Ask an atheist

[rvkevin]

I think it's a weakness in their arguments then, or, at least in the case of Intelligent Design, simply a front for buying into an argument that's really intended for a specific deity.

Since the generic arguments rely on special pleading, I tend to agree.

It seems to me an almost untenable position to take, to claim that this entity has done a specific action through what has to be a specific aspect or consequence of its nature, yet at once also has to make the stake that it's unknowable, timeless or immaterial. Clearly, that cannot be the case if it has affected some material consequence.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xag3oOzvU68

"We have this urge, this irrational urge, called the argument from ignorance where you don't know something, and then you invent something. You go from not knowing anything to knowing everything about it, just by an invention."

Sounds like religion to me. The need to have a bad explanation over no explanation...

Rvkevin you're just playing words.

Athiesm is also the belief that theism is wrong. Whether you/we release it or not, any belief requires a combination of both faith and reason. yes, even scientific claims require a degree of faith.

There's no point in arguing this. If you want to make up definitions of atheism, by all means. All you're doing is botching the English language in an attempt to improperly illustrate the atheist position.

Scientific claims do not require faith. Name one claim that requires faith.

 

[Dre89]

Since the generic arguments rely on special pleading, I tend to agree.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xag3oOzvU68

"We have this urge, this irrational urge, called the argument from ignorance where you don't know something, and then you invent something. You go from not knowing anything to knowing everything about it, just by an invention."

Sounds like religion to me. The need to have a bad explanation over no explanation...

See this is what I'm talking about. This is where someone's lack of education on issues shines through.

Have you even looked at the evidence for the Catholic Church?

I'm not saying the Church is correct, but judging by that drastic straw-manning of religion you just posted I'm guessing you haven't.

And no, the Bible is not the only alleged evidence of the Church's truth.

If you haven't looked at any of the evidence in favour of the Church then you really aren't in a position to make assumptions about its motives.

Also, the argument of ignorance is a card that is overplayed by atheists. It's an argument from ignorance when you adopt a belief simply because it gives an explanation that another belief couldn't. But atheists incorrectly play the argument of ignorance card whenever someone believes something which doesn't fit the narrow atheistic criteria for well-founded belief.

All claims require faith. Since you cannot use logic to establish that logic deduces truth, for that would a circular and therefore faulty methodology, one needs faith in his logic.

 

[rvkevin]

And no, the Bible is not the only alleged evidence of the Church's truth.

Please enlighten me.

All claims require faith. Since you cannot use logic to establish that logic deduces truth, for that would a circular and therefore faulty methodology, one needs faith in his logic.

Who said anything about truth? Science does not deal in absolute certainties.

 

[Dre89]

Enlighten me.



Who said anything about truth. Science does not deal in absolute certainties.

The problem is, you can't explain it in a single post. One or two things aren't convincing enough, but once you compile all of them together and you see the bigger picture, it becomes more clear.

The thing is, even the ways in which the supernatural occurences occur correlates to the way Catholics believe that God reveals Himself. He doesn't provide His premises in the Bible through one or two lines of scripture, it's when you put everything together you start to see the whole picture. This is the criticism of Protestantism, they are often selective what scripture they use.

It's the same with these alleged miracles. One alone will not convince you of the faith, but when you look at the whole picture (ie. the hundreds and hundreds of miracles that have occured, most of which correlate to the Church), you see the bigger picture.

It's exactly the same as when I became Catholic (I'm not anymore). I started having unusual occurences in my life. One or two wouldn't convince me, but when you get a string of 20 or 30 in quick succession (which I had), all relating to the Church, and each one specifically relating to something current in your life, it makes you question it. The thing is, several other people say this has happened to them as well.

I'll give you an example of one. A friend of mine (a Catholic), wears a necklace with a cross on it. Recently, she began to get 'impure' with a guy, and her cross somehow fell off her neck. The thing is, nothing touched it at all, it somehow fell off. It's not as if the neclace was ripped either (which would have happened if she ripped it off accidently), it was simply undone at the joint, with seemingly no external influence at all. She realised she'd gone too far, and vowed not to be impure again.

On it's own, that occurence is nothing. Considering that I've had about 20 or 30 of those (not just physical things breaking of course) and I know of others who have experienced the same thing too, it becomes logical to assume it's more than just a million in one coincidence.

Actually let me glance over a couple of correlations to Catholicism

-We know that several unrelated people, all claiming marian apparitions, have correctly predicted multiple million in one occurences

- We know of hundreds of medically inexplicable cures. Ironically, most, if not all were in relation to a significant Catholic figure, whether be a spring or a saint etc.

-There is alleged scientific evidence of the Bleeding Eucharist

- The early Church/Bible claimed that the Church will remain infallible, to this day it has.

-The early Church/Bible claimed that the official teachings of the Church won't change, to this day they haven't. Yes Popes have been corrupt, but they never changed the teachings in 'Faith and Morals' doctrine. The one Pope who intended to do this died just before he could.

-We have historical evidence that Jesus existed, it's just not evident whether he was the son of God or not.

-Several historical, non-religious sources provide similar accounts to those portrayed in the Bible.

-Instances claimed to be demonic possession or obsession (eg. writing evil things with your eyes closed, different handwriting, never taking hand off page) correlate precisely to how the Church predicted how the devil operates.

-It's been claimed to be theological fact that the devil can't see into the future. To this day, no instance of demonic possession or obsession has allowed insight into the future.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. I'm no where near knowledgeable to provide a full account.

 

[rvkevin]

Have any sources for anything? Just one is enough to start off on.

What do you think the reason for religion is? In your opinion, why should one become religious?

 

[Dre89]

Look up the Miracle of the Sun.

Whether the actual sun thing was supernatural or just a naturalistic sundog, it's known fact that the girl correctly predicted that plus other things. Looking it up will prove that I'm not not just making it up.

Look up St. Bernadette, that's another example where we know for sure she correctly predicted something which she attributed to marian apparition.

