Catholic != Christian. I wouldn't go to a Catholic church if you paid me. Vastly different experience.
Apparently you aren't too hot on history, eh? Christianity as a whole is a load of crap, but claiming that Catholics aren't Christians is just stupid. Whatever denomination you are a part of, it is just one more branch of an idiotic and diseased family of foolishness.
People are distrustful of religion in general, and the Pope in particular.
How I wish this were true. To correct it, you should say that people are distrustful of religions they are not a member of. Most people are quite comfortable with their inherited beliefs.
Honestly, I would be a bit disappointed if it turned out that we already know about every possible physical force and/or physical process that could exist in the universe.
Well, then, it should comfort you to know that we don't. That fact in no way supports the idea of ghosts, however. The problem here is that you cannot formulate a scientifically sound experiment because the premise is not testable and is virtually undefined. It's the same thing with gods and other various spirits. If you can't define a definite mechanism for sensing them, then you can't perform a conclusive experiment. Anything else would be a wild fishing party and all it takes is an effect with no immediately apparent cause to qualify as "evidence." This is exactly what you see on those silly TV shows.
And where did Biblical writers get these ideas? Slavery, invasion of foreign lands, murder, etc have been going on for tens of thousands of years, since long before any organized religion. The Bible in no way originated any of these behaviors. The Bible and other religious books are a reflection of the cultures that wrote them, not the other way around.
Exactly. The authors were just creatures of their time. There is no evidence of any supernatural character or wisdom here. Now, granted, the bible does authorize those crimes, so it is a reprehensible piece of garbage to base one's life on, but you are correct in stating that they did not originate in the bible.
A few reasons; I wanted to introduce my children to a moral framework that did not require that they look to me for all information, I wanted to be around other people who had a common belief system to myself , and I wanted to meet single women after my divorce
I suggest that you help your children develop their own moral framework. You sound like you do not want to dictate your child's moral development. Don't allow someone else to do so in your stead. If you already share a common belief system, then you have already assented to a religious belief.
It depends on what you call a supernatural claim, and whether that requires that I 'turn by brain off'. The church is the SRF, which lists its mission as, 'teach people the direct experience of God through meditation'. I know that people can be lead to have this same sensation via certain drugs and high intensity magnetic waves, but being able to sit down for an hour and perform a series of breathing and metal exercises to gain a sense of calm purpose seems, well, easier than the other two options.
I've done some quick reading on the SRF, and it is quite apparent that they make a lot of unfounded assumptions and supernatural claims. I have nothing against the physical practice of meditation. And if that is the extent of your purpose in joining this group, you can do so without the mystical baggage.
yep, it also lead him to have a negative view of meditation for a few years
I've taught my kids that they are the ones responsible for their beliefs, not me. They know what I believe, and I teach them that I am not infallible, and neither is anyone else.
I would agree that it is pretty easy to live without such influences. I tend to follow the middle path and find myself weaving between periods of rationalism and sentimentality. However, the experience of spirituality seems to be pretty deeply wired into our brains, and this spirituality gives me the strength to get through difficulties, so I am willing to let myself experience it from time to time.
Might I suggest meditating on the larger universe around you instead of an attempt to commune with a deity, pantheistic or otherwise? I have found that Carl Sagan is especially conducive to deep contemplation. Try watching an episode of "Cosmos" and using something from there as a mantra.
There is nothing to refute. You didn't bring anything to the table aside from an ambiguous personal claim.
If I had been abducted by aliens, I would have a hard time believing they didn't exist. Since I have seen no space aliens you're going to have as hard a time getting me to believe in thenm as I would have trying to convince you that God exists, so there's no point in even trying.
Yes, it is very hard to disabuse people of irrational beliefs. It is remarkable how much this disorder matches your description of faith.
I still don't see why you would have to 'suspend skepticism' to attend a church.
About 15 years ago I went hunting for a church that I would be comfortable taking my kids to.
I would say that that is why you don't see it. You already appear to have done it. Why were you "hunting for a church" to begin with?
