Free will is not a violation of absolute benevolence. Does a parent not punish his child to teach them right from wrong? Does a parent not allow his child to fail so that the child can handle future failures? What is a life of suffering compared to eternal happiness?
The truth is that free will is a gift. If you think we would be better off following the will of a all-loving god, then I would encourage you to do just that.
- 10/29/2012 6:22:38 PM Posted in: General Discussion
10/26/2012 11:59:16 AM
You have emprircally proven that Christ is not god? An all-powerful, all-loving god does have a defense; man's free-will.Posted in: General Discussion
10/9/2012 5:36:26 PM
Posted in: General DiscussionQuote from Slayerviper
Based on discovered writings, Hinduism is the oldest religion by at least 3000 thousand years (compared to Catholicism). Personally I think paganism was around much earlier than that, but there was no "bible" written for this belief at the time.
Hinduism and Catholicism are both religions; other than that, they have very little in common.
10/9/2012 5:28:08 PM
Posted in: General Discussion
Because empirical evidence is all we have. It is the only way that I can take an idea I have, test it, and pass it to others for the same testing and further scrutiny. It is the only way to seriously pursue knowledge. We may not gain an "ultimate" understanding of rocks through geology, but we learn more about geological processes with each passing year. Gaining more knowledge about the universe is obviously preferable to accepting that we can't know anything about it. You could not be on a computer, on the internet, and using a keyboard, without the aid of empiricism. None of those inventions would have been made without people questioning the nature of the world we live in and seeking to know more about it.
To say something as absurd as "look at all the complexity," implying that the universe is simply too magnificent to learn anything about it, is to deny the intellect that evolution developed in our species. We have the capacity to learn more about the origin of the universe, substituting a creator and implying the job is there-by done: that's nothing short of willful ignorance
I do not believe we should throw up our arms at the complexity of the universe, quite the opposite. The advancement of science is a great thing. When an engineer looks at a bridge, he also understands the time, thought, and work that went into building it. When a computer programmer plays a new video game, he understands how involved and complex the code is that allows the game to function. When I look at the wonders of this world I see design. Science is reverse engineering.
And yet the claim, admittedly impossible to prove, has been used as justification for slavery, homophobia, subjugation of women, war on other religious groups, war on other ethnic groups, anti-abortion, anti-medicine, and anti-science movements the world over, just to name a few.
For such an obviously vacuous claim, it appears that a whole lot has been argued with a basis in that irrational assumption.
When has Catholicism used its theology as justification for any of these except anti-abortion? I am not arguing for monotheism, I am arguing for Catholicism. Anti-abortion groups are not limited to religious groups. Secular society also has pro-lifers.
10/9/2012 5:01:47 PM
Posted in: General DiscussionQuote from Belphanoir
heh so your god is in the same boat as dragons, unicorns, odin, thor, Zeus, osiris, anubis, Mardok, My little pony, dragon ballz and anything else that you can claim as real but it is impossible to prove false...
Example of true evidence procedures... FTL neutrinos... they detected them but didnt believe it possible, but they also did not toss it out.. they submitted their results for peer review, so thousands of others could all dig thru the data, run the same tests... after a while everyone else was getting the standard expected results and only that 1 facility got the FTL neutrinos... and after they went back over their equipment for the 100th time they found out... they had a bad cable one a timing component and it was what threw everything off..
That is real, claiming a book is real and then ignore any and all evidence to the contrary is ignorance bordering on stupidity. You religion claims nothing new or original, every single ounce of modern day religions was claimed in a previous faith, hindu is the closest of all faiths to having a semi original belief system since it is quite a nice bit older then Judeo-christian beliefs but even it has pulled from the local customs and beliefs that pre-dated it.
so to be honest your bible is nothing more the copyright infringement at best and shitty plagiarism at worst... there is no truth within it, there is not an ounce of morality to be gleaned from it that did not exist before it... As for where do natural laws come from? that is in the realm of science cannot answer as of yet.. they were in place due directly from the events of the Big bang and so once we figure that out we will figure out why the physical laws are the way they are...
I do not claim it is real on the basis that it is impossible to prove false. Do you realize that the early chuch was spread by men who gave up their lives to travel from city to city and teach about the life of Jesus; that most of these men died as martyrs because they would not recant their faith is Jesus Christ? Do you believe in anything in this world by which you would stake your life and well being before denying it, even if just in appearance? To say the Catholic Church was started as a fairly tale means to control a population is just wrong.