If you want a likely case of demonic possession, look up Neale Donald Walsh's In Conversations With God(book). It fits the description perfectly of someone who has demonic obsession.

Just a few things to start you off.

 

[gm jack]

The problem is, you can't explain it in a single post. One or two things aren't convincing enough, but once you compile all of them together and you see the bigger picture, it becomes more clear.

The thing is, even the ways in which the supernatural occurences occur correlates to the way Catholics believe that God reveals Himself. He doesn't provide His premises in the Bible through one or two lines of scripture, it's when you put everything together you start to see the whole picture. This is the criticism of Protestantism, they are often selective what scripture they use.

It's the same with these alleged miracles. One alone will not convince you of the faith, but when you look at the whole picture (ie. the hundreds and hundreds of miracles that have occured, most of which correlate to the Church), you see the bigger picture.

It's exactly the same as when I became Catholic (I'm not anymore). I started having unusual occurences in my life. One or two wouldn't convince me, but when you get a string of 20 or 30 in quick succession (which I had), all relating to the Church, and each one specifically relating to something current in your life, it makes you question it. The thing is, several other people say this has happened to them as well.

I'll give you an example of one. A friend of mine (a Catholic), wears a necklace with a cross on it. Recently, she began to get 'impure' with a guy, and her cross somehow fell off her neck. The thing is, nothing touched it at all, it somehow fell off. It's not as if the neclace was ripped either (which would have happened if she ripped it off accidently), it was simply undone at the joint, with seemingly no external influence at all. She realised she'd gone too far, and vowed not to be impure again.

On it's own, that occurence is nothing. Considering that I've had about 20 or 30 of those (not just physical things breaking of course) and I know of others who have experienced the same thing too, it becomes logical to assume it's more than just a million in one coincidence.

The trouble is, you are selecting choosing your evidence. I assume the couple were "impure" before Why did it not happen the first time? Or every time people are about to cheat on their partners? Instead, you look at the times it does happen and point it as evidence. If you want to use this sort of thing as evidence, you need to also look at all the potential signals that didn't happen. Otherwise, the most logical conclusion is bias, and the patterns were found because you wanted them to be there. Maybe a string of related things did all happen, but how much else also happened that was unrelated?

Actually let me glance over a couple of correlations to Catholicism

Oh boy...

-We knovw that several unrelated people, all claiming marian apparitions, have correctly predicted multiple million in one occurences

Such as? Prophecies tend to be either incredibly general or self fulfilling. A messiah would never be from anywhere but Bethlehem as nobody would consider anyone born anyone else a messiah. Does that make sense?

- We know of hundreds of medically inexplicable cures. Ironically, most, if not all were in relation to a significant Catholic figure, whether be a spring or a saint etc.

And thousands of people visit these places every year. People get better from illnesses of their own accord. And if you can give examples, I'll try and find a medical reason. It may be a far fetched reason, but, with the thousands of people at healing sites, it could happen to some of them.

-There is alleged scientific evidence of the Bleeding Eucharist

Source please.

- The early Church/Bible claimed that the Church will remain infallible, to this day it has.

And Irish priests ****** kids and then the church covering it up, and then asking the general public to foot their legal fees is infallible? How about the Inquisition, the Crusades or the repression of scientific knowledge (Galileo has his ideas suppress because they did not conform to the Church's view, even though he demonstrated to the clergy that he was right).

-The early Church/Bible claimed that the official teachings of the Church won't change, to this day they haven't. Yes Popes have been corrupt, but they never changed the teachings in 'Faith and Morals' doctrine. The one Pope who intended to do this died just before he could.

Well, other teaching of the church have changed a hell of a lot. I suspect their stance to homosexuality has softened slightly over the years as it has become sociably acceptable.

-We have historical evidence that Jesus existed, it's just not evident whether he was the son of God or not.

So proving very little of a religious nature.

-Several historical, non-religious sources provide similar accounts to those portrayed in the Bible.

Such as? I would like a source.

-Instances claimed to be demonic possession or obsession (eg. writing evil things with your eyes closed, different handwriting, never taking hand off page) correlate precisely to how the Church predicted how the devil operates.

So the devil works through people who can either write without staring at the page, people who do stare at the page or people who can change their handwriting? Writing evil things is nothing a person can't do for attention. I suspect the devil has more important things to do.

-It's been claimed to be theological fact that the devil can't see into the future. To this day, no instance of demonic possession or obsession has allowed insight into the future.

Has there ever been a proven case of demonic possession, or anyone looking into the future as separate events? (See earlier, in the case of either so vague it can mean many things or self fulfilling, in that it what is said is treated as a prophecy, it is likely to cause itself to come true.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. I'm no where near knowledgeable to provide a full account.

Sources when requested for the bits I got stuck on.

 

[rvkevin]

Look up the Miracle of the Sun.

Whether the actual sun thing was supernatural or just a naturalistic sundog, it's known fact that the girl correctly predicted that plus other things. Looking it up will prove that I'm not not just making it up.

"According to many witness statements, after a downfall of rain, the dark clouds broke and the sun appeared as an opaque, spinning disc in the sky. It was said to be significantly less bright than normal, and cast multicolored lights across the landscape, the shadows on the landscape, the people, and the surrounding clouds."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOuxt3QvCm8

LOL.

And if you have ever seen Derren Brown, he has basically uncovered the supernatural claims industry as frauds...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derren_Brown#Derren_Brown:_Messiah_.282005.29

What do you think the reason for religion is? In your opinion, why should one become religious?
The reason I ask is that religion is usually championed for giving moral guidance, but none of the things mentioned give reason for people to act more moral. In fact, the opposite is true when concerning the Chruch.

 

[Dre89]

What's so funny about the Miracle of the Sun? You do know it was seen by tens of thousands of people, and was reported in several newspapers? And you do realise, even if it was a sundog, it doesn't change the fact she correctly predicted it and many other things, just like the other people who claimed marian apparitions.

