(July 6, 2015 at 11:27 am)Pyrrho Wrote:

(July 6, 2015 at 10:48 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: No, no conspiracy theories up my sleeves... yet. ;-)

Haha, I'm actually just curious, really. I like knowing the thoughts of people who have views that are so different from my own, and I believe everyone has something to offer and is someone I can learn from. It's nice to be able to openly talk with all of you here. The atheists I'm friends with in real life don't feel very comfortable talking about this sort of thing with a devout Catholic like myself, which I think is unfortunate.

There are likely several different reasons for this.  For one thing, there is the whole history of the Catholic church, with the Inquisition and so forth, that really does not make one wish to open up to a Catholic about things that Catholics have tortured and murdered people over.

Eh, sorry but I really don't think this has anything to do with it. :

These are incidents that happened centuries ago by people who are long dead. The Catholic Church is a huge promoter of life, even taking a stand against the death penalty for all criminals world wide. I don't think any of my atheist friends fear that I would either a. torture/kill them, or b. support the torture/killing of them. Lol.

I think they just don't feel comfortable talking about these things with a strong theist (whether Catholic, Protestant, Jew, Muslim, or whatever), for fear of getting into arguments, offending each other, getting in awkward situations, etc. Friends generally like to get along and don't like to get into deep topics with very opposing views. I can understand that, but still find it unfortunate.

You've only provided enough data for me to conclude that theists have an illogical approach when it comes to approaching the idea of "God".

(July 6, 2015 at 11:39 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: The Catholic Church is a huge promoter of life

Did you really just come out with this one?

(July 6, 2015 at 11:14 am)Napoléon Wrote:

(July 6, 2015 at 10:58 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I also think the majority of people can't really control what they do/don't honestly believe in...

... if an atheist came to his conclusions regarding the existence of God by really looking at both sides, doing a lot of reading and thinking, and informing himself, I will have great respect for him.

Does the second bit not contradict the first?

Why have any more respect for someone who's assessed his beliefs, if he can't really control them?

One can respect and admire something that lacks free will.  One may respect and admire a particular Mercedes, and prefer it to a Yugo, without supposing that the Mercedes chose to be a Mercedes and the Yugo chose to be a Yugo.

Likewise, if people lack free will, one can respect and admire an intelligent person, more than one respects and admires someone who was born with a malformed brain who can barely function.  Of course, neither had a choice in their brains, regardless of whether people have free will or not. Many things are respected and admired that are heavily, if not totally, dependent upon things that do not involve free will.

(July 6, 2015 at 11:30 am)Napoléon Wrote:

(July 6, 2015 at 11:19 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I don't see how it does. If a person came to or reinforced their belief/disbelief through taking the time to carefully inform themselves, I will admire them for it. :-)

But why would you admire them?

My point is: if you are to admire someone for taking the time to assess their beliefs, then surely that is because they have some semblance of control over them. Why would you respect or admire someone otherwise? If their beliefs were not open to change, if the person did not have some effect or control over how informed they are (which would consequently affect belief), then surely them spending the time to assess their beliefs in the first place would be a futile exercise, not worthy of respect.

If you are to admire someone for scrutinising their own beliefs then it is surely because they are open to having their mind changed, at least to some degree. Surely the act of informing oneself, is the controlling factor you imply doesn't exist.

I'm sorry, but I guess I just don't understand the conflict.

A person coming to their belief, or reinforcing their belief, through thoroughly informing themselves, is someone I admire.

^This is not mutually exclusive to not being able to have control over what you genuinely believe, regardless of how you came to that belief.

(July 6, 2015 at 11:41 am)Pyrrho Wrote: One can respect and admire something that lacks free will.  One may respect and admire a particular Mercedes, and prefer it to a Yugo, without supposing that the Mercedes chose to be a Mercedes and the Yugo chose to be a Yugo.

Likewise, if people lack free will, one can respect and admire an intelligent person, more than one respects and admires someone who was born with a malformed brain who can barely function.  Of course, neither had a choice in their brains, regardless of whether people have free will or not. Many things are respected and admired that are heavily, if not totally, dependent upon things that do not involve free will.

Bolded mine.

IF.

Null point.

(July 6, 2015 at 11:36 am)Pyrrho Wrote:

(July 6, 2015 at 11:19 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: ...