Found a nice one, plenty of decent people, a belief system that did not require that I turn my brain off and a real commitment to work towards making the world a better place for other people to get along in
Really? So you found a church which did not make any supernatural claims? I'm curious, which church? Even the Unitarians around here accept a lot of supernatural weirdness, though I know of non-believers who attend for various reasons.
my son invited a couple of his little friends, who's parents had let him attend their church as well. Funny thing, these two little kids ran home and told their parents (whom btw, regularly spoke in tongues and flopped around on the ground in their own church) that our church was 'weird', resulting in them not ever being allowed to play with my son again.
Yes, it is always sad to see social bonds broken over something as stupid as religion.
I suppose that there is an inclination to stick with the religion that you are born into, but honestly people, there are a lot of choices and it is pretty easy to find a religion that does not demand that you totally turn your brain off
It's also pretty easy to live without those religions.
Once one has experienced being abducted by aliens, one can no more disbelieve in their existence than one can disbelieve in the existence of elephants once one has seen an elephant.
Once one has experienced being reincarnated, one can no more disbelieve in reincarnation than one can disbelieve in the existence of elephants once one has seen an elephant.
Once one has experienced the burning of the bosom, one can no more disbelieve in the book of Mormon than one can disbelieve in the existence of elephants once one has seen an elephant.
Do you see a pattern developing yet? The fact that you had a private experience is indicative of exactly nothing, proves nothing and is of no use in convincing rational people of your experience. Many person locked in psych wards can claim that much. All you've done here is acknowledge that your testimony is useless.
That the most complex of all hasn't changed for billions of years but just has been that way as far back as we can determine is even harder to understand and accept than gradually increasing complexity over time.
Then you need to review evolutionary biology. Evolution has never stood still, and until life dies out, never will. Even at a molecular level, there is a constant state of evolutionary change(see the work of Lenski, for example). The reason you don't see much "apparent change" is that those processes are locked in and highly refined. The basic cellular design works well enough, and so is locked in somewhat by the fact that deviation is usually fatal. And it is at such a low level that is it virtually universal. So, there is no evolutionary pressure for a multi-cellular organism like an ape to develop radically different cell chemistry than that of a bacteria.
Once that level of cellular processes had evolved, the selection pressure would have been focused on cellular specialization and organismic speciation. And that is precisely what happened, and what gives you the erroneous impression that evolution stopped at a cellular level.
If you want a programming analogy, think of it like pipes in *nix systems. The underlying structure of pipes has been relatively stable for several decades because it works. Thus, there is no pressure to rewrite it, even though the applications built on top of it may be much more complicated and diverse now.
If you are a credible witness and testify that you've experienced the FSM, it would only be reasonable for me to consider the liklihood of its existance.
Not in a world where self-delusions, lying and hallucinations exist.
Once you've had a credible religious experience, it's impossible to NOT believe in God. Once you've seen an elephant, it's impossible to NOT believe in elephants, and arguing elephants' existance is a lost cause.
And those who are afflicted with various mental problems which generate realistic hallucinations are likewise convinced. That doesn't mean that their delusions are real, and it would be foolish to take their word without empirical evidence.
Historically, the Catholic church has been a proponent of science. Not that it's been perfect. Ironically it's getting worse because there followers are becoming infected with a more evangelical view of the world.
It's been a proponent ONLY when the science in question was not perceived to contradict church doctrine. It creates a weird hodgepodge of science and myth which is evident in the Catechism, documents such as papal encyclicals, the defense of relics like the Shroud of Turin and the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe and the various claims of miracles. Look at the typical canonization process to see science and statistics completely ignored in favor of the saintly narrative.
The Catholic church might not be as bad as the Evangelicals when it comes to public attacks on science, but make no mistake, it is not an ally, either.
Science and technology by their very nature require unconditional respect for fundamental moral criteria. They must be at the service of the human person, of his inalienable rights, of his true and integral good, in conformity with the plan and the will of God.
Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2294 (emphasis mine)
If you’re making fun of people just to be an ass, at least don’t screw up. You end up looking stupider than the people you’re trying to make look stupid, in addition to looking like an ass.
Did he screw up? Or is he deliberately trivializing the stories to highlight his disdain? It's a common, and often times hilarious, approach to demonstrating the absurdity of such subjects.
