|
Tranc3 - don't worry about not reading our side conversation, all the religion threads in here invariably end up branching off in a few different directions, most people end up picking and choosing what interests them.
CYRUS:
| quote: | Originally posted by Cyrus King
Although i do believe that the three monetheistic religions should burn in their own hells... i also would like to ask the extreme atheists a question. Being agnostic (leaning towards atheism though) dont you think its hypocritical to completely denounce a god? |
On the face of it - a serious problem for atheists, but when you look into the topic, you'll find that this actually isn't an issue.
There are two forms of atheism. The first, strong atheism is the complete denial in the existence of all gods. Although I have met some strong atheists in my time (and there are some arguments around to support this position), I myself am generally not one of them.
The second form of atheism is weak atheism. This is the disbelief in the existence of god. It isn't an affirmative claim that god doesn't exist - but rather a a lack of belief in his existence. A weak atheist such as myself is likely to say that they have not seen any evidence for the existence of god, and as such - must assume that he doesn't exist until reputable evidence to the contrary turns up.
I should clarify one thing though. Personally, I am a strong atheist when it comes to the Christian, Islamic & Hindu gods, but on the topic of a god in general I am a weak atheist - so they aren't necessarily blanket terms. The dictionary generally doesn't differentiate between the two forms, but using the dictionary for philosophical or theological terms is always fraught with danger, as Christian fundamentalists would no doubt realize when they look up the definition of the word 'Christian'.
| quote: | | fundies are so sure a god exists, wjile major atheists are so sure a god doesnt exist. Both sides are so sure in what they believe in, even though there is no valid evidence to denounce both sides 100% |
Which is where weak atheism and agnosticism come in. With regards to the 'valid evidence to denounce both sides' point - on the contrary, i think that there is sufficient evidence to believe that the Christian god as portrayed in the bible does not exist, and as such, it is reasonable to adopt the position of strong atheism when the topic of the Christian god comes up.
| quote: | | To state that there is %100 no "god" out there and believe it is as poposterous as claiming that there is a 100% chance God does exist. |
I agree - although some strong atheists would no doubt be eager to argue the toss with you on this one.
NeoPhono:
| quote: | Originally posted by NeoPhono
You don't have to worry about offending me when it comes to religion. I also am very interested in people's belief systems and I love to talk about it. |
Good to hear - I have a (somewhat regrettable) habit of getting to heated arguments with theists and religious people (especially Christians and Muslims) when to comes to religion, as in my experience - many simply refuse to discuss religion in a rational, civil and logical manner. Good to find a 'nominal' Christian who's actually willing to put their world-view under the microscope.
| quote: | | I guess your surprise has a lot to do with your definition of "believer." I consider myself a believer in the message behind the bible and my religion, not necessarily a believer in the human "Jesus" or a literal belief in the bible. My belief stems from the ideals and philosphies protrayed through "Jesus," and it is these that have the greatest importance to me. My views and beliefs would not be altered if I found out today Jesus did not exist, much the same way someone into Nietzsche is not detered by the fact that Zarathustra was not a "real" person. |
I see where you're coming from here. You look at Jesus' teachings and even existence as generally metaphorical and synbolic. That I can understand, although I don't see how you can continue to call yourself a Catholic, especially when your beliefs are by definition heretical and revolutionary when you contrast them with Roman Catholic (and biblical) teachings. The belief system that you're describing really isn't Catholicism, it's a heavily modified and warped version of Catholicism. In my view - Catholicism has been (and still is - to an extent) generally a pretty vile branch of Christianity. If people in Africa take any notice of what they say - then they currently have a direct hand (and in my view, therefore shoulder some of the responsibility) for uneducated Africans contracting AIDS and later HIV.
Slightly off topic (but also slightly humorous) - last year the pope took it upon himself to attack Australia's "sense of equality", cautioning that religious freedom shouldn't mean that people don't bow to his almighty will. This year - he informed a conference of Australian bishops in Rome that we really shouldn't be playing sport on Sundays, because after all, the Sabbath is on Sunday, and every human being on earth is also a reverent Catholic. 
I guess it all boils down to me simply not understanding how a rational and generally moral human being could associate with the Vatican. Someone once assumed that I was a Catholic - my immediate reaction was to take it as an insult. Some of the stuff that Rome pulls is downright disgusting - the Vatican should truly be ashamed of itself.
