Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 49 (9181 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: joebialek123
Post Volume: Total: 918,286 Year: 5,543/9,624 Month: 568/323 Week: 65/143 Day: 8/19 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Hello everyone
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 380 (712390)
12-03-2013 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by scienceishonesty
12-02-2013 11:41 PM


I used to debate here years ago under a different alias
Which one?
I then realized that I can only either believe in religion or science, since both are completely incompatible with each other - I used to try to make both work for so long until integrity made me realize it just isn't possible and it wouldn't be right to pretend that they can work together.
I'm not having that problem. I just check my religion at the door when I go into the lab.
Religion asserts certain ideas as true and those beliefs outrank anything else in life, including any inconvenient scientific discoveries.
Um:
quote:
The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule among the infidels if any Catholic, not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents as dogma what scientific scrutiny shows to be false.
- St. Thomas Aquinas
That means that if science were to show something within that religion as false, the religious person then has to allow religion to trump the scientific discovery in their mind, making the supposed harmony between the too illusory. This is why they can't work together. The only way for them to be compatible would be for the one embracing a religion to treat the religion as being falsifiable which is inherently not what religion can be - the religious person already has all the answers and already knows that their religion is “true” no matter what. Of course, they really don't, they just want to believe that and shun everything that may say otherwise.
Not all religions are like that. Protestants maybe, but Catholic doctrine accepts evolution for instance.
So why do I believe in evolution now and do not accept the existence of a god without evidence? Well, because I decided to stop refusing to accept the obvious. If someone were to ask a religious believer to start believing in the flying spaghetti monster and to let “him” into their hearts, the religious person would point out how ridiculous it is and then probably cite the lack of evidence that there's even such a thing. You see, they know how to use logical arguments when it doesn't touch a belief system that they cherish and want to be true even though the evidence for a flying spaghetti monster and “god” or “gods” is exactly the same, nil.
Yeah, that's just standard noob atheist stuff. You might get over it one day. There's more to religion than just accepting baseless claims. And many of the claims of religion are not totally baseless. And there's still valuable stuff you can learn from religion.
From Message 8
The main problem I see with theistic evolution is that it reverts to telling oneself in a tamer way that they still for sure know the answer (again). It is just another form of clinging on to the vestiges of "already knowing the truth".
No, not "knowing" the truth, just "believing" that this is the case.
It still wants to believe that it "for certain" knows the answer (inside a protected, unfalsifiable realm) as a substitute for waiting until a truthful answer emerges.
And its not for certain either. Its just that I lean that way.
The big question is, is the theistic evolutionist willing to lay aside their belief if emerging scientific evidence invalidates the probability of their current beliefs? If that's the case, then it's time to be honest and just accept that they really are just waiting on the answers and that they don't absolutely know for sure -- which instantly makes them no longer part of a "religion" since religion already knows the purpose for everything and needs no answers.
No, that's a non-sequitor. Its still a religion even if I don't absolutely know for sure, and religions can encourage question things and not just believe them blindly.
The bottom line is, someone can somehow try to make their all-knowing religion and science compatible in their mind, but it really can't be done.
But it has been done.
From Message 10
Then I would argue that you are probably not a devout Christian. Do you know it 100% to be the "truth" or not? If you admit that it might be wrong, then it isn't a religion, it's just some abstract pet idea to make yourself feel better.
I could sit here and say the same thing, well, I'm a Christian but if science invalidates everything then I'll be willing to accept that I'm wrong. I already did that and realized there's no purpose in doing that.
Religion already knows and doesn't need the answer, it understands already (for a fact). Science is constantly seeking truth and making itself willing to adapt and change based on new evidence. Is it really hard to see that there is an inherent conflict?
No, that's just how your old religion was. Not everyone's is like that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by scienceishonesty, posted 12-02-2013 11:41 PM scienceishonesty has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by scienceishonesty, posted 12-03-2013 12:35 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 32 of 380 (712393)
12-03-2013 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Faith
12-03-2013 12:00 PM