I believe Creationists can be very good people, but as far as their intelligence goes... well, I do question the intelligence of someone who believes in the literal interpretation of Genesis and rejects all evidence of evolution, the Earth's age, etc. I wouldn't hold it against them in terms of their character, though. Just intelligence.

...

I don't see it as any more silly than believing that the bread and wine in the Eucharist ceremony literally turns into the body and blood of Jesus, which is the official doctrine of the Catholic Church to this day.  The magic is called "transubstantiation."

Also, most creationists have been indoctrinated into their beliefs the same as you were indoctrinated into yours, and the typical creationist does not look at evolutionary theory closely because it is viewed as an evil doctrine.  In other words, although the evidence is there, they do not look at the evidence, and so they are not convinced (how could they be convinced by evidence that they do not look at?).  If people do not look at the evidence, then they do not have the evidence themselves from which to judge the matter.  It is the same as when someone refuses to look at reasoning for why "faith" is bad, and so they never come to the conclusion that having faith is immoral.

I respect your views.

(July 6, 2015 at 11:39 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(July 6, 2015 at 11:27 am)Pyrrho Wrote: There are likely several different reasons for this.  For one thing, there is the whole history of the Catholic church, with the Inquisition and so forth, that really does not make one wish to open up to a Catholic about things that Catholics have tortured and murdered people over.

Eh, sorry but I really don't think this has anything to do with it. :

Catholics identify with an organization that did those things, and only stopped doing them because secular authorities forced them to stop.  That is why the Inquisition ended in some countries before it ended in others; if it had been ended as a matter of church policy, it would have stopped everywhere all at once.  The organization has not been changed to get rid of such things.  

(July 6, 2015 at 11:39 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: These are incidents that happened centuries ago by people who are long dead. The Catholic Church is a huge promoter of life, even taking a stand against the death penalty for all criminals world wide. I don't think any of my atheist friends fear that I would either a. torture/kill them, or b. support the torture/killing of them. Lol.

I did not say that they thought you were going to torture or kill them.  The secular authorities will not allow you to do that with impunity.  But it does illustrate the level of hatred that Catholics have had for certain kinds of ideas, and you may (or may not) have that level of hatred yourself.  The fact that you identify with an organization with such a brutal past does not encourage people to tell you things.

(July 6, 2015 at 11:39 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I think they just don't feel comfortable talking about these things with a strong theist (whether Catholic, Protestant, Jew, Muslim, or whatever), for fear of getting into arguments, offending each other, getting in awkward situations, etc. Friends generally like to get along and don't like to get into deep topics with very opposing views. I can understand that, but still find it unfortunate.

I stated that in the part of my post that you omitted in your quote.

(July 6, 2015 at 11:46 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I'm sorry, but I guess I just don't understand the conflict.

A person coming to their belief, or reinforcing their belief, through thoroughly informing themselves, is someone I admire.

^This is not mutually exclusive to not being able to have control over what you genuinely believe, regardless of how you came to that belief.

So you are saying you don't believe in free will then?

And I'm sorry but it is. You can't 'come' to your belief (or reinforce it) via scrutiny and assessment without some control over what you're assessing/scrutinizing. If you have control over what you're assessing, then you are by the laws of cause and effect, in some control over what you believe.

(July 6, 2015 at 11:51 am)Napoléon Wrote:

(July 6, 2015 at 11:46 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I'm sorry, but I guess I just don't understand the conflict.

A person coming to their belief, or reinforcing their belief, through thoroughly informing themselves, is someone I admire.

^This is not mutually exclusive to not being able to have control over what you genuinely believe, regardless of how you came to that belief.

So you are saying you don't believe in free will then?

And I'm sorry but it is. You can't 'come' to your belief (or reinforce it) via scrutiny and assessment without some control over what you're assessing/scrutinizing. If you have control over what you're assessing, then you are by the laws of cause and effect, in some control over what you believe.

I believe in free will of actions. But certain things like emotions or beliefs cannot be controlled. If I lost a loved one tomorrow, I would have no control over my feelings of grief. An atheist (at least for the most part, as I have heard) has no control over the fact that he simply just doesn't believe that God is real. He can come to this undeniable conclusion either by merely a gut feeling or by thoroughly informing himself... or other, I'm sure.

I have respect for anyone who thoroughly informs themselves in regards to any belief.