Yes, making cutesy jokes about how little effort you deliberately make to know as little about the Bible as possible makes you extraordinarily qualified to criticize it.
I personally know more about the Bible, the history of the Bible and the history of Christianity than most Christians I talk to. The fact that I know it so well is part of why I despise it. Anyone who thinks the stories in the bible are unique are amazingly ignorant of all the other writings of those times. I imagine that the grandparent knows plenty about the Bible, and is deliberately mocking adults who still believe in mythological fairy tales.
Got any data to actually back up such a stupid statement? Or do you think that some angry posts on the internet and the occasional public sign somehow match up with the centuries of religious violence? And what the fuck does atheism have with loving America or not?
Your definition of atheism includes those who lack an opinion on the existence of gods. This definition makes atheism meaningless and unhelpful, and to use it damages the discussion by creating ambiguity.
Not at all. It adds clarity. It is one of the possible states of being an atheist. Turn it around. There are many possible states of being a theist. You can be a polytheist, a deist, a monotheist, a quasi-monotheist or a pantheist, just to name a few. This belief may be the basis for a lifestyle, or it may be held in isolation.
Likewise, there is a spectrum of atheistic beliefs, which include the state of having no concept of a god.
That ambiguity alone is problematic, but it can also prevent progress by creating a safe haven for those who engage and refuse to present and defend an opinion.
Not at all. If you wish to engage someone, then ask them what else they believe. For example, engaging me as an atheist is useless. You have one point of contention which doesn't tell you much about my worldview. Engaging me as a secular humanist and an anti-theist is far more productive, since it allows you to engage my worldview.
Thus, the only reasonable conclusion which can be drawn about atheism defined as a lack of theistic belief is sophistry. And, further, those engaged in the discussion are ethically obligated to forbid its use. Atheism, to be allowed in the discussion, must contain something of substance (i.e., an opinion about the existence of gods).
No, it is a point of clarity. If you wish to argue against a view which incorporates atheism, such as secular humanism, that is one thing. If you wish to argue against atheism itself, you actually have to argue FOR theism. Just as if I want to argue for atheism, I have to argue against theism. It goes both ways.
LOL, judging by the fact that most of my posts are modded up, while none of yours are, I'm not too worried there, cowboy! Nice Rambo reference, though. I'll give you that.
This is likely how the concept of a deity initially developed. However, in the specific example I gave, that innate tendency is largely blunted by taking the time to explain physical effects and exploring the real causes of such. My kids didn't exhibit that tendency, since they were taught from an early age to inquire into the real reasons behind events. This has even been noticed by their teachers, who have made a point of mentioning it on several occasions, and who are not privy to my methods or reasons.
The concept of a deity was unnecessary, and thus did not develop as it might in other situations.
However, that is not the case in general. Most people are indoctrinated into a particular theistic belief during childhood by their parents. Thus, they are neither untainted by parental indoctrination nor developing theistic beliefs independently.
Different axes? Or simply different points along the line with one endpoint at atheism, and the other at theism?
Agnostics don't sound like they're on a different axis at all, it sounds like shades of gray on the continuum between theism and atheism, to me.
No, it's answering a different question altogether.
Atheism<-->theism: Is there a god?
Agnostic<-->Gnostic(Note: not the classical "gnostic" religious movement, just the opposite of agnostic): Are claims about the existence of a deity unknowable?
How very one-dimensional of you. We already know that you're an internet tough guy. Can I call you Johnny Rambo?
Call me whatever you like if it makes you feel better. Makes no difference to me what a random AC on slashdot thinks of me. I will invite you to continue to fuck yourself.
Why not be honest? If they showed up in person, you'd piss yourself and be cowed into silence.
Then once they'd left, you'd log right on to Slashdot to dash off an outraged comment bemoaning how awful religion is from the safety of your anonymous basement, and how tough you'd be if they ever showed their faces around you again.
TL;DR: Shut the fuck up, your bloviating is obnoxious and boring, and none of us believe the tough guy schtick.
Is that what you'd do, you pathetic little troll? If someone were threatening my safety, I guarantee that the contents of the closet not 10 feet behind me would be more than sufficient to discourage them. I am quite willing to defend myself and my family, and to tell stupid people to go fuck themselves.