Re: Wiggle room
I'm the only Bible believer on this thread and a YEC.
Yeah, you worship the Book more than you worship God and you follow the Book more than you follow Christ.
You really should call yourself a Biblian instead of a Christian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Faith, posted 12-03-2013 12:00 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Faith, posted 12-03-2013 12:23 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 36 of 380 (712398)
12-03-2013 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Faith
12-03-2013 12:23 PM


Re: Wiggle room
Just want to be clear: The religion that has no wiggle room when it comes to evolution is Biblical Christianity, which is what SIH must have in mind. Most other religions (I don't know of an exception) can be adjusted to accommodate evolution, even "Christianity" that feels free to discount the Bible wherever "science" seems to contradict it.
Yeah, that's because the other religions are honest. If you have absolutely no wiggle room then you are just lying to yourself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Faith, posted 12-03-2013 12:23 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by ringo, posted 12-03-2013 12:31 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 380 (712401)
12-03-2013 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by scienceishonesty
12-03-2013 12:21 PM


Re: Wiggle room
Let's not forget that belief in any religion comes from a desire for it to be true.
I don't think so. Why couldn't you reluctantly accept the tenets of a religion if you were convinced that they were true?
You seem to be as dogmatically against religion now as you used to be for it. Maybe you should just drop the dogmatism altogether

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by scienceishonesty, posted 12-03-2013 12:21 PM scienceishonesty has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by scienceishonesty, posted 12-03-2013 12:48 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 46 of 380 (712417)
12-03-2013 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by scienceishonesty
12-03-2013 12:35 PM


I'm actually not entirely sure, but even if I knew I would probably not wish to disclose it. Isn't exactly relevant anyway.
I was just curious (And I wanted to stalk your older messages.)
How important and real does that make your religion when on the quest for truth then?
Its not impotant at all for things I can discover in the lab. Its important for other things though.
Those are just semantics to make the catholic faith seem like it is reasonable and on par with rational thought.
How do you know? Maybe he was being sincere.
They will always seek to accommodate science as compatible as long as it does not directly conflict with the core teachings that the catholic church holds. I mean, come on, they still have a Pope figure for crying out loud
Why would they stop having a Pope?
and they can't even admit that they did wrong as a Church by murdering hundreds of thousands of "heretic" christians during the middle ages. It is always blamed on "people within the church".
Pope John Paul II appologized for the sins of the Church in his TERTIO MILLENNIO ADVENIENTE.
Here's a news article about it: Pope says sorry for sins of church
It is all about degrees of compromise.
But compromise nonetheless. Not the "already has the answers and true no matter what" that you were claiming earlier.
It may seem nauseating to you because you've heard it a lot, and yet it's so profoundly obvious to the person that actually thinks about it without their "I want" lenses.
I don't have "I want" lenses on. And I've been an atheist already.
Pastafarianism is a good argument for why people don't believe in God, but its not a good argument for choosing one particular religion over another.
So you really don't know that God and Christ exist?
That's right. If I knew then there'd be no room for faith.
Ah okay. Now here's a position I can identify with. I held this one for a while. I mean, after all, what is there to lose right? ...maybe only a tiny bit of honesty and integrity but not much else.
Or, I can remain honest and integritous and believe it for reasons other than not having anything to loose.
Religion can't encourage real questioning unless its of the specious veneer variety.
That's just not true. There is nothing inherant in religions that prevent them from encouraging quesitoning.
That's what science is for. Religion asserts, it isn't about learning the truth no matter what that truth might be.
Again, that's your old religion. Its not true of all religions.
Actually I got to the point where I wanted to believe that I just "lean" towards Christianity, believing that the evidence for ID is probably "just as good" as anything else and therefore justified it in that way.
ID is a rotten piece of shit.
From Message 42
Give me one explanation why I should be more persuaded to reluctantly believe in your catholic variety of Christianity over Zeus and the Olympian pantheon or Hinduism or Islam?
You shouldn't be persuaded because of something you read on the internet. it should because you find it helpful, truthful, and it has an impact on your life.
Do you feel that the evidence is greater? If we're speaking in terms of the Bible, archeology has already shown that the Israelites grew out of the collapse of the Canaanite society itself and that they didn't come from Egypt in any mass Exodus like the Bible claims. Israelites were displaced poor people in Canaan who came together to forward egalitarian thought and eventually just formed their own small kingdom, at which time they decided to start having kings.
During the time of David and Solomon the Israelites were polytheists just like the Canaanites. it wasn't until after they were conquered by the Babylonians that scribes writing the early books of the Bible blamed polytheism as the reason for God forsaking them. "Yaweh" along with his wife "Asherah" were worshipped for years and years (there is even archeological evidence showing the words "Yaweh and his wife Asherah" inscribed on tablets found in Israel during that time). Yaweh actually came from the Canaanite chief god "El" (Ever heard of Elohim? Elijah etc etc). And of course, guess who became what we know as Satan today? Ba'al! It's all recycled mythology.
I don't care about all that Jewish stuff. And mythology is recycled because that works better than replacing.
You seem like you are fond of speaking in rational terms, so help me by understanding why it might be a sensible choice for me to start believing in what you do?
Don't believe in what I do. Find out for yourself. Just be honest about it. Drop the dogmatism already. If you come to the position of a non-believer, then that is okay too.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by scienceishonesty, posted 12-03-2013 12:35 PM scienceishonesty has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Faith, posted 12-03-2013 4:53 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 55 by scienceishonesty, posted 12-03-2013 5:50 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 49 of 380 (712433)
12-03-2013 5:32 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Faith
12-03-2013 4:53 PM