I love how people are so quick to believe a skeptic when they discard supernatural phenomena. It's as if the fact that someone has theories against them automatically makes them wrong.

Also the idea that the industry is a fraud is bogus because the Miracle of the Sun girl also predicted an aurora before the war, and I know people whose relatives actually saw it. We know these people correctly predicted several phenomena.

I've had plenty of experiences myself, and so have many other people I know, so I'm not buying into it's a fraud industry thing lol.

You don't go into a religion for moral guidance. You're supposed to follow a religion because you've used philosophical premises to conclude its theology is true. If you don't believe a religion is the objective truth, you shouldn't be following it.

 

[Dre89]

The trouble is, you are selecting choosing your evidence. I assume the couple were "impure" before Why did it not happen the first time? Or every time people are about to cheat on their partners? Instead, you look at the times it does happen and point it as evidence. If you want to use this sort of thing as evidence, you need to also look at all the potential signals that didn't happen. Otherwise, the most logical conclusion is bias, and the patterns were found because you wanted them to be there. Maybe a string of related things did all happen, but how much else also happened that was unrelated?

Um the idea was that they were given plenty of chances, and she finally lost her connection to Jesus.

That also doesn't change the fact I had a string of about 20-30 occurences in a row. I also know of plenty of other people who experienced the same thing when inquiring into the faith.

Oh boy...
Such as? Prophecies tend to be either incredibly general or self fulfilling. A messiah would never be from anywhere but Bethlehem as nobody would consider anyone born anyone else a messiah. Does that make sense?
And thousands of people visit these places every year. People get better from illnesses of their own accord. And if you can give examples, I'll try and find a medical reason. It may be a far fetched reason, but, with the thousands of people at healing sites, it could happen to some of them.

But all of the cases correlate to Catholic figures, otherwise I wouldn't bother mentioning it.

Source please.

I think Wikipedia names the scientist who researched it. You can also type in Bleeding Eucharist In defense of the cross on Google.

And Irish priests ****** kids and then the church covering it up, and then asking the general public to foot their legal fees is infallible? How about the Inquisition, the Crusades or the repression of scientific knowledge (Galileo has his ideas suppress because they did not conform to the Church's view, even though he demonstrated to the clergy that he was right).

I already covered this. Individual action has nothing to do with the fact the Church's teachings in faith and morals haven't changed.

Well, other teaching of the church have changed a hell of a lot. I suspect their stance to homosexuality has softened slightly over the years as it has become sociably acceptable.

Lol what!? Do you know anything about the Church at all? Name these teachings that have supposedly changed.

So proving very little of a religious nature.

It correlates to all the over evidence.

Such as? I would like a source.

Read the six volume History of Christendom.

So the devil works through people who can either write without staring at the page, people who do stare at the page or people who can change their handwriting? Writing evil things is nothing a person can't do for attention. I suspect the devil has more important things to do.

They did it with their eyes closed, so explain that. All writing very similar, self-centred theologies and claimed it was from God.

Has there ever been a proven case of demonic possession, or anyone looking into the future as separate events? (See earlier, in the case of either so vague it can mean many things or self fulfilling, in that it what is said is treated as a prophecy, it is likely to cause itself to come true.

The marian apparitions correctly predicted several events. We know that they predicted these events, and that they did occur, whether they were supernatural or not is up to debate, but we know they saw into the future and all claimed it was through Mary.

 

[rvkevin]

What's so funny about the Miracle of the Sun? You do know it was seen by tens of thousands of people, and was reported in several newspapers? And you do realise, even if it was a sundog, it doesn't change the fact she correctly predicted it and many other things, just like the other people who claimed marian apparitions.

Did you even watch the video. He described the event without even knowing about the Miracle of Sun story. It's a natural occurrence. There is nothing supernatural about it. If someone predicted a thunderstorm, would that be indicative of Zeus?

Also the idea that the industry is a fraud is bogus because the Miracle of the Sun girl also predicted an aurora beore the war, and I know people whose relatives actually saw it. We know these people correctly predicted several phenomena.

Derren Brown went to people claiming to have supernatural powers and had them endorse his "ability" in each of their respective fields. All he did was use natural tricks of the trade and got endorsed for having "supernatural abilities" when he fully admits that he's just using psychological tricks. Just because you think your experiences are genuine, doesn't mean that they were supernatural. Magic is not a reason to believe in the supernatural.

Lol what!? Do you know anything about the Church at all? Name these teachings that have supposedly changed.

Is slavery still acceptable?

Not to mention that the presence of miracles isn't that great an argument for the existence of God. Why is it he would be able to manifest in reality by giving prophecies of natural events or making a necklace break, but not manifest food for the starving, stop global wars, or natural disasters? Is he not benevolent? Or is he not omnipotent?

 

[Dre89]

Did you even watch the video. He described the event without even knowing about the Miracle of Sun story. It's a natural occurrence. There is nothing supernatural about it. If someone predicted a thunderstorm, would that be indicative of Zeus?

Yeah because predicting a thunderstorm is the same as predicting a sundog, then an aurora, then several other phenomena, then multiple other occurences, then having several other people correctly predict occurences and claim it was from the same source (marian apparitions).

Yeah that's exactly the same as predicting a thunderstorm...

Derren Brown went to people claiming to have supernatural powers and had them endorse his "ability" in each of their respective fields. All he did was use natural tricks of the trade and got endorsed for having "supernatural abilities" when he fully admits that he's just using psychological tricks. Just because you think your experiences are genuine, doesn't mean that they were supernatural. Magic is not a reason to believe in the supernatural.

Lol what!?

This is the guy that disproved all supernatural phenomena? What the hell does magic have anything to do with what I'm talking about? I know psychics, illusionists etc. are frauds, how stupid do you think I am. Next time make a counter that doesn't drastically straw-man my argument.

Is slavery still acceptable?

Where is slavery mentioned in the teachings of faith and morals? You've msised the entire point. I already admitted the Church was previously corrupt, but the teachings of faith and morals never changed, the one Pope who wanted to change them died just before he could.