How can you claim Catholicism is not original? You obviously know little about it.
10/6/2012 1:08:18 AM
And why are there natural physical laws?Posted in: General Discussion
I cannot empirically prove God's existence, just as you cannot empirically disprove his existence.
10/6/2012 12:25:01 AM
You missed the point on all accounts. You keep deflecting instead of answering the questions or stating your beliefs. And still more lies about the Church are spread.Posted in: General Discussion
"...proud intellectual badge of honor"? Why are you so proud of choosing a position based on 'empirical' evidence? You claim a religious man a fool, but to look at the universe and all its complexities, to look at the human species and our DNA, to look our lives and not see the need and desire for a loving, omnipotent creator is foolish. How can you look at the Big Bang and not see a creator?
In perfect honesty, I find you asking why I reject such a church to be almost fascicle.
"I do not think it means what you think it means." -Inigo Montoya
9/29/2012 10:05:36 PM
Posted in: General Discussion
I think you're conflating "the church," as in the catholic church with it's own doctorine, with christianity and the plethora of protestant spinoffs. The evangelical movement which uses passages such as this one from Romans: "I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin," to justify Zionism and support for it's aggression against neighbor states are majority protestant. As for the idea that anyone's interpretation of the biblical mythos is more valid than another, I think it's entirely foolish to attempt that argument. If it all comes down to taking one or another line on faith, there is no distinguishing factor between which interpretation is correct. All I need to do is point out one way in which something is being interpreted to comment. You; however, have to prove the validity of your specific counter-interpretation. I don't suggest what they're arguing is right. I think you're both flattering a millennial book with far more import than it's value. But I can tell you, logically, you have no way to prove an irrational assertion with another irrational assertion.
Catholicism directly opposes Zionism. Misinterpretations of a truth does not make the truth a falsehood. I could prove my interpretation valid to a Protestant, however, you will ignore it because the proof would largely come from the bible. Catholicism teaches that the sacred scripture holds equal weight with sacred tradition, the personal teachings passed on from Jesus to the apostles and so on.
I think you would agree that the if people over the age of 35 started to produce stem cells in their brains it would absolutely wrong/evil to murder and harvest 35 year olds' brains to correct ailments and disease in the younger population.
Full-stop with the stawman argument. I'm not going to take you seriously if you're going to compare a collection of unaware cell matter to a living human being who has had a lifetime of experience.
Do you agree with this equation: Human_Life_A = Human_Life_B? At the point of conception, the mass of cells is a human life. All that happens after is simply the 'mass of cells' aging.
People commit acts of evil without having social disorders. People with true social disorders don't understand their acts to be evil which is why they don't apply to a "moral compass".
I don't think evil has any meaning in that liberal of a context. If you mean to say "anyone would steal," (under certain circumstances) than you'd be right. But, is there never a time when theft is not so bad or perhaps a lesser good? Do you think the character of robin hood was inherently evil? What about stealing from a dictatorial government in the modern day? What about taking someone's harmful drugs away from them to facilitate their recovery?
The problem with the bipolar worldview is that it's oversimplified.
You still haven't answered my question. You even removed it from my quote. Why do you care about the well being of others? Why does almost everyone on this planet have an understanding of good and evil and have a predisposition towards good?
This is how dogma prevents becoming obviously irrelevant and contrived in a modern setting where people actually know of other religions and good people who are their adherents. In the past, the church would have said they're all heretics and pagans. Today they are simply knowing the grace of god in another way. If this isn't obvious ass-covering I don't know what is. The bible says nothing of this sort about non-jew/christians.
Acts 17:25-28; 1 Tim. 2:4
A heretic is someone who rejects the teachings of the church. If you don't know the church how can you reject it?
9/27/2012 6:11:11 PM
Posted in: General DiscussionQuote from Slayerviper
You are basically saying that our perspective changes reality; that becase two people can disagree on what is good and what is evil, no such things exist.
If you really believed there is no such thing as good or evil, I don't think you would be alive today.
Whatever is the accepted norm is considered good and whatever the bulk of society doesn't accept is considered evil... how about a real life example. Many people in the Middle East could consider America evil... but does that make them evil? Who is right, who is wrong? How do you even prove it? If you can't prove it, then how can you classify ideal? If you believed that God never existed then I don't think you would be alive today because who/what created us?
