Christoid Logic

[ignoramus]

There are certain things in Catholicism that are non negotiable. These are official doctrinal teachings on faith and morals. They can be found in the Catechism. Beyond that, Catholics are free to believe what we want so long as we stay true to our well formed conscience.

It must be very well formed conscience to know when to look the other way when a representative touches boys!
How can you live with yourself?!    

[Catholic_Lady]

No, it isn't. What those people did was heinous.

[KevinM1]

Of course, the Big Bang Theory doesn't even have something coming from nothing. It's instead everything condensed into a singularity which then exploded. The how/why that singularity formed is, to date, impossible to determine because known physics breaks down at that point. But the theory most definitely doesn't have stuff magically coming into existence. The stuff was already there. It just violently (and hotly) expanded.

So he didn't even know what he was attempting to argue against.

[Whateverist]

Of course, the Big Bang Theory doesn't even have something coming from nothing.  It's instead everything condensed into a singularity which then exploded.  The how/why that singularity formed is, to date, impossible to determine because known physics breaks down at that point.  But the theory most definitely doesn't have stuff magically coming into existence.  The stuff was already there.  It just violently (and hotly) expanded.

So he didn't even know what he was attempting to argue against.

And even here nothing and everything is not entirely uncontroversial.  We are forever inside the one singularity event of which we are aware.  We do not know what context could give rise to that singularity.  But there is no conclusive evidence for it having been nothing.  Likewise we do not know that everything we can detect is everything there is.

[Aroura]

Is that not a rather shallow way of avoiding truth for religion's rather false version of truth?

Or rather, cognitive dissonation?

I don't see how. I feel confident enough in my beliefs that other people not believing it doesn't bother me. That's all there is to it.

This is really an interesting statement, I think it highlights something I have not seen discussed often, if at all. Because I am the opposite. I feel the need to question my beliefs all the time. When someone says something that contradicts what I believe, I cannot simply think, I know I am right, and move on. It bothers me, it niggles' at me, worrying into my thoughts until I feel I understand it.

This is how I went from devout Catholic teenager to agnostic young woman, to deterministic hard atheist. I questioned my priests, my mother, and my teachers. When their answers fell short, I kept asking.

My husband does not believe in free will. When he first told me, and explained why, it really annoyed me. I argued my side. I researched his side and my side. I finally had to admit, current evidence is he is probably correct. And yet I never let it go, I'm still always seeking more, better, deeper and more thorough answers. I settle on the best available if I must, but always with an eye and ear open for someone who might change my mind.

For instance, when Chad and CD started discussing non temporal causal relationships, I started looking that up. I dont take my beliefs or "knowledge" for granted, or at least I don't often.

I suppose this is just a difference in personality types, but I did find it a possibly important and interesting comment. I'm not saying its better or worse or anything, but it may explain why I am no longer a theist despite 7 years of private Catholic school and a very positive experience with the church.

[Catholic_Lady]

I actually think it is better to question and search for truth, rather than blindly following. It builds a stronger faith if you end up coming to the conclusion to stick with it.

My own questions and experiences have led me to where I am now, and I feel confident in it. Even though I know there is still a lot to learn, I believe I am on the right path.

[Jenny A]

Care to expand upon that?

Formal and final causes.

Obfuscation by nomenclature. You know perfectly well that for purposes of discussing whether cause is temporial that we are discussing efficient cause. Declaring the universe or life, for that matter, has a final cause begs the question of a creator as it assumes that everything has a purpose. And it still doesn't provide an efficient cause. Formal cause assumes that natural laws proscribe rather than describe the world. Only purely abstract concepts like triangles have a formal but not an efficient cause.

[vorlon13]

What I was getting at in regards to Mormonism, there would have to be profound doubts about ALL of it.

All the revelations were changed. Many/most more than once.

The Book of Mormon has been altered thousands of times.

Vast tracts of Doctrines and Principals and Pearl of Great Price have been deleted and superseded, and calling attention to that can earn an excommunication.


So, our hypothetical 'Mormon_Lady" would have a vastly more difficult time here as compared to the actual Catholic_Lady we do have.

[Catholic_Lady]

Oh, that's what you meant lol. I finally understand.

[Catholic_Lady]

Well, haven't you guys ever had a Mormon?