And as for the edit in your post, prime example of an uneducated atheist, throwing the problem of evil as if it's groundbreaking lol. If you were familiar with philosophy you'd know that the problem of evil actually began with Christians, has been debated in philosophy for years and years, and takes thousands of words to justify an opinion on, you can't just do it in a post. The fact you though that was possible is disrespectful to the study and its academics.

No offence, but I've lost all interest in debating with you. You keep presenting corrupt activities of the Church, when my argument already accounted for the Church's corruption, and you keep straw-manning my arguments. We're just going to keep going in circles if we continue this way.

Again, no hard feelings, but there's just nothing to gain from this anymore.

 

[rvkevin]

This is the guy that disproved all supernatural phenomena? What the hell does magic have anything to do with what I'm talking about? I know psychics, illusionists etc. are frauds, how stupid do you think I am. Next time make a counter that doesn't drastically straw-man my argument.

"Also the idea that the industry is a fraud is bogus"

Straw man?

I'm not the one who said the idea that the supernatural claims industry is bogus.

Also, supernatural claims are essentially arguments from ignorance. If you don't know the nature of the event, it is not justified in saying that it is supernatural. Saying "I don't know" how it happened as to supposing a supernatural event is more honest because as it has been shown, many supernatural events that are claimed to happen are actually natural phenomenon.

Also, you say that the Church is infallible, "According to its doctrine, the Catholic Church is the original Christian church founded by Jesus Christ." Anything since Jesus's teachings should be fair game. Unless there is nothing in the Bible advocating slavery, its a valid point.

And as for the edit in your post, prime example of an uneducated atheist, throwing the problem of evil as if it's groundbreaking lol. If you were familiar with philosophy you'd know that the problem of evil actually began with Christians, has been debated in philosophy for years and years, and takes thousands of words to justify an opinion on, you can't just do it in a post. The fact you though that was possible is disrespectful to the study and its academics.

I know that the problem of evil is not new, but I have never heard a satisfactory answer for it, even by educated apologists. When a question gets debated for years and a satisfactory answer is never found, guess what, it continues to be risen. Some of the arguments presented already in here get their roots from Epicurus and Euthyphro. That is not to say that they have been adequately answered. I'm not necessary asking you to type it out, if you have a link that adequately represents your views on the subject, then that is entirely welcome. Are you really saying that you cannot fit a link in a post? I will refrain from using ad hominems and i would appreciate if you did too.

 

[Dre89]

You're Youtube and Wiki sources also didn't relate to anything I've said at all.

The Church/Bible makes it pretty clear that every human life is sacred. Slavery devalues human life, so I didn't think I'd have to point this out.

I'm guessing you're not familiar with the deontological and virture ethical tendencies of the Chruch's moral teachings.

Just give it up man, it's become evident you're not familiar enough with religion to be having this debate. You've made so many statements which were factually incorrect, such as the Church's stances on various things, how the Church functions etc., plus you provide sources which have nothing to do wit what I'm saying.

 

[rvkevin]

You're Youtube and Wiki sources also didn't relate to anything I've said at all.

Well when someone says that demons exist. I think it should be noted that people who contact the afterlife are frauds. Its the same industry that they may as well be identical claims.

 

[rvkevin]

The Church/Bible makes it pretty clear that every human life is sacred. Slavery devalues human life, so I didn't think I'd have to point this out.

There is no contradiction between saying that slavery is acceptable and saying that every human life is sacred. There's a little trick to it.

You've made so many statements which were factually incorrect, such as the Church's stances on various things, how the Church functions etc.

An example? Please correct me when I'm wrong.

 

[Dre89]

Slavery is the removal of certain rights all humans are entitled to, I can't believe I'm even arguing with you about this. Also, throughout the Bible it is encouraged to aid the poor, not take advantage of them. This is most noticeable in the Beautitudes.

No offence, but to be honest, judging by your statements about religion, it seems as if you're basing your arguments off a man-off-the-street conception of religion. The problem is, the man off the street is misinformed about religion, and has an incorrect and incomplete understanding of it. The only people who truly know anything about religion are those who have studied it or those who devote their lives to it, whilst also studying it to a lesser degree.

Going to Church every Sunday does not make an expert on your religion.

 

[rvkevin]

Slavery is the removal of certain rights all humans are entitled to, I can't believe I'm even arguing with you about this. Also, throughout the Bible it is encouraged to aid the poor, not take advantage of them. This is most noticeable in the Beautitudes.

Please explain.

http://bible.cc/exodus/21-20.htm
http://bible.cc/exodus/21-21.htm

 

[Dre89]

I think you're just trolling now lol.

Anyway I gotta go, I'll continue this tomorrow if anyone still wants to.

 

[rvkevin]

If the teachings of the Church are infallible as you claim, I don't see why this passage would be included as such.

"If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished. If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property."-Exodus 21:20-21

If you don't want to reply, that's fine by me. Someone else please be the judge. Does this passage endorse slavery? Why would a benevolent being not punish someone for beating their slave? That is, if they don't die immediately from such a beating. At least to me, this on its face is accepting the practice of slavery and issuing guidelines for its institution. Correct me if there is another interpretation of it, it just seems too clear. Why not just say "he who owns a slave, must be punished?" That to me would be the appropriate sanction if such a deity were against slavery.

I'm guessing you're not familiar with the deontological and virture ethical tendencies of the Chruch's moral teachings.

I am not familiar with the tendencies of the Church's moral teachings. But I have to admit, the Church's glaring immoral teachings detract from any moral message they could ever give and makes me hesitant to learn about their teachings in much depth. Some examples are given by Hitchens and Fry (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XpGyHJZ9b0).

No offence, but to be honest, judging by your statements about religion, it seems as if you're basing your arguments off a man-off-the-street conception of religion. The problem is, the man off the street is misinformed about religion, and has an incorrect and incomplete understanding of it.