EDIT: I don't believe in a God so don't try accusing me of being a bible thumper, just using your "wonderful" example against you.
My example was awful. What I was trying to convey is that if you have no belief in good or evil you would have most likely done some things in your life that would have led to your death. To have a different understanding of what is good and what is evil is one thing. To believe that nothing is good and nothing is evil is something totally different. I'm having a hard time rationalizing such a viewpoint. I would think the most likely scenario after drawing such a conclusion would be suicide. If nothing is good why live?
9/27/2012 5:54:32 PM
Posted in: General Discussion
I did somewhat in the two posts. I will as we go along. I don't see making a laundry list of the mistakes in the first 52 pages condusive to a good discussion.
One might follow this with an explanation if the intention was to correct an error.
How are you correlating Christian dogma with a pre-emptive military strike? I would point to a bilical reference specifically stating otherwise.
Please quote a verse that could be interpreted to advocate a pre-emptive military strike against Iran. Even if you can convolute some verse to support your position, the Church maintains that it is the authortiy on interpretation of the scripture. Your interpreation of the bible would need to be in line with the Church in order for me to believe it. Which is why I would also contend that Protestantism is not a reasonable reponse to Jesus Christ because thousands of demoninations who believe their own understanding of scripture to be the "Truth" is a logical fallacy.
You could easily justify either position, depending on the verses you select and the interpretation you wish to advocate for. This in no way changes the reality that social conservatives rally behind the idea of pre-emptive military action against Tehran for biblical pro-Zionist reasons.
A large part of the world, US social conservatives and Israelis included, regard Iran's acquisition of nuclear capabilites to be a threat to global safety. So does our very liberal president.
I think you would agree that the if people over the age of 35 started to produce stem cells in their brains it would absolutely wrong/evil to murder and harvest 35 year olds' brains to correct ailments and disease in the younger population. Which means the only thing we differ on is when life begins. You contend that you cannot even be sure that your defintion of "at birth" is true because of brain function beginning earlier. I contend that after conception, a group of cells will result in a person 100% of the time and therefore is a person already. Now obviously miscarriages/disease/etc result in a person never being born. My argument is that the conception between two humans components will always yeild a human result and deliberatly depriving that human from its life is murder.
As I already mentioned, stem cell research being under-utilized and under-funded is a human tragedy. The sheer number of ailments which could be corrected and cured by this avenue of science is astounding and yet we're hamstrung by the conception argument.
Human life begins at birth - life defined as a collection of cells absent conscious brain function doesn't make any sense to me, but I do sympathise with those who are against late-term abortion and might be convinced of a moral objection to abortion after brain function has been established. I'm no neurologist enough to argue the timeline of fetal development. Ultimately there is no position I can defensibly take on the matter other than it is a woman's right to choose.
Again, why do you care about the well being of others? People commit acts of evil without having social disorders. People with true social disorders don't understand their acts to be evil which is why they don't apply to a "moral compass".
I'm glad you find the concept of innate evolutionary social development and morality convincing, but I do have to wonder (if you are serious about that admission) how you can even ask those questions?
It's patently obvious we need to get along for the continuity of our species and the improvement sum-total of our collective lives and the lives of generations to come. To borrow Sam Harris' term: moving along the "moral landscape," to a point of greater well-being for everyone, requires a societal effort. If you don't expect people to get along, it's hard to imagine they would feasibly cooperate to that end.
The question of evil is something you more or less answered for yourself. Those who exhibit traits of sociopathy, psychopathy, and other nerological/genetic a-social disorders are always going to be a fount of "evil," which has to be dealt with. Dealing with that is best accomplished by understanding the genetic and environmental causes, not by branding everyone a sinner at birth or simply assuming an evil entity juxtaposed to an almighty good.
I am simply impressing the biblical view of the start of the universe in which Adam and Eve knew God. I do not contend that everyone on earth has been exposed to monotheistic teaching. Catholocism does not exclude those who have not.
I would contend that humanity did not exist prior to the founding of monotheism.
Then you would be impressing upon your readers an entirely new definition of humanity, because (taking the accepted usage of the word) you are demonstrably wrong. Even the written historical record, in many places, positively pre-dates monotheism. Your assertion would be akin to saying most inhabitants of the Indian subcontinent is still something less than human. I would hope you know better than that.
Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (Lumen Gentium)," "Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do His will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience – those too may achieve eternal salvation" (no. 16).
- To post a comment, please login or register a new account.