Slashdot Mirror
Catholic != Christian. I wouldn't go to a Catholic church if you paid me. Vastly different experience.
Apparently you aren't too hot on history, eh? Christianity as a whole is a load of crap, but claiming that Catholics aren't Christians is just stupid. Whatever denomination you are a part of, it is just one more branch of an idiotic and diseased family of foolishness.
People are distrustful of religion in general, and the Pope in particular.
How I wish this were true. To correct it, you should say that people are distrustful of religions they are not a member of. Most people are quite comfortable with their inherited beliefs.
Honestly, I would be a bit disappointed if it turned out that we already know about every possible physical force and/or physical process that could exist in the universe.
Well, then, it should comfort you to know that we don't. That fact in no way supports the idea of ghosts, however. The problem here is that you cannot formulate a scientifically sound experiment because the premise is not testable and is virtually undefined. It's the same thing with gods and other various spirits. If you can't define a definite mechanism for sensing them, then you can't perform a conclusive experiment. Anything else would be a wild fishing party and all it takes is an effect with no immediately apparent cause to qualify as "evidence." This is exactly what you see on those silly TV shows.
And where did Biblical writers get these ideas? Slavery, invasion of foreign lands, murder, etc have been going on for tens of thousands of years, since long before any organized religion. The Bible in no way originated any of these behaviors. The Bible and other religious books are a reflection of the cultures that wrote them, not the other way around.
Exactly. The authors were just creatures of their time. There is no evidence of any supernatural character or wisdom here. Now, granted, the bible does authorize those crimes, so it is a reprehensible piece of garbage to base one's life on, but you are correct in stating that they did not originate in the bible.
A few reasons; I wanted to introduce my children to a moral framework that did not require that they look to me for all information, I wanted to be around other people who had a common belief system to myself , and I wanted to meet single women after my divorce
I suggest that you help your children develop their own moral framework. You sound like you do not want to dictate your child's moral development. Don't allow someone else to do so in your stead. If you already share a common belief system, then you have already assented to a religious belief.
It depends on what you call a supernatural claim, and whether that requires that I 'turn by brain off'. The church is the SRF, which lists its mission as, 'teach people the direct experience of God through meditation'. I know that people can be lead to have this same sensation via certain drugs and high intensity magnetic waves, but being able to sit down for an hour and perform a series of breathing and metal exercises to gain a sense of calm purpose seems, well, easier than the other two options.
I've done some quick reading on the SRF, and it is quite apparent that they make a lot of unfounded assumptions and supernatural claims. I have nothing against the physical practice of meditation. And if that is the extent of your purpose in joining this group, you can do so without the mystical baggage.
yep, it also lead him to have a negative view of meditation for a few years
I've taught my kids that they are the ones responsible for their beliefs, not me. They know what I believe, and I teach them that I am not infallible, and neither is anyone else.
I would agree that it is pretty easy to live without such influences. I tend to follow the middle path and find myself weaving between periods of rationalism and sentimentality. However, the experience of spirituality seems to be pretty deeply wired into our brains, and this spirituality gives me the strength to get through difficulties, so I am willing to let myself experience it from time to time.
Might I suggest meditating on the larger universe around you instead of an attempt to commune with a deity, pantheistic or otherwise? I have found that Carl Sagan is especially conducive to deep contemplation. Try watching an episode of "Cosmos" and using something from there as a mantra.
Which does nothing to refute what I said.
There is nothing to refute. You didn't bring anything to the table aside from an ambiguous personal claim.
If I had been abducted by aliens, I would have a hard time believing they didn't exist. Since I have seen no space aliens you're going to have as hard a time getting me to believe in thenm as I would have trying to convince you that God exists, so there's no point in even trying.
Yes, it is very hard to disabuse people of irrational beliefs. It is remarkable how much this disorder matches your description of faith.
I still don't see why you would have to 'suspend skepticism' to attend a church.
About 15 years ago I went hunting for a church that I would be comfortable taking my kids to.
I would say that that is why you don't see it. You already appear to have done it. Why were you "hunting for a church" to begin with?