By the way – it's interesting to find a 'Catholic' who isn't completely shocked by Nietzsche and nihilism. I'm certainly not a nihilist, and I think that Nietzsche was, how should I put it – clinically insane, but he did have some amazing ideas none the less.
| quote: | | I would first of all disagree that religion could not be see as a philosophy. Religion is merely a philosophy with a set of common "rules" and tradition. Maybe your definition of philosophy is different from mine, but to me a philosophy is merely a search for a greater understanding of life and values. |
Reading over my post - I didn't articulate this point clearly enough. What I was trying to do was comparing a philosophy to a religion, and afterwards contrasting the two. Let's call Catholicism (and thus Christianity) a 'religious philosophy', and something like Secular Humanism a 'non-religious philosophy', that way there can't be any confusion. Again, the misunderstand was entirely my fault.
| quote: | | The reason I chose Catholocism has two parts. First, it was the way I was raised. I was brought up Catholic, with all the rights and initiations it contains. However, I did go through a period of about five years where I did not practice regularly and questioned all religion, including my own. Not to get too heavy into the events of my life, but I did go through a rough time and I rediscovered my religion as a coping mechanism (yes, I'll admit that), that later became an appreciation. |
I do have direct experience with Catholicism - I've been exposed to it every fay for five years at a Jesuit run and owned school. From what I've observed, Catholicism is basically protestant Christianity with a hell of a lot of (in my opinion) un-biblical extra beliefs, rituals and unnecessary ceremonies added on.
I don't presume to know anything about you nor your life - but I'm noticing a common pattern here. Most religious people were either indoctrinated as children, or have gone back to their (generally monotheistic) faith when they hit a rough patch. Let's face it - it's a nice idea to have a sky daddy up there watching over you, it gives you a certain sense of comfort and safety. So much so - that I want there to be a god. Yes, you heard right, I would very much like there to be a god up there watching over me. However, I simply can't force myself to believe when I've seen no evidence for the existence of one - to me, that's intellectual dishonesty of the worst kind. Out of curiosity, do you think that you would be any less moral if you weren't a catholic? The appreciation point is an interesting one. I can appreciate liberal Christianity, Taoism, Buddhism and humanistic Judaism, but that, to me at least - doesn't translate into belief or a need for membership.
| quote: | | It was during this time I began to re-evaluate the teachings of the Catholic church, and found several key issues to be progressive and refreshing |
I've heard the Catholic Church called many things before - but progressive certainly isn't one of them. 
Aside from their acceptance of evolution (which I would describe as common sense/inevitable rather than particularly progressive), what parts of their doctrine are progressive?
| quote: | | which became my second reason for choosing Catholicism. First, the acceptance of science including evolution. Secondly it's stance on gays, and third its emphasis on making yourself a better person and living through example rather than going forth to "convert the non-believer and spread the word of God." I believe religion, or any philosophy for that matter, is a personal issue and should be talked about either when asked, or merely shown through your own actions. The idea of forcefully "sharing" your ideas with others in hopes of conversion is a message thankfully missing in modern American Catholicism (there are of course exceptions). For the most part you won't see Catholics going on missions of conversion or handing out tracts or being overtly critical of other religions or belief systems and this I agree with. |
To me the acceptance of science is just a natural thing to do, I don't really see it as anything ground breaking. Certainly, for a Christian church, it may be ground breaking (actually, scrap that - there are quite a few liberal protestant denominations that are way ahead of the RCC when it comes to acceptance of science). Come to think of it - at the moment the Catholic Church is vehemently rallying against stem cell research at the moment, that's hardly acceptance of science, now is it?
With regards to the stance on gays, I'm afraid I'm going to have to strongly disagree with you there. I am disgusted by how the church treats gays - they selectively quote old testament (specifically verses from Leviticus and deurotomy) scripture to suggest that homosexuality is a sin, wrong, something to be frowned upon etc. Granted, they aren't as bad as the southern baptists, bit they still contribute to the continuing discrimination against and demonization of gays and lesbians in all walks of society. If you're looking for ardent supporters of gay rights, you're probably best to avoid anything related to Christianity.