Re: Some apology
As SIH already said, no he did not.
Well I read it and can quote it:
quote:
Hence it is appropriate that, as the Second Millennium of Christianity draws to a close, the Church should become more fully conscious of the sinfulness of her children, recalling all those times in history when they departed from the spirit of Christ and his Gospel and, instead of offering to the world the witness of a life inspired by the values of faith, indulged in ways of thinking and acting which were truly forms of counter-witness and scandal.
Although she is holy because of her incorporation into Christ, the Church does not tire of doing penance: before God and man she always acknowledges as her own her sinful sons and daughters. As Lumen Gentium affirms: "The Church, embracing sinners to her bosom, is at the same time holy and always in need of being purified, and incessantly pursues the path of penance and renewal".
So there. All you've got is the biased stuff that you make up.
He "apologized" for the sins of some of the Catholic "people" in the Church, sins that "some" committed, referring to "those who" without naming the actual perpetrators, which is blaming on nameless innocent members what the power hierarchy headed by the Pope in fact did.
"The Church" is made up of two parts:
  • The Church's Spirit, the bride of Christ
  • All the people that belong to the church, including the pope, bishops, priests and laity
When the Pope apologized for "her children", he was apologizing for all of those people. He can't apologize for the Spirit part, though.
Here's some more of the apology:
quote:
Among the sins which require a greater commitment to repentance and conversion should certainly be counted those which have been detrimental to the unity willed by God for his People. In the course of the thousand years now drawing to a close, even more than in the first millennium, ecclesial communion has been painfully wounded, a fact "for which, at times, men of both sides were to blame".(17) Such wounds openly contradict the will of Christ and are a cause of scandal to the world.(18) These sins of the past unfortunately still burden us and remain ever present temptations. It is necessary to make amends for them, and earnestly to beseech Christ's forgiveness.
quote:
Another painful chapter of history to which the sons and daughters of the Church must return with a spirit of repentance is that of the acquiescence given, especially in certain centuries, to intolerance and even the use of violence in the service of truth.
quote:
And with respect to the Church of our time, how can we not lament the lack of discernment, which at times became even acquiescence, shown by many Christians concerning the violation of fundamental human rights by totalitarian regimes? And should we not also regret, among the shadows of our own day, the responsibility shared by so many Christians for grave forms of injustice and exclusion? It must be asked how many Christians really know and put into practice the principles of the Church's social doctrine.
source of quotes
In fact what he describes as the sins themselves are a pretty vague lot.
You can squeeze a lot more things into a lot fewer words by being vague. He apologized for when the church, that is all of its members, used violence and when it was intolerant.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Faith, posted 12-03-2013 4:53 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Faith, posted 12-03-2013 5:35 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 53 by 1.61803, posted 12-03-2013 5:43 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 51 of 380 (712435)
12-03-2013 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Faith
12-03-2013 5:35 PM