Found a nice one, plenty of decent people, a belief system that did not require that I turn my brain off and a real commitment to work towards making the world a better place for other people to get along in
Really? So you found a church which did not make any supernatural claims? I'm curious, which church? Even the Unitarians around here accept a lot of supernatural weirdness, though I know of non-believers who attend for various reasons.
my son invited a couple of his little friends, who's parents had let him attend their church as well. Funny thing, these two little kids ran home and told their parents (whom btw, regularly spoke in tongues and flopped around on the ground in their own church) that our church was 'weird', resulting in them not ever being allowed to play with my son again.
Yes, it is always sad to see social bonds broken over something as stupid as religion.
I suppose that there is an inclination to stick with the religion that you are born into, but honestly people, there are a lot of choices and it is pretty easy to find a religion that does not demand that you totally turn your brain off
It's also pretty easy to live without those religions.
Once one has experienced being abducted by aliens, one can no more disbelieve in their existence than one can disbelieve in the existence of elephants once one has seen an elephant.
Once one has experienced being reincarnated, one can no more disbelieve in reincarnation than one can disbelieve in the existence of elephants once one has seen an elephant.
Once one has experienced the burning of the bosom, one can no more disbelieve in the book of Mormon than one can disbelieve in the existence of elephants once one has seen an elephant.
Do you see a pattern developing yet? The fact that you had a private experience is indicative of exactly nothing, proves nothing and is of no use in convincing rational people of your experience. Many person locked in psych wards can claim that much. All you've done here is acknowledge that your testimony is useless.
That the most complex of all hasn't changed for billions of years but just has been that way as far back as we can determine is even harder to understand and accept than gradually increasing complexity over time.
Then you need to review evolutionary biology. Evolution has never stood still, and until life dies out, never will. Even at a molecular level, there is a constant state of evolutionary change(see the work of Lenski, for example). The reason you don't see much "apparent change" is that those processes are locked in and highly refined. The basic cellular design works well enough, and so is locked in somewhat by the fact that deviation is usually fatal. And it is at such a low level that is it virtually universal. So, there is no evolutionary pressure for a multi-cellular organism like an ape to develop radically different cell chemistry than that of a bacteria.
Once that level of cellular processes had evolved, the selection pressure would have been focused on cellular specialization and organismic speciation. And that is precisely what happened, and what gives you the erroneous impression that evolution stopped at a cellular level.
If you want a programming analogy, think of it like pipes in *nix systems. The underlying structure of pipes has been relatively stable for several decades because it works. Thus, there is no pressure to rewrite it, even though the applications built on top of it may be much more complicated and diverse now.
I think the proper answer is: Not Dying.
If you are a credible witness and testify that you've experienced the FSM, it would only be reasonable for me to consider the liklihood of its existance.
Not in a world where self-delusions, lying and hallucinations exist.
Once you've had a credible religious experience, it's impossible to NOT believe in God. Once you've seen an elephant, it's impossible to NOT believe in elephants, and arguing elephants' existance is a lost cause.
And those who are afflicted with various mental problems which generate realistic hallucinations are likewise convinced. That doesn't mean that their delusions are real, and it would be foolish to take their word without empirical evidence.
The rest of his post seemed pretty straight-forward and not particularly disdainful.
Look here. This works as well for Christian canon as it does for Star Trek canon, and for exactly the same reasons.
Historically, the Catholic church has been a proponent of science. Not that it's been perfect. Ironically it's getting worse because there followers are becoming infected with a more evangelical view of the world.
It's been a proponent ONLY when the science in question was not perceived to contradict church doctrine. It creates a weird hodgepodge of science and myth which is evident in the Catechism, documents such as papal encyclicals, the defense of relics like the Shroud of Turin and the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe and the various claims of miracles. Look at the typical canonization process to see science and statistics completely ignored in favor of the saintly narrative.
The Catholic church might not be as bad as the Evangelicals when it comes to public attacks on science, but make no mistake, it is not an ally, either.
Science and technology by their very nature require unconditional respect for fundamental moral criteria. They must be at the service of the human person, of his inalienable rights, of his true and integral good, in conformity with the plan and the will of God.
Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2294 (emphasis mine)
If you’re making fun of people just to be an ass, at least don’t screw up. You end up looking stupider than the people you’re trying to make look stupid, in addition to looking like an ass.
Did he screw up? Or is he deliberately trivializing the stories to highlight his disdain? It's a common, and often times hilarious, approach to demonstrating the absurdity of such subjects.
Yes, making cutesy jokes about how little effort you deliberately make to know as little about the Bible as possible makes you extraordinarily qualified to criticize it.
I personally know more about the Bible, the history of the Bible and the history of Christianity than most Christians I talk to. The fact that I know it so well is part of why I despise it. Anyone who thinks the stories in the bible are unique are amazingly ignorant of all the other writings of those times. I imagine that the grandparent knows plenty about the Bible, and is deliberately mocking adults who still believe in mythological fairy tales.
Absense of proof is not proof of absense.
And yet religious people keep building stupendous edifices of fanciful, silly and downright terrible beliefs on that exact absence.
Got any data to actually back up such a stupid statement? Or do you think that some angry posts on the internet and the occasional public sign somehow match up with the centuries of religious violence? And what the fuck does atheism have with loving America or not?
Your definition of atheism includes those who lack an opinion on the existence of gods. This definition makes atheism meaningless and unhelpful, and to use it damages the discussion by creating ambiguity.
Not at all. It adds clarity. It is one of the possible states of being an atheist. Turn it around. There are many possible states of being a theist. You can be a polytheist, a deist, a monotheist, a quasi-monotheist or a pantheist, just to name a few. This belief may be the basis for a lifestyle, or it may be held in isolation. Likewise, there is a spectrum of atheistic beliefs, which include the state of having no concept of a god.
That ambiguity alone is problematic, but it can also prevent progress by creating a safe haven for those who engage and refuse to present and defend an opinion.
Not at all. If you wish to engage someone, then ask them what else they believe. For example, engaging me as an atheist is useless. You have one point of contention which doesn't tell you much about my worldview. Engaging me as a secular humanist and an anti-theist is far more productive, since it allows you to engage my worldview.
Thus, the only reasonable conclusion which can be drawn about atheism defined as a lack of theistic belief is sophistry. And, further, those engaged in the discussion are ethically obligated to forbid its use. Atheism, to be allowed in the discussion, must contain something of substance (i.e., an opinion about the existence of gods).
No, it is a point of clarity. If you wish to argue against a view which incorporates atheism, such as secular humanism, that is one thing. If you wish to argue against atheism itself, you actually have to argue FOR theism. Just as if I want to argue for atheism, I have to argue against theism. It goes both ways.
LOL, judging by the fact that most of my posts are modded up, while none of yours are, I'm not too worried there, cowboy! Nice Rambo reference, though. I'll give you that.
This is likely how the concept of a deity initially developed. However, in the specific example I gave, that innate tendency is largely blunted by taking the time to explain physical effects and exploring the real causes of such. My kids didn't exhibit that tendency, since they were taught from an early age to inquire into the real reasons behind events. This has even been noticed by their teachers, who have made a point of mentioning it on several occasions, and who are not privy to my methods or reasons. The concept of a deity was unnecessary, and thus did not develop as it might in other situations.
However, that is not the case in general. Most people are indoctrinated into a particular theistic belief during childhood by their parents. Thus, they are neither untainted by parental indoctrination nor developing theistic beliefs independently.
Different axes? Or simply different points along the line with one endpoint at atheism, and the other at theism?
Agnostics don't sound like they're on a different axis at all, it sounds like shades of gray on the continuum between theism and atheism, to me.
No, it's answering a different question altogether.
Atheism<-->theism: Is there a god?
Agnostic<-->Gnostic(Note: not the classical "gnostic" religious movement, just the opposite of agnostic): Are claims about the existence of a deity unknowable?
Maybe this will help.
How very one-dimensional of you. We already know that you're an internet tough guy. Can I call you Johnny Rambo?
Call me whatever you like if it makes you feel better. Makes no difference to me what a random AC on slashdot thinks of me. I will invite you to continue to fuck yourself.
Thanks for illustrating my point.
Back at ya'.
Why not be honest? If they showed up in person, you'd piss yourself and be cowed into silence.