I could say the same about your comments about atheism, it goes both ways so don't dwell on it so often, during your misconceptions about atheism, I corrected them and moved on, if you could do the same, it would be appreciated, but if you are unwilling to do the same, that just shows a lack of patience on your part. I base my arguments off of the news, documentaries, debates, understanding of natural sciences, other media, apologists, statements made by members of that organization, their holy book, or their web sites. If you say that a statement I made is false, I could probably direct you to the source I used to make said statement, which is much more productive than shutting off communication. I have never talked to anyone that goes to church on a regular basis about their beliefs, so that's irrelevant.

The only people who truly know anything about religion are those who have studied it or those who devote their lives to it, whilst also studying it to a lesser degree.

This seems kind of disingenuous. Such a statement appears to do nothing more than to prevent the Catholic Church from being criticized. It seems to be diametrically opposed to what happens science, where people are invited in by their own curiosity to learn more about the subject and anyone with a valid criticism is able to announce it. As opposed to the Church where everyone's curiosity and criticism is essentially walled off under lock and key.

 

[gm jack]

He gave a biblical source saying that a man could beat his slave to near death and it's ok. Now, I don't think the church allows people to keep slaves any more. Hence, their morals have changed. Even if what is listed hasn't changed, the way it is interpreted has.

 

[SwastikaPyle]

I think you also give little credit to religion. The Catholic Chruch for example, has hundreds of mriacles correlating to it, as well as historical facts, as well as alot of theological prophecies that have been successfully fulfilled which are hard to explain. If you look into the alleged evidence of the Church, you may not believe it, but you'll notice it has a very strong argument.

Link?

You make like a million claims in each post but there's no links to back them up.

 

[Melomaniacal]

Dre, I have to say, you're pretty terrible at debating.

Someone brings up a point, instead of addressing it, you go back to your "LOL WHAT?! This point is terrible, you don't know anything! I declare you unable to debate," deal instead of, you know... addressing it. You do this thing where you claim arguments to be false or invalid, and then you never explain why. Pretty bad debate skills. We have one guy actually trying to debate something with you, then you go back to your high horse and tell him he has no idea what he's talking about, without even adequately addressing his points. Then you claim he's trolling...

All I'm saying is that it's hard to believe your argument is bad when they have never been argued against. So please, if his arguments are so bad, get to work, prove him wrong. If not, leave the topic.

 

[Dre89]

The reason why I do the 'Lol what!?' is because I'm amazed at what he's saying.

I only did twice, the first time was because he claimed that the Church was softening its views on gays, which I have absolutely no idea where he got that from. The second time was because he thought that guy who showed how magic tricks are fake somehow disproved miracles, which have nothing to do with magic.

Unfortunately, it's clear he's just basing his arguments off misinformed assumptions.

I addressed every claim, so I don't see how I'm being a bad debater. Which claims did I ignore?

And about slavery, this another example of not knowing religion. If slavery is mentioned in the Bible, all those instance are in the Old Testament, and that's covered by Old Law vs. New Law Theory. So what you should have done is attack OLvNLT itself, rather than waste time giving an example of something specific and making have to bring this up.

And Rvkevin you're trying to argue that slavery is a teaching that changed, slavery only happened before the Church was established, so no that's not a teaching that has changed during the lifespan of the Church.

The thing is, it's not that I think his opinions are stupid, or that anyone disagrees with me is wrong, but he clearly knows nowhere near enough about religion to have this debate. He's made so many claims which are simply factually incorrect, that's the unfortunate reality.

I don't see how someone can be in the position to debate about religion when they didn't even know about any of the alleged evidence, thought that Church softened its views on gays, doesn't know about OLTvNLT, and didn't even know about the problem of evil issue, which is one of the largest fields in philosophy and theology. It sounds like he hasn't studied religion at all and is just going by man off the street assumptions, but ordinary people off the street who haven't studied, or at least investigated into it, don't know aything about religion at depth.

You have to remember too, I'm not trying to make everyone believe in religion, or think anyone who doesn't believe in religion is stupid. I'm just informing people that there is a far more convincing argument for religion than most people think.

 

[SwastikaPyle]

And about slavery, this another example of not knowing religion. If slavery is mentioned in the Bible, all those instance are in the Old Testament,

Lol

http://www.religioustolerance.org/sla_bibl2.htm

edit: Leviticus 18:22 might not seem relevant to Dre but it's frequently brought up in American elections, if you're wondering why we focus so hard on them.

What would Jesus think of Proposition 8...

 

[gm jack]

Bible says gays should be put to death (Leiviticus I think). Only in the last century has it changed it so that they are simply "disordered", which is still pretty offensive.

 

[rvkevin]

I only did twice, the first time was because he claimed that the Church was softening its views on gays, which I have absolutely no idea where he got that from. The second time was because he thought that guy who showed how magic tricks are fake somehow disproved miracles, which have nothing to do with magic.

First, I never mentioned gays (but since you mentioned it, "Pope Benedict is opposed to 'unjust discrimination' against gay men and lesbians, according to a statement addressed to a United Nations." Not sure what the original stance is, but that seems pretty soft to me). Second, I never said that Derren Brown disproved miracles, and didn't even relate him to miracles. You made the claim about demonic possessions and Derren Brown has done similar experiments using merely natural means to get similar results.

By the way. Magic: The art that purports to control or forecast natural events, effects, or forces by invoking the supernatural. Miracle: An event that appears inexplicable by the laws of nature and so is held to be supernatural in origin or an act of God. There is not much of a difference, but magic appears to be a better description of the event than miracle, LoL.

And Rvkevin you're trying to argue that slavery is a teaching that changed, slavery only happened before the Church was established, so no that's not a teaching that has changed during the lifespan of the Church.

"According to its doctrine, the Catholic Church is the original Christian church founded by Jesus Christ." Is this not accurate? If so, then just say the source is wrong. If not, and you want to claim that it's teachings since the actual building was established, by all means, go ahead, but I think that is quite an arbitrary distinction.