Re: Some apology
Perhaps you missed what I added to that post. Apologizing for the "children" of the Church or its "sons and daughters" amounts to a denial since it was the Vatican and its Jesuit bulldogs that did most of the dirty work down the centuries, not the average Catholic.
No, the vatican and the Jesuits are included in the children of the Church.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Faith, posted 12-03-2013 5:35 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Faith, posted 12-03-2013 5:41 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 54 of 380 (712438)
12-03-2013 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Faith
12-03-2013 5:41 PM


Re: Some apology
No, the Vatican and the Jesuits are NOT included in "the Church" or he would have said so,
That's retarded.
The children of the Church includes every single member of the Church. The pope, the bishops, the Jesuits, the priests, the laity. All of them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Faith, posted 12-03-2013 5:41 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Faith, posted 12-03-2013 5:53 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 61 of 380 (712449)
12-03-2013 7:26 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by scienceishonesty
12-03-2013 5:50 PM


Sincerity would have prompted him to realize that you can't construct absolute religious beliefs based around absolute religious entities and then somehow pretend that there is no possible way the teachings of that religion may ever conflict with science
Sure you can. You've already brought up FSM (pasta be unto him).
But what you're saying's not what he said. He said that you shouldn't present as dogma what science has shown to be wrong. Real basic stuff like "god exists" is open game.
The whole "truthness of our faith", imho, is more colloquial than literal.
sure there may be a degree of flexibility manifested, but what about when realities start casting a shadow on the core platforms of a religion?
Like what? That resurrections don't happen? Or that a resurrection could never happen?
Can you appreciate the difference?
Of course you have "I want" lenses on. Faith, which you claim to have, is wanting to believe in something without evidence.
Except that my belief is not based on faith alone. I've landed at the position that god exists, I'm not pushing myself into it.
So the existence of God and Christ aren't off the table for the catholic church?
You think science is going to shown those to be false? How?
The only person you are fooling here is yourself. The Catholic church believes it has the answers for salvation, whether you admit to it or not.
Sure, but that's not something that science is going to show to be false. And who doesn't!?
Alright. You've convinced me.
Yeah!
Catholic Scientist: 1
scienceishonesty: 0
I kid, I kid.
Thank you for the cordial conversation, sincerely.
Despite no evidence whatsoever for Zeus' existence I'm going to exert faith that He really does control the lightning and that there is a place for me waiting when I die on Mount Olympus. It is so exciting to know the truth and be able to have a person relationship with a wonderful God that I just KNOW in my heart of heart exists.
Okay, how's that working for you? Any conviction there?
Does this sound reasonable to you?
It sounds like you made it up to make a point
Faith without evidence is never reasonable no matter what you may tell yourself.
That true's, FWOE is also irrational. But its here.
Certainly not with intellectual honesty or integrity but perhaps it has a rare effect on you where it makes you feel better? I suppose in that way there's no harm.
No, intellectually honest and intellectually integritous and not for reasons for feeling better. Do you doubt the possibility?
So if I wanted to believe in creationism now or ID or something else you'd call a peace of shit, what if it makes me feel better? Does it really make me honest to believe in something because it makes me "feel better"?
Believe in whatever the hell you want. IDGAF. And no, doing it just to make you feel better is not being honest.
I just decided to take the default position of rationality.
I don't think rationality is the default position. Humans are wrought with irrationality, its kept us alive as a species (its better to imagine that noise in the bush was a monster that will hurt you than to take the rational position and wait for further evidence).
It takes training to discard your irrationality. As your OP admits you've learned
If there's no evidence, I'm not going to go out of my way to waste my time.
Well, give it time. Maybe one day you'll find yourself believing in God again.
Maybe you won't. *shrugs*

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by scienceishonesty, posted 12-03-2013 5:50 PM scienceishonesty has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by scienceishonesty, posted 12-04-2013 4:56 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 62 of 380 (712450)
12-03-2013 7:32 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Faith
12-03-2013 5:53 PM


Re: Some apology
Sorry, you're deceived.
Er, I mean:

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Faith, posted 12-03-2013 5:53 PM Faith has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 66 of 380 (712459)
12-03-2013 10:16 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by dwise1
12-03-2013 9:00 PM


