Catholic. One of the dumbest of the dumb. It's just not very credible. I don't think you ever were a strong atheist. I think you're lying.

Quote:But then I also realized that if I really did replace God with a teapot in space, I would have no problem whatsoever in believing.

That's nice, however you still didn't answer my question. What convinced you that god exists?

Quote:And its also a rather intense emotional transformation as well, though I am sure you know that.

You know what causes an intense emotional feeling for me? Learning how things work. From gravity, to energy/matter to the very making of the cosmos. To grasp and understand something that I didn't before, getting wiser and wiser about my surroundings. For me, that is an amazing feeling. Somehow, I don't find it at all amazing to say 'goddidit' because I don't know any better, I'm none the wiser, I would of learnt nothing and I would of done nothing. But if something as simple and non progressive as that gives you that 'wow' feeling, then I can't help but compare your level of intellect and drive to learn as that of an uninterested 5 year old child. Someone who'd state that santa did it and leave it as that.

So we are calling Poe on this Aiza??

Wait... what information forced you into a toss up between *Catholicism* and *Islam*?
I mean, wow. The only information that would make me choose between those two options is the information of a 45. against my temple.
Thats like being told "You must sleep with Bill O'Reilly or the partially preserved corpse of the Elephant Man... choose wisely."
Screw that.

(May 14, 2012 at 7:37 am)KichigaiNeko Wrote: So we are calling Poe on this Aiza??

She isn't a Poe but her defense of the corruption in the vatican such as the widespread pedophilia and the aids bullshit in Africa borders on pathological.

(May 14, 2012 at 5:19 am)Aiza Wrote:

(May 13, 2012 at 9:35 pm)popeyespappy Wrote: Howdy Aiza.

What’s your take on the Vatican’s bitch slapping of the LCWR?

Well first of all, I think "bitch slap" is a poor choice of words!

I have mixed feelings and I could write a lot on the subject. I know some sisters who are from orders represented by the LCWR and they were a large inspiration for me when I converted and also when discerning to be a sister. I am visiting one of their convents this weekend actually (very excited!!). They have dedicated themselves to God, the same as any other sister, and they represent a lot of amazing, strong and intensely charitable women. I even thought about joining one of their orders, and still sort of am drawn to it in a way.

But I'd be lying if I said that the organization is always 100% devout. I could PM you if you want some concrete examples, but I am not even sure if you could appreciate the differences. Here is an example of a religious order of Benedictine sisters who are represented by the LCWR and here is an example of an order of Benedictines who are represented by the CMSWR, a more traditional parallel organization to the LCWR which was established in the early 90s as a response to so many orders in the LCWR removing their habits, no longer living in community, no longer praying the liturgy of the hours, etc. You may not be able to tell the difference, but the fastest growing orders are in the CMSWR, and the new members are younger as well. It isn't necessarily about the clothes or getting to wear a habit (though such a thing is so lovely and definitely something I desire in my future community!), but it's the level of devotion. Where is Our Lord and the Eucharist? Where is Our Lady and the Saints? It feels cold and generic and sad to me.

I could talk a lot about my experiences at different LCWR convents and I think I already talked a bit on af.com. But I won't bore you more than I already have.

Its not like its being forcibly disbanded--its just being changed and I can only hope they come out stronger for it. I know that liturgy of the hours and the Eucharist for example, are supposed to now have a priority at LCWR events and I am so excited about that!

Considering the LCWR’s public reaction to what the Vatican had to say I think many of them feel like they were bitch slapped even though they may have phrased it a bit differently.

It's your mixed feelings that interest me. In the past I’ve seen you talk about the good the church does. They do things like feed the poor and help the sick. These are the very things the Vatican has told the LCWR they were expending too many resources on. They were told they needed to focus more on spreading the church’s message of bigotry and discrimination (my words not theirs) and less on feeding the poor. How does it make you feel knowing that the church thinks it is more important for the sisters to expend resources teaching children to discriminate against homosexuals instead of feeding hungry ones? 

(May 14, 2012 at 6:54 am)NoMoreFaith Wrote: The point to it was that there is no reason to posit the existence of the teapot, because it violates occams razor.
God does not escape that violation.

Yes I know--looking back I misspoke, it wasn't replacing the teapot with God, but replacing God with the teapot. I would have zero qualms about believing in said teapot if that was the case. If billions of people had seen this teapot floating in space, up to millions at once, if ideas about intergalactic cookware were found in the farthest reaches of human society and to our earliest ancestors, then I would have no trouble entertaining the idea of a space teapot. Perhaps you still would.