I don't see how someone can be in the position to debate about religion when they didn't even know about any of the alleged evidence, thought that Church softened its views on gays, doesn't know about OLTvNLT, and didn't even know about the problem of evil issue, which is one of the largest fields in philosophy and theology. It sounds like he hasn't studied religion at all and is just going by man off the street assumptions, but ordinary people off the street who haven't studied, or at least investigated into it, don't know aything about religion at depth.

The alleged evidence was found to be lacking, never mentioned gays, this is supposed to be from a "changeless" deity (From the definition of a respectable apologist), you underestimate how much I've seen about the PoE (Unlike apologists, I don't accept the premise that a God of "unimaginable" power has morally permissible reasons for allowing the suffering seen today). Which part is incorrect?

I am basing this off of debates I have seen taken from people who have studied this this stuff their entire life. If you could point me to someone who knows something more about religion, at least in your eyes, that would be more useful than claiming that only some people who have studied religion their whole life have a valid understanding of religion. Again, I have never talked to a lay person about religion, the main sources I use come from apologists, debates, discussions with officials, and various media sources so to say that those people don't know anything about religion is to claim that no one is able to know anything about religion, besides maybe the Pope.

I do realize that I brought in a definition of God that is usually used in debates ("uncaused, changeless, timeless, and immaterial being of unimaginable power."), if you don't agree with this, then your point is valid that I was based on poor assumptions. If you could give a definition of God that would be more accurate, that will clear up this misunderstanding.

 

[Dre89]

First, I never mentioned gays (but since you mentioned it, "Pope Benedict is opposed to 'unjust discrimination' against gay men and lesbians, according to a statement addressed to a United Nations." Not sure what the original stance is, but that seems pretty soft to me). Second, I never said that Derren Brown disproved miracles, and didn't even relate him to miracles. You made the claim about demonic possessions and Derren Brown has done similar experiments using merely natural means to get similar results.

I thought you were the one who said that the Church has softened its stance on gays?

The idea has always been to hate the sin not the sinner, the idea being not to discriminate against gays, but to disagree with the morality of homosexuality. This hasn't changed in the Faith and Morals teahcings.

"According to its doctrine, the Catholic Church is the original Christian church founded by Jesus Christ." Is this not accurate? Then just say the source is wrong. If not, and you want to claim that it's teachings since the actual building was established, by all means, go ahead, but I think that is quite an arbitrary distinction.

Sorry I'm a bit confused by what you're saying/asking here.

The alleged evidence was found to be lacking, never mentioned gays, this is supposed to be from a "changeless" deity (From the definition of a respectable apologist), you underestimate how much I've seen about the PoE (Unlike apologists, I don't accept the premise that a God of "unimaginable" power has morally permissible reasons for allowing the suffering seen today). Which part is incorrect?

With regards to God allowing suffering, you have to remember that's only a problem for theistic Gods, not for deistic ones. I'm not going to argue that it's wrong to think that God can't allow suffering, but there logical arguments for both sides.

The atheistic arguments are relatively clear. The theistic ones generally revolve around suffering existing as a result of free will, suffering as a necessity for goodness and wisdom etc.

Then there's the more theological perspective, that the fall of humanity, which I'm sure you're familair with, resulted in the suffering, but this suffering actually allows for a greater goodness because God then sent Himself down to Earth in the form of Jesus.

Theological premises are invalid on their own. However, if you can use philosophical premises, and evidence (miracles, historical correlations etc.) to justify belief in that theology, then its theological premises become worthy of belief, because the theology it belongs to is worthy of belief itself.

Of course, this is a gross injustification to the defense of evil argument. It's obviously alot more complex than I've shown.

Also, my point in presenting a minute fraction of the evidence (remember it is only that) is not to convert you, but to show that there are logical grounds for belief, it's not just about blind faith like everyone else seems to think.

I am basing this off of debates I have seen taken from people who have studied this this stuff their entire life. If you could point me to someone who knows something more about religion, at least in your eyes, that would be more useful than claiming that only some people who have studied religion their whole life have a valid understanding of religion. Again, I have never talked to a lay person about religion, the main sources I use come from apologists, debates, discussions with officials, and various media sources so to say that those people don't know anything about religion is to claim that no one is able to know anything about religion, besides maybe the Pope.

You have to remember I'm only defending Catholcism though, not the rest of Christianity. I personally don't see any logic in those beliefs, but that's just me and I don't want to start another debate about it.

I do realize that I brought in a definition of God that is usually used in debates ("uncaused, changeless, timeless, and immaterial being of unimaginable power."), if you don't agree with this, then your point is valid that I was based on poor assumptions. If you could give a definition of God that would be more accurate, that will clear up this misunderstanding.

No you're concept of God is largely correct. Of course, that is the bare minimum though, theistic Gods are often omnibenevolent, and care about the world as well. I'm sort of confused as to why you brought this up though, I don't really see how this changes anything.

I'm glad we can conduct this debate in a civil manner. I'm sorry if I appear too harsh at times, what frustrates me is not when people have different opinions to me, it's when their understanding of religion, or whatever issue it is, is incorrect. I also get frustrated because who haven't studied philosophy, theology or science say things as if they were groundbreaking, but don't realise these issues have been debated for years.

Basically, instead of proposing the problem of evil question as if it's never been asked before, what would be better (and make you appear more knowledgebale) is if people actually went and took a prominent defense of evil argument and countered it. This I feel would be more productive.

Or instead of mentioning supposed evils in the Bible, take the next step and provide a criticism of the OLvNLT.

Hope that made sense.

 

[rvkevin]

With regards to God allowing suffering, you have to remember that's only a problem for theistic Gods, not for deistic ones. I'm not going to argue that it's wrong to think that God can't allow suffering, but there logical arguments for both sides.

Well, some deists (God created the universe and no longer exists) see the world exactly as atheists, so I agree a deist's god not necessarily has the problem of evil. Specifically, because he is no longer exists to prevent such suffering. But, for the theist's God. I and some say that if he is unable and unwilling, then he does not deserve the title God.

