Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Max White]

[Agnostic catholic reply]
My god (Pun intended), I can't believe I'm getting dragged into another pointless internet debate, why do I do this to myself? It would more likely be healthier to start eating marble.

I think one of the biggest problems with the catholic church is the fact that it claims to be divine. Jesus was not catholic, he was Jewish. He didn't ask for anything to be built in hes name, nor did he ask that people worship him once every week for an hour. He said he was the son of god, and he said to treat others with respect, that's about it. I'm willing to accept that 'son of god' may not mean a literal manifestation, but rather have some symbolism to it. With this in mind, Jesus was most likely just a man who hoped he could bring some more good into this world.

Not such a bad thing.

The church, and atheists against the church, sometimes see it as an all or nothing deal. You let god lead your life or your against it all. I don't think this should be so. I think religion should simply be a way to guide the morals of man kind. Scriptures shouldn't be taken as historical recounts, they should be storys to help understand society.

I remember once an atheist saying that if god is real, he must hate man kind, because think of all the good he could of done with some simple advice to hes followers like washing your hands, it could have saved millions, but truth be told it isn't religions job to tell people how to save lives, it is religions job to simple tell people to save lives. In this way I think science and religion to hand in hand, as do knowledge and wisdom, and mistaking one for the other leads to horrible events in human history such as the dark ages.

God casts miracles that heal the sick, and these miracles are called doctors. Don't expect him to answer your prays, crush your obstacles or give you the solution, just look to god and know that it is your responsibility to do that for yourself.

[/mad ramblings]

[chaoticag]

Eh, the reason some atheists are against the Catholic church is because the Catholic church expects people to be behind them all the way. They aren't really arguing against Catholocism as a whole, and are aware that there are quite a few non-practitioners, but they are aware that the Catholic church has devout followers, that believe everything they say, such as condoms leads to aids, which causes aids to spread in Africa.

[Max White]

Yea, I disagree with A LOT of what the church supports. I believe strongly in safe sex, gay rights, abortion and all sorts of other issues that people would protest over.
Some would say I follow god, not the church that represents him.

[MrWiggles]

Hell, its not just Atheist who are pissed at the promotion of misinformation the Chatolic Church is handing out.

[Neruz]

That and how it gets in the way of things like stem cell research.

[MrWiggles]

Eh, that has more to do with consertivism here in the States. I'm not sure how strong its influence is over in Europe though.

[Neruz]

The church is the driving force behind much conservitism; conservitism serves the church, as it maintains the status quo (where the church has all the power).

One of the driving arguments against Stem Cell research though is the issue of souls.

[MrWiggles]

And the irony of Bush Jr. photography with Invetro Kids was lost on a poeple. Those kids are there at the cost of dozen human fertilized human eggs being tossed as bio-hazard waste.

[Neruz]

Once again proving that Religion and Logic exist in seperate, disparate spheres.

[Siquo]

It is entirely possible to live one's life making decisions based on logic and rationality. Emotions such as fear can be part of the decision making process, but are not neccessary.

Impossible. You cannot "base" anything on logic. Logic needs a base or it's meaningless. So you believe that hurting is bad. That is not logical, it's a belief. Ok, I'll fill it in for you, this saves us some dialogue:
N: Ah, but the "hurting" is my body telling me something bad is going on! Logical!
S: No, it's your body telling you it's hurting. Maybe your body has a wound and will even die from it. How is that bad?
N: You hate me!
S: No. You're taking things out of context again.

Well now, we've all established that "fear" was the wrong word, that non-religious morals exist, and that every person, religious or not, has his own personal set of morals, which may coincide with the religion he adheres or he may choose an entirely different set.

As I said before, most atheists adhere to a Humanist set of morals, as they are rationally built upon the belief that man (or "sentients") are the most important thing in the universe, and is detached from any form of "higher power". These morals are still built upon emotions; on empathy, on fear, on a sense of justice, on love, et cetera.


Also, agreeing with anything Max said so far. Neruz: USian stupid conservatism does not all religions make. You are making a fool out of yourself. Yet again.

[RAM]

Reason is its own base, only reason refuses to betray, no other path can be trusted to take you where you choose to go. Use reason to seek reason...

[Starver]

Who is more likely to commit a heinous act?  A man threatened by retaliation from the law or a man threatened by retaliation from both the law and the eternal punishment of his Pantheon?

Late response this, probably ninjaed, but:

My default position is non-belief in any god[1] and ditto for afterlives in general.  When you're dead you're dead[2].  There are live people who are nasty pieces of work, or might be considered useless (if not harmful) to the human race, but even they have consciousness whirring around in their brain carrying knowledge, thoughts, memories of people gone.  Once dead, all of that electrochemical soup of information degrades and the only signs of it are in the ripples through causaility[4] such as the memories passed on by other people, carved stones, literature, interesting solutions to obscure problems being contained within the collective consciousness, whatever.

But the person themselves is gone.  Unavoidable death by ageing is a loss I would rather did not happen, avoidable but understandable death by accident or lack of health provision is a tragedy in itself.  To actually deprive a consciousness of 'being' is beyond the pale, and to my mind (as it currently stands[5]) I would never do this and would fight against doing this.

Whereas many religious opinions (from the "kill the infidel!" extreme of hate to "he's going to a better place" one of love) give credence to dying being merely an end to mortal suffering (and either the start of immortal suffering, or an eternal bliss of some kind, according to the relevant opinions), and make it an easy choice, it is far harder for me.

