|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,813 Year: 3,070/9,624 Month: 915/1,588 Week: 98/223 Day: 9/17 Hour: 5/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Hello everyone | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined:
|
scienceishonesty writes: 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? What makes you think anyone is trying to persuade you? Obviously, you are being honest with yourself and your experiences and they are leading you towards atheism and away from Christianity. Do you think it's impossible for someone else to be honest about their own experiences and possibly be led towards Christianity and away from atheism? If so, can you explain how this can actually be impossible? Can you provide evidence that it is impossible? If someone else honestly believes in God... it is not a requirement for them to be able to persuade you of the same thing. You can argue that it is only rational if they can lay out a reasonable case... but again, this has nothing to do with scienceishonesty's acceptance of that case. You may very well be the arbiter of you and your own honesty and your own experiences.But that doesn't give you any special rights to judge someone else or someone else's honesty or someone else's experiences. Different people think differently.You are only one person. Not all people are going to think the same way that you do. Just because you think there is no reason for something... doesn't mean there actually is no reason for it.In order to show there is no reason for something... you have to provide the evidence. You can't just say "it doesn't work for me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Pope John Paul II appologized for the sins of the Church in his TERTIO MILLENNIO ADVENIENTE. As SIH already said, no he did not. 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. In fact what he describes as the sins themselves are a pretty vague lot. You'd never guess from what he said that the RCC is guilty of some 67 million tortured and murdered over six centuries, 50 million of them Bible-believing dissenters from Roman Catholicism, the rest being Jews, Muslims, witches and others. The average Catholic knows very little about the evils committed by their leaders. Here, let me quote from that official document itself, Tertio Millennio Adveniente. Scroll down a little past halfway to appreciate the language in which he "apologizes:" "...the Church should become more fully conscious of the sinfulness of her children," her "children," not the Pope, but her poor innocent confused children; and "she always acknowledges as her own her sinful sons and daughters." Again, her sinful sons and daughters who are innocent of the enormities committed by the Vatican itself. You can read on to discover more blaming of the "children" and the "sons and daughters" for sins that don't even come close to the actual enormities committed throughout history. It is true that ordinary Catholics committed violence against the Jews in pogroms, even as recently as WWII, but where did they get the inclination to do that? From the Vatican. Also in uprisings in Ireland against the Protestants. Yes, of course you will have heard official Vatican denials and propaganda instead. But it was not the ordinary Catholics who murdered the Bible believers under the Inquisition down the centuries, that was the Pope's army under his orders or the orders of the Jesuits. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : To add details. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
As SIH already said, no he did not. Well I read it and can quote it:
quote: 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:
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: quote: quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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.
Oh, and sins against "unity" is just a concern of the Vatican who wants all true believers in Christ to give up our true belief and come back under the authority of the Antichrist Pope. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
No, the Vatican and the Jesuits are NOT included in "the Church" or he would have said so, AND named them specifically rather than implicating the millions of innocent members of the Church who had nothing to do with any of it. To apologize for the "children" and not name the true perpetrators, about which the average Catholic knows absolutely zip, is pure lying evil.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1503 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined:
|
Save your breath. She hates Catholics.
"You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
scienceishonesty Member (Idle past 3698 days) Posts: 80 Joined: |
quote: I realize that, haha, but at this time I cannot. Perhaps at a future date.
quote: 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 there may be a degree of flexibility manifested, but what about when realities start casting a shadow on the core platforms of a religion? It would be foolish to believe that the catholic church or any religious entity pretending to be "open to all scientific truth" will one day, if shown to be unlikely through reasonable doubt, apologize to the millions of people that were duped. Church is a big business.
quote: Of course you have "I want" lenses on. Faith, which you claim to have, is wanting to believe in something without evidence.
quote: So the existence of God and Christ aren't off the table for the catholic church? How about Mary? 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.
quote: Alright. You've convinced me. 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. Does this sound reasonable to you? Faith without evidence is never reasonable no matter what you may tell yourself.
quote: 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.
quote: 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"?
quote: I just decided to take the default position of rationality. If there's no evidence, I'm not going to go out of my way to waste my time. Edited by scienceishonesty, : No reason given. Edited by scienceishonesty, : grammar
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
scienceishonesty Member (Idle past 3698 days) Posts: 80 Joined: |
Correct. The Pope will never apologize for the heinous crimes of the people really running the show, but only people "within the Church", as though they were some minority.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Sorry, you're deceived. You don't understand how the Vatican works, you just believe whatever puts the prettiest face on it.
An apology that specifically apologized for, say, the Bartholomew's Day Massacre, would carry some weight; or the burning at the stake of Tyndale, Latimer, Ridley and scores of other Bible believers, or Guy Fawkes Day / The Gunpowder Plot in England, that would carry some weight, or the multiple assassination attempts against the first Queen Elizabeth, or her successor James I, that would carry some weight, or the assassination of Abraham Lincoln (which was generally known to have been the work of the Jesuits until it got scrubbed out of our history books), or the Jedwabne massacre of the Jews by the local Catholics during WWII at the permission of the Nazi (Catholic) invaders, all that would have given credibility to the apology, and that's just the tip of the iceberg as they say, but that vague language used by the Pope is a lying fraud. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
scienceishonesty Member (Idle past 3698 days) Posts: 80 Joined: |
quote: If someone accepts something to be true I would hope that they would have a good reason for themselves, that's why I ask in case I might be offered a convincing reason for why someone might want to believe something. Facts should be something that everyone be persuaded into accepting.
quote: But you can't honestly believe in something for which there is no evidence. No one can honestly believe in the flying spaghetti monster and neither can anyone honestly believe in any other being or creature for which there is no evidence whatsoever. So in that case, I disagree.
quote: Of course, we are all free to believe what we like. I can believe that fairies crawl into my bed at night but that doesn't mean they do.
quote: But there is no reason to believe in something for which there is no evidence. Are you really going to postulate that one must "provide evidence that not believing based on evidence is reasonable?"...That really makes no sense to me. It's like saying: I don't believe in science and the reason is because no one has produced evidence that not believing in science is not okay? Edited by scienceishonesty, : redundancy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1503 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
sciencesishonest writes: lol. The Catholic church believes it has the answers for salvation, whether you admit to it or not. Sorry but what religion doesn't? Should all the folks that hold religious beliefs suddenly abandon them as folly? Maybe the world would be better off without religion. If the course of human evolution includes such a thing perhaps it is a matter of course that religion is part of the human story. And if so then it stands that religion can in some ways provide solice to many in the face of a otherwise nihlistic reality. Given all the evils commited in the name of religion, I can not imagine a world that without it. I for one am glad my local church is still in operation and concerned about my immortal sinning soul. Even if such a thing exist or not. "You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
scienceishonesty Member (Idle past 3698 days) Posts: 80 Joined: |
Well thanks for affirming the obvious! Some people want to believe, however, that their religion and the absolutism contained in it (to whatever degree) can never become outdated through scientific enlightenment.
I suppose now that we understand lightning it still doesn't prove that Zeus isn't controlling it, but any reasonable person now realizes that it doesn't require Zeus. There's always that option though, I suppose.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024