As for the conversion point, I think this is partly related to the strange concept of purgatory. Most, if not all of the fundamentalist protestant denominations run with the (admittedly biblically supported) idea of a heaven and a hell, without the 'limbo' stage of purgatory in the middle. As such, conversion is a major issue for them, as they believe that all non-Christians (In other words, around 67% of the world's population, at the very least) are going to hell. I'm a little sketchy when it comes to Catholic history, although I am looking into it at the moment - but would I be correct to assume that purgatory was introduced at the Vatican II council, and as such - is a rather recent idea? But yeah, rabid preaching and evangelism is extremely irritating to someone like me, and as such I generally avoid people who have a habit of preaching, or if I'm already acquainted with them, I argue the toss with them instead. 
| quote: | | I do realize that if looking at religion and the bible in a fundamentalist stance, what I'm saying would pretty much destroy the idea of Christianity. |
In my mind it destroys it no matter what - because once you strip away the inerrancy idea, you're left with a lot of embarrassing and pressing questions, and a skeleton of a religion that is outstripped in terms or rationality and usefulness by beliefs and philosophies such as secular humanism and deism. That being said, I think that the idea of Christianity was destroyed (in terms of evidence and validity) long ago, so you can probably take what I say with a grain of salt - hehe.
| quote: | | However, as I'm sure you've noticed, it's not the historical validity of the bible and my religion but the overall message behind it. I also agree that, at least to me, being labeled a "Christian" is becoming increasingly negative. The hypocracy and brashness of many "Christians" is something I desperately try to seperate myself from. |
I have noticed that, and although it baffles me, I'm less inclined to argue with you over it - because it isn't harmful and destructive like 'regular' Catholicism is. With all the crap that Christians and Christian fundamentalist organizations pull - I'm genuinely surprised that you haven't looked elsewhere for another religion or philosophy if you're just interested in the tradition and general 'golden rule' message.
| quote: | | You could probably consider me a deist, and I have no problem with that label. I find the teachings of the Catholic church, on a philosophical level to be equal to my own beliefs. |
You've admittedly lost me a bit here - is there any chance of you being a bit more specific with regards to this? What precisely do you mean by philosophical level?
| quote: | | And as I said before I do enjoy the history and tradition associated with the Catholic church. There are many Catholics that believe the same basic principles I do, which you could consider deism, yet still practice modern Catholicism happily. |
I enjoy the history of the Norse gods, but that doesn't mean that I've gone and converted to paganism. 
Sorry, that was flippant. Personally I couldn't stand being associated with an organization like the Catholic church - especially if I was a deist, because the vast majority of deists advocate the use of our 'god given reason', to quote Thomas Paine. Judging by their actions - the RCC appears to be against the use of reason and logic.
How do you manage to stomach the stuff that Catholicism preaches? Surely their doctrines outweigh the (rather vague in my opinion) 'general philosophical message' and history of Christianity (which is undoubtedly rather bloody, at certain stages they were completely okay with murdering people like me because they disagreed with them).
| quote: | | This will sound very non-scientific and most definenatly un-empirical, but it is the complexity, magnitude and depth of nature that leaves room for a "God" in my opinion. I realize that what I am saying could be percieved as trying to explain the realm of the unknown by mysticism. However, what I am trying to say is that the way in which we find our universe to work in such a complex yet ordered fashion leaves a place for higher being to set forth such "rules." Unfortunatly, my belief on this level is very hard for me to articulate, as it has been a discovery over the years that has led me to this, not any one particular moment of epiphany. |
I see. Would you describe yourself as an IDer? I'm just checking here, because ID has been thoroughly debunked, and as a man of science, it would be, well, most un-scientific to support it. 
With regards to how I view the 'complexity' that exists in the world - I just see it as complexity - a natural result of evolution and change over billions of years. Personally i think that making the jump from the universe being complex to 'therefore, god exists' is a bit of a stretch - and also a non sequitor.
Would you agree that your belief in god could conceivably be due to your indoctrination into Catholicism as a child - and a subsequent subconscious desire to confirm this belief? I went close to being indoctrinated as well - and by god I wanted god to exist. i looked into the ID arguments, I tried to convince myself that there really was a sky daddy up there looking down on me - but when it comes down to it, complexity really isn't a valid reason to believe in god in my view.