(May 14, 2012 at 6:54 am)NoMoreFaith Wrote: Then may I inquire as to why you reject all other religions, and what reasons you have for believing them not to be true.

Oh geez. There are a LOT of other religions and its not like I rejected them all at the same time for the same reason. I almost started on a big essay here going into each religion I considered in turn but I think I got halfway through before I realized how long it would take to finish. I'll give you one example, of why I reject, say, Wicca. I am a monotheist. Both polytheism and pantheism tend to tie divinity with nature in a way I think is ultimately flawed. Nature is beautiful and lovely but I've never been able to understand it as divine. The only things the "gods" of monotheism, polytheism and pantheism have in common is the word "god" between them. Also, and here I am going to generalize, but polytheism also tends to put most of its focus on gods, whereas monotheism by its nature is human-driven, and again, I think that best reflects the world as I know it.

Now I never even considered Zoroastrianism. I understood it to be ditheist, with evil having divine origins.

Quote:Source please.

Certainly!

http://www.pewforum.org/Faith-in-Flux.aspx

53% of Americans have changed religious affiliation from childhood at least once (9% eventually go back to the religion of their childhood).

(May 14, 2012 at 9:30 am)Phil Wrote: She isn't a Poe but her defense of the corruption in the vatican such as the widespread pedophilia and the aids bullshit in Africa borders on pathological.

I never defended pedophilia or aids in Africa at all! Pointing out that, say, there was no secret top down worldwide conspiracy (of which the only evidence is the gut feeling of af.com members) isn't "defending pedophilia", ffs!

(May 14, 2012 at 12:27 pm)popeyespappy Wrote: Considering the LCWR’s public reaction to what the Vatican had to say I think many of them feel like they were bitch slapped even though they may have phrased it a bit differently.

It's your mixed feelings that interest me. In the past I’ve seen you talk about the good the church does. They do things like feed the poor and help the sick. These are the very things the Vatican has told the LCWR they were expending too many resources on. They were told they needed to focus more on spreading the church’s message of bigotry and discrimination (my words not theirs) and less on feeding the poor. How does it make you feel knowing that the church thinks it is more important for the sisters to expend resources teaching children to discriminate against homosexuals instead of feeding hungry ones?

Some may be upset, though others are submitting to the changes with humility and patience. We will see.

I'm not sure where you are getting your information, and the media is sort of really bad when it comes to discussing Catholic issues. The CDF didn't criticize the LCWR for using too many resources on helping the poor, in fact they spent a page praising the charity work that the LCWR does: Here is the 8 page report from the CDF. But there are issues with heresy, with keynote speakers who talk about "moving beyond Jesus", not assenting to the bishops, criticizing "patriarchal religion" and desiring female ordination etc. These sorts of opinions were definitely present at the LCWR religious communities I went to along with a general dismissal of bishops as being "clueless", etc. If anything they waste a lot of money in that they don't live in community, and they really do stretch the definition of "vow of poverty" at times.

I think thats why the LCWR is shrinking and aging while the more traditional CMSWR is growing in spite of a more liberal population--when the women in the LCWR were younger, they didn't have as many options. But young women today can easily join a Christian church which allows for "female ordination" if that is what is important to them, or even just become a generic Catholic social worker if they want to do religious charity work. When you become a vowed religious, I think that implies a certain life of sacrifice, obedience, poverty and devotion. And hopefully these elements are strengthens in the LCWR in the months to come.

(May 14, 2012 at 7:25 am)Ace Otana Wrote: You know what causes an intense emotional feeling for me? Learning how things work. From gravity, to energy/matter to the very making of the cosmos. To grasp and understand something that I didn't before, getting wiser and wiser about my surroundings. For me, that is an amazing feeling. Somehow, I don't find it at all amazing to say 'goddidit' because I don't know any better, I'm none the wiser, I would of learnt nothing and I would of done nothing. But if something as simple and non progressive as that gives you that 'wow' feeling, then I can't help but compare your level of intellect and drive to learn as that of an uninterested 5 year old child. Someone who'd state that santa did it and leave it as that.

I enjoy the same thing. Religion is not about saying "god did it". It isn't a coincidence that Big Bang was first proposed by a Catholic Priest.

Similarly, I think only an atheist would talk about religion in terms of "believing in" God. I adore God. God is love, there is nothing for me not to believe in. I suppose you can say what sent me over that edge was understanding the nature of God (so much as I am able), learning about humanity's relationship with God, as well as my own experiences.