The theistic ones generally revolve around suffering existing as a result of free will, suffering as a necessity for goodness and wisdom etc.

This does not address suffering as the result of natural events, disease, etc.

I fail to see the the goodness and wisdom gained from North Korea's prison camps. Even if there is goodness and wisdom gained from them, should we not try to shut them down? I don't think it is just that the crimes of ancestors be invoked on their descendants.

Edit: Using free will to explain suffering isn't that satisfactory either. "Imagine that I am a 200cm, 150kg young man, highly-trained in 3 forms of martial arts, and armed to the teeth with guns and knives. I am out for a walk late at night in the city and see an average-sized man ****** a petite woman in an alley. Rather than help, I continue walking. I don't even bother to call the police. I am then summoned to court for the murder trial of the man, and have to explain why I allowed her to be ***** and murdered, when I was easily capable of stepping in and helping, or even calling 911. I explain to the court that I didn't want to interfere with the man's choice to **** and kill the woman. What kind of person would that make me?" Do you really think that free will is a morally permissible reason to allow suffering?

You have to remember I'm only defending Catholcism though, not the rest of Christianity. I personally don't see any logic in those beliefs, but that's just me and I don't want to start another debate about it.

I don't know the different belief system of each denomination. (After all, its been estimated to be 38,000 different denominations of Christianity, so it would be absurd to try to learn about them all.) So, what do you believe?

Or instead of mentioning supposed evils in the Bible, take the next step and provide a criticism of the OLvNLT.

I'd rather talk about the PoE. I usually try to avoid talking about the Bible since there is so many ways to interpret passages, (language translations, equivocations, etc.)

Basically, instead of proposing the problem of evil question as if it's never been asked before, what would be better (and make you appear more knowledgebale) is if people actually went and took a prominent defense of evil argument and countered it. This I feel would be more productive.

If you would like to cite a source, I wouldn't mind reading it and saying what my objections are. If not, I will voice my objections to whatever you present.

Edit: Decided to take a look around. I would just be reiterating the objections I voice here for their defenses regarding free will, goodness of suffering, etc. If there is a particular other defense you would like to talk about, just specify.

 

[GofG]

I thought you were the one who said that the Church has softened its stance on gays?

The idea has always been to hate the sin not the sinner, the idea being not to discriminate against gays, but to disagree with the morality of homosexuality. This hasn't changed in the Faith and Morals teahcings.

ASV Leviticus 20:13: (American Standard Version, 1901) "And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

Interesting.

 

[SwastikaPyle]

He's right.

according to the church, it's perfectly okay to WANT to as much as you like.

You just can't actually do it.

 

[Underload]

gm jack, please educate yourself before attempting to post something in semi-intelligent. I go to a Catholic high school, and your answers / rebuttals made me want to choke a *****...yo.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

gm jack, please educate yourself before attempting to post something in semi-intelligent. I go to a Catholic high school, and your answers / rebuttals made me want to choke a *****...yo.

I'm more disturbed by the fact that Swastika and rvkevin have referenced more biblical passages than Dre. Dre hasn't bothered to provide a specific text on anything. I'm also disturbed by the fact that you want to kill gm jack yet you haven't bothered to justify that anger with personal belief and scripture. Even though you hate him, does this comment honestly make you any better? I could hate you for exactly the same reasons as you hate him. I personally went to Spaghetti Monster high school and your ignorance of the spaghetti makes me want to eat you. You're giving someone else the liberty to deride the meaning of Catholic School by not taking the higher ground and acting irrationally.

Slavery sucks.

Exodus 21:20-21 is quite a loaded statement. First of all you specifically quoted from the New International Version of the Bible. Most biblical Christians prefer the King James Version of the Bible. I will discuss this at the end of my response.

Exodus 21:20-21 "And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money."

Exodus 21:20-21 appears to have a contradiction. Why is direct death punishable and not a prolonged death?

According to many seminaries it is believed that Hebrew servant owners were permitted to strike their servants man or girl with a stick if the servant was disobedient or rebellious. But if the servant died under the beating, the servant owner was to be punished. If the servant lived for a day or two afterward, however, this would be evidence tending to indicate that the servant owner did not have murder in his heart.

Exodus 21:26-27 states: "And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish; he shall let him go free for his eye's sake. And if he smite out his manservant's tooth, or his maidservant's tooth; he shall let him go free for his tooth's sake."

Human beings have always needed the use of their eyes in order to perceive and their teeth in order to eat and maintain nourishment. Depriving a human being of any of these two physical features leads to dramatically decreasing their health to the point of endangering their lives. Again whether or not it was God's intention for the law to be interpreted in this manner remains open to personal belief. Then again there are versus such as Leviticus 24:17 which blatantly states: "And he that killeth any man shall surely be put to death."

Is servants just a fancy semantic for slavery? Again I'm not sure. Keep in mind I find it incredibly ironic that the book of Exodus documents the Hebrew people escaping from "slavery" in Egypt and attempting to migrate to the Promise Land as they are led by Moses only to have later texts in the book outline proper policy for maintaining "servants".

The New International Version you are using is "new" and "international." The translation was created to be unified across different countries and to be familiar with many people. Therefore slavery is used as terminology because it is familiar with us. Keep in mind that the original language of the Holy Bible was Greek. The King James Version of the Bible attempted to preserve the integrity of the Roman Bible. That's not completely true, but comparing it to the New International Version the purpose between wording the two bibles are completely different.

The aforementioned paradox is an excellent test. If you read about the Hebrew people who were actually in "slavery" they reference this specifically as "bondage" in the King James Version of the Bible. This term is kept separate from "servant" when it is introduced later on in Exodus. After six years Hebrew servants are offered the chance for freedom. There was no such provisions or guarantee for the Hebrew people while they labored in Egypt. Comparing this terminology in the NIV, the NIV makes no effort to distinguish between the differing status of the Hebrews as slaves and the Hebrews as "slave" owners.