By the way, I think occ, MisterOpus and Izzy are also deists, so you're in good company.
| quote: | Not to sound arrogant, but "correctly" means in the manner I have described I practice religion.  |
From the point of view of people like you and me - yes. But to people who read and believe the bible or the Koran, then you're clearly practising Catholicism 'incorrectly'.
| quote: | | And I obviously do not condone many of the practices set forth in the bible, espeically the barbaric ones in the old testament. (Leviticus, anyone?) |
Agreed, some of the stuff in Leviticus is pretty vile. As I mentioned before - http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/ has a good summary of it all.
| quote: | | I do not believe in "hell." My belief tells me that "God" (at least God of the new testament) taught us to be all-loving and that should make him all-loving as well. Does a heaven exist? I have no idea. It would be nice though. I do believe that an all-loving God would never send someone to hell to spend eternity in agony. That wouldn't be very loving, in fact it would be quite the opposite. I am not here to judge anyone, and I think part of "loving thy neighbour" is to be tolerant of their differences. I have been told I was going to hell many times, and I would never try to judge someone or tell them that was to be their fate. I think it is merely a scare tactic to get someone to believe what you do. There is no "love" in telling someone they're damned, as many Christians would have you believe. |
I figured as much. I agree that hell is in direct conflict with the concept of an all-loving god. In my view, Christian apologists have to drop the 'loving god' part if they're going to believe in hell - but that's another topic entirely. I actually think that monotheistic religion itself is a scare tactic, but again, that's a completely different topic.
| quote: | | Ultimately the bible was written by humans who may or may not have been inspired by God. It was written in a time of different culture and science, and by these two facts alone I believe it is impossible for the bible to be totally accurate. |
Again, agreed. However, that isn't the view of the RCC (correct me if I'm wrong here) and most of the major Protestant churches. From memory, they hold that the bible is in fact the direct word of god, and is completely uncorrupted. The prophets and scribes who compiled the bible were guided by the holy spirit - god ensured that there were no errors.
Now - I know the above doesn't necessarily apply to you, but I just felt like getting it off my chest.
Here's a thorny one for you: If the Christian god exists, and you hold to biblical errancy - then why hasn't he intervened to fix up the mistakes?
| quote: | | Catholicism teaches that the bible is the "Word of God," however it does not tell us to overlook the cultural and scientific changes over the past 2000 years that make many parts of the bible out dated or to take it literally. Catholicism teaches that an individual should look past the innacuracies that in reality have no bering on the overall message of the bible and the life of "Jesus." I hope that answers your question.. |
I have a problem understanding this position - because god is defined as a being that is omnipotent, omnibenevelont and so forth. God can see into the future, god knows everything. Firstly, why did god put all the 'slavery passages', the parts that tell us to kill women who've been raped, the sections that tell us to slaughter non-believers, the passage that tells us to murder witches? (which some fundamentalists take to mean kill the Wiccans and Pagans)
If there are moral absolutes, and god is an all-knowing, all-living being, then surely rape was just as wrong back then as it is now. What made rape okay then? The bible truly can't be the word of god - a being with god's properties would never write, guide or 'inspire' such an insane and barbaric book. Furthermore, why hasn't god updated the bible so that people today can better understand it. Why hasn't he explained the OT passages, or the concept of hell, or told us which religion is the correct one to follow? The only logical conclusion is that the bible, like the Koran, is a load of outdated unadulterated rubbish, written by a bunch of ignorant, hateful nomads. Again, that wasn't necessarily directed at you - just Catholicism and dogmatic theism in general.
| quote: | | I agree, if you cut out Jesus, you'd basically be left with the Old Testament and Revelation and I do not find much of my beliefs contained in those. Even if Jesus did or didn't exist, it is his example I am trying to emulate. |
That's probably the best insight you'll get into my position. Based on the evidence I've seen - I have cut out Jesus. I am left with the OT, and by god, the OT is utterly insane.
Consider the following statement: "Even if Buddha did or did not exist - it's his example that I'm trying to emulate". Now, presume that Buddha was 'more moral ' than Jesus, or that he proposed a better moral and ethical code (which I believe he did). Should you not be trying to emulate Buddha rather than Jesus?
| quote: | | Thanks...I actually love having my beliefs questioned It makes me re-examine them and hopefully makes them as well as myself more refined. |
Not a problem - and likewise, religion is my favourite topic, as I enjoy putting the stuff I believe under the microscope. Oh, and arguing with fundamentalist Christians ans Muslims isn't bad either. 
One last thing before I head off. Do you think that you could behave in an ethical fashion without Catholicism? Do you really like the history that much? Do you consider it essential to your life?
I guess what I'm trying to say is, imagine that you just stopped identifying as a catholic, and became a secular humanist. Would your life really change in any way? Do you really need Jesus?
___________________
Currently Whoring:- Space Tribe Vs Electric Universe - Rabbit Hole
- CPU - So It Begins
- Too Short & Mistah FAB - The Sideshow
Last edited by arctic on Apr-24-2004 at 03:37
|