I'm not going to quote you in particular. There's really just one insinuation that I'm feeling that I disagree with, and it may be totally unfounded, but:
You seem to be implicating too much planning on the creationists' side, as if they decided that these were the beliefs that would go towards their goal, as opposed to just falling into the ones that they seemed fit.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by dwise1, posted 12-03-2013 9:00 PM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by dwise1, posted 12-04-2013 12:54 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 110 of 380 (712616)
12-05-2013 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by scienceishonesty
12-04-2013 4:56 PM


True, but it's just posturing unless one admits that their belief system *may* not be true.
Not only do I admit that my belief system may not be true, I admit that my belief system must contain some things that are not true.
Unfortunately, such an admission just isn't compatible with religion because by its own nature it is clinging on to beliefs at face value regardless of evidence.
You really need to drop the dogmatism. I have a religion and I make the admission. You're wrong.
People don't fly into buildings doubting that a bunch of virgins are waiting for them on the other side in paradise.
I don't doubt what you say is possible, I'm telling you that it isn't necessary.
Okay, so that means there must be some kind of evidence that you've "landed on" for believing such a thing. Mind sharing some of this evidence? You know, like, in the same way you'd be willing to show me evidence for gravity or evolution if I asked you for it.
If the evidence was something that I could show you, like that for gravity and evolution, then it would be knowledge and not just a belief.
It could show it to be unnecessary
Sure, its unnecessary. But its here.
Let's say that were a real "conviction", it doesn't make it compelling based on evidence.
No, but I'd be more inclined to actually consider it.
Science may show it to be completely unnecessary and superfluous
Oh well. That's no biggie.
quote:
No, intellectually honest and intellectually integritous and not for reasons for feeling better. Do you doubt the possibility?
yes, I doubt the possibility.
Why? Is your reasoning based on evidence or dogmatism?
You're totally missing my point here. I can choose to believe in a flat earth if I want but how is that facing up to reality?
Can you?. Seriously, can you really choose to believe in a flat earth? I don't think you can. The evidence against it is too compelling.
You can say that you believe it, but I don't think that you can really believe it. That would be just posturing.
In terms of evaluating reality, the should-be default position, is to not believe something as potentially valid unless there's unbiased evidence indicating that it is.
If that's what you want. I don't think you actually hold yourself to that standard though. Take your dogmatic stance on the requirements of religion, for example.
I actually don't mind the idea of believing in God again, but I'm waiting for some evidence first. Mind helping out a poor ignorant soul like me?
I'm trying...
The first step is to drop the dogmatism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by scienceishonesty, posted 12-04-2013 4:56 PM scienceishonesty has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 114 of 380 (712622)
12-05-2013 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by scienceishonesty
12-05-2013 11:56 AM


Re: Evidence's role in belief vs. knowledge
Do you believe that the first four books of the Bible were written by the Prophet Moses, literally?
You should start a new topic on that. I think it would be an interesting discussion.
What evidence can you show that it wasn't Moses who wrote those books?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by scienceishonesty, posted 12-05-2013 11:56 AM scienceishonesty has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by scienceishonesty, posted 12-05-2013 12:49 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 315 of 380 (713056)
12-09-2013 11:44 AM


The problem is they are FALLIBLE, and they misinterpret their evidence, and when it comes to the PAST THEY HAVE NO WAY OF HAVING ANYTHING BUT THEIR OWN ENDLESS COGITATIONS ABOUT IT BEFCAUSE THEY CANNOT VERIFY IT. Good grielf, can you read?
Besides, as I've said before I AM NOT OBJECTING TO REAL SCIENCE.

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 320 of 380 (713064)
12-09-2013 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 206 by Faith
12-07-2013 1:57 PM


Re: Some apology
However, Jesus did teach us to hate even our own families if they draw us away from the Truth,
And what did Jesus say that the Truth was:
From Luke 14
quote:
26 If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sistersyes, even their own lifesuch a person cannot be my disciple.
27 And whoever does not carry their cross and follow me cannot be my disciple.
...
33 In the same way, those of you who do not give up everything you have cannot be my disciples.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by Faith, posted 12-07-2013 1:57 PM Faith has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024