As a fully qualified example, I'm really having a hard time accepting the possibility that my favourite author, Terry Pratchett may well decide to undergo some form of assisted dying.  I can only marginally temper this, in my mind, by the fact that the circumstances under which he might well take this course of action is where he already feels that he has lost the larger part of the very mind which I particularly value.  That is the clincher for me.  It means that I might well accept his decision, but right now I couldn't say what I would do if I were unknowingly put into a sweepstake to be the one to do the assisting and win.  It would... an honour...?  Not really the right word, but something like that, but I doubt I'd ever fulfil such a macabre request.  Not that it'd ever be my responsibility.  Doubtless wife and daughter Lyn and Rhianna would at least be present, and then there's Rob, his assistant, even if not close friends such as Stephen Briggs, Bernard Pearson, et al...  No worries that I'd be ever asked, but I would feel distraught at his passing.


And, conversely, if I really did not like someone's existence, I would still avoid killing them.  If I dredge my mind for the more extreme examples I still can't see me going much further than imprisonment.  But I doubt I'd actively or passively hasten their demise in any way.  And that is how this atheist, at least, would act without the law of the land to stay my hand.  The law additionally keeps me in hand as well, but is not the only reason there is restraint on my actions.  I can only foresee vast changes in my attitude if there was a universal lack of law, so that I have to kill-or-be-killed, but a mere personal (or situational) removal of legal limits would not cause me to run rampage just because I'm unencumbered by belief.



[1] Note: not disbelief, just non-belief.  You know, us "soft atheists" that everyone forgets about, even after I've gone over this issue several times about how agnosticism is a different axis and not even the middle ground between 'normal' people and those

[2] Until there is evidence to the contrary, and I'm also strongly of the opinion that there is no way to have proof positive on that issue, positive or negative, and so shall doubtless stick to an opinion of its absence right up until I find those pearly gates in front of me[3], and maybe even longer if I don't find the end effect convincing enough, given my normal scepticism and general acceptance of Clarke's Third Law and Niven's corollary.

[3] Or am trying to get comfortable in whichever species of womb/egg/etc I am being reincarnated into, or am otherwise floating in the medium of the universe having 'ascended', etc

[4] Ok, so I'm also a fatalist/determinist, and so all that was going to happen is going to happen, because of causation being a stickler for rules, but I can (may, indeed, be forced to!) mentally divorce myself from that view in order to expound a looser view.  Compare it to someone alighting a roller-coaster without having had a proper chance to view the ride.  The tracks are fixed, an external observation can show that the ride will always progress along a fixed path and the train of cars upon it are going to get around the circuit without difficulty.  But that still doesn't make the ride unexciting, and you may well want to go round again!

[5] This all has to be balanced by the "what would you do if you had to kill to survive" or similar questions about killing to save loved ones, or the killing/allowing to be killed of an individual to save a group of people (c.f. the 'fat bloke to stop the runaway railway cart'), etc, but in simple terms I'm talking about whether one should kill a person or not...

[Neruz]

It is entirely possible to live one's life making decisions based on logic and rationality. Emotions such as fear can be part of the decision making process, but are not neccessary.

Impossible. You cannot "base" anything on logic. Logic needs a base or it's meaningless. So you believe that hurting is bad. That is not logical, it's a belief. Ok, I'll fill it in for you, this saves us some dialogue:
N: Ah, but the "hurting" is my body telling me something bad is going on! Logical!
S: No, it's your body telling you it's hurting. Maybe your body has a wound and will even die from it. How is that bad?
N: You hate me!
S: No. You're taking things out of context again.

Well now, we've all established that "fear" was the wrong word, that non-religious morals exist, and that every person, religious or not, has his own personal set of morals, which may coincide with the religion he adheres or he may choose an entirely different set.

As I said before, most atheists adhere to a Humanist set of morals, as they are rationally built upon the belief that man (or "sentients") are the most important thing in the universe, and is detached from any form of "higher power". These morals are still built upon emotions; on empathy, on fear, on a sense of justice, on love, et cetera.

Pain is your body's indicator that damage has been or is being caused to it. There is an emotional reaction to pain, but again it is not neccessary.

In fact, some people enjoy pain, this is an indicator that the emotional reaction is failing.

Also, agreeing with anything Max said so far. Neruz: USian stupid conservatism does not all religions make. You are making a fool out of yourself. Yet again.

Nice strawman, mind if i bring some marshmellows over and roast them on the fire?

[Bauglir]

Reason is its own base, only reason refuses to betray, no other path can be trusted to take you where you choose to go. Use reason to seek reason...

Well, you DO need axioms to get anywhere. Which, I suspect, was the point.

[Siquo]

Pain is your body's indicator that damage has been or is being caused to it. There is an emotional reaction to pain, but again it is not neccessary.

In fact, some people enjoy pain, this is an indicator that the emotional reaction is failing.

And who is saying that damage is bad? Damage, and pain, can be good for you! The doctor's needle, the dentists drill and the setting of a bone.

Nice strawman, mind if i bring some marshmellows over and roast them on the fire?

In response to:

Once again proving that Religion and Logic exist in seperate, disparate spheres.

That was not a strawman, that is reinterpreting your quote as even less stupid that it is in and of itself and giving you the benefit of doubt.
That benefit is now removed and with that quote you are now one of the thickest people I've ever met, including the aforementioned christian zealous conservatives. Saying stuff that sounds stupid out of context should either not be said without context, or not be said at all, and I really can't think of a context that would make the above statement sound intelligent.


@Bauglir: Correct. However, RAM and Neruz both still maintain after 200 pages that there's no such thing as an axiom/assumption in Reason and Science, and if there are, they are Provable!