Many people discuss Christianity as incorporating many surrounding pagan religions in order to shape the basis of it's belief. It's not entirely foreign to believe that the Hebrew people had incorporated certain Egyptian beliefs into their customs. Again moral ethics is a victim to time. Many US southern slave owners were devout Christians. It's late but I would love to discuss your other points later today.

 

[rvkevin]

According to many seminaries it is believed that Hebrew servant owners were permitted to strike their servants man or slave girl with a stick if the slave was disobedient or rebellious. But if the slave died under the beating, the slave owner was to be punished. If the slave lived for a day or two afterward, however, this would be evidence tending to indicate that the slave owner did not have murder in his heart. He had the right to mete out disciplinary punishment, for the slave was “his money.”

So? Slavery is still immoral. So what if he couldn't kill or maim his slaves. That's common sense for a slave owner or else he wouldn't have an able workforce. It still doesn't make it right.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

So? Slavery is still immoral. So what if he couldn't kill or maim his slaves. That's common sense for a slave owner or else he wouldn't have an able workforce. It still doesn't make it right.

So just because you believe slavery is immoral means that it is a universal law that spans the cosmos.

I'm surprised that you would make such a childish and unsubstantiated statement just because it's an ad-majority opinion. According to Friedrich Nietzsche morals are victim to time, conquerors, and practicality. If the South won the Civil War can you be sure that we would still feel the same way about slavery and equality?

Morals are subjective. Just as Christianity absorbed other beliefs in order to gain new users, our moral codes have been the result of a distinct historical past with tyrannical monarchies and a perceived abuse of power. Granted, under the Articles of Confederation we attempted to run the country without employing taxes. But that had little success given how inflation was rampant and the central government was weak. Practicality demanded that we impart taxes regardless of it being hypocritical to our original purpose for fighting Britain. Again the beliefs we have today are the result of macroscopic issues that have long been determined before our inception into this world. I think it's great that you can quote scripture. But don't delude yourself into believing that your opinions are a-okay because everyone else blindly assumes that concepts such as equal opportunity and representation came about because they were inherently "righteous."

 

[rvkevin]

So just because you believe slavery is immoral means that it is a universal law that spans the cosmos.

No, but its a fairly common axiom. If you don't agree, we could discuss the nature of morality to see if slavery is consistent with a benevolent being.

If the South won the Civil War can you be sure that we would still feel the same way about slavery and equality?

Yes. Thanks to the veil of ignorance.

Morals are subjective.

I disagree. Can you elaborate?

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

No, but its fairly common axiom. If you don't agree, we could discuss the nature of morality to see if slavery is consistent with a benevolent being.

I don't believe in a benevolent being. I find it pretentious to attempt to abstract the nature of the world at large from microscopic and individualistic issues to explain the origin of time and mankind.

Yes. Thanks to the veil of ignorance.

From what I remember, veil of ignorance is more or less an over-glorified version of the Golden Rule. Is this your turn to play catch-phrase or do you not want to be arsed into explaining your thought process.

explain why morals are subjective

It is impossible as a human being to abandon all forms of bias. When we are born, we are only given five senses to perceive the world around us. Our inability to understand other phenomena such as UV light and animal tendencies on an innate level indicates that even as humans, our beliefs are not absolute truth.

Kant often mentions this idea of limitation and in the book, Sophie's World, they simplify this isn't wearing "rose-colored" glasses. When we are born, we are born with a blank slate but we cannot perceive everything in the world. We have barely discovered the world at large, read into human laws, and discovered how humans think. We don't even know how to evaluate a human life and don't know whether or not there is an afterlife.

Morals are subjective due to the fact that there are not enough facts yet accumulated to determine an absolute truth. And even then it is questionable whether or not an absolute truth actually exists. Historically Christianity changed drastically in America during the roaring 20s when Economy was at an all time high. People thought that Jesus was just "that cool guy" and didn't acknowledge him as a divine figure. A majority of what we learn isn't really explained in detail thus making us ignorant. We are only given bits and pieces of how the world really works. Thus I feel morals are subjective.

 

[rvkevin]

From what I remember, veil of ignorance is more or less an over-glorified version of the Golden Rule. Is this your turn to play catch-phrase or do you not want to be arsed into explaining your thought process.

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

I think its fairly self-explanatory. Would you rather risk being a slave or would you rather not have slavery?

Morals are subjective due to the fact that there are not enough facts yet accumulated to determine an absolute truth. And even then it is questionable whether or not an absolute truth actually exists. Historically Christianity changed drastically in America during the roaring 20s when Economy was at an all time high. People thought that Jesus was just "that cool guy" and didn't acknowledge him as a divine figure. A majority of what we learn isn't really explained in detail thus making us ignorant. We are only given bits and pieces of how the world really works. Thus I feel morals are subjective.

You're making a categorical error here. And I have no idea how you get from people are ignorant, therefore morality is subjective.

 

[El Nino]

If the South won the Civil War can you be sure that we would still feel the same way about slavery and equality?

"We" being slaves or non-slaves?

The slave masters were often Christian, but the slaves too were also often Christian. Religion and morals have nothing to do with that situation. It's a near universal rule that human beings are driven to improve their own circumstances, regardless of the laws that govern their society.

Moral views don't just change over time; they also differ within the same time period between different people in different circumstances.

I'm still neutral on this topic, just pointing out an ethnocentric discrepancy.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

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

I think its fairly self-explanatory. Would you risk being a slave or would you rather not have slavery?

It appears that this course of thought comes under the assumption that morals are contingent upon consequences rather than being inherently right or wrong.

Would I rather be worse off or better off? Would I rather have ten cakes or ten million cakes?

No-risk decisions sounds more like economics and investing in stock rather than a moral dilemma. What if I believe I deserve to suffer? If I think I should be a slave is that the right decision for the rest of humanity? The world doesn't revolve around you or me. Morals coming under self-evaluation is like me choosing which ice cream flavors I want on my scone. Can't understand it as a viable idea. I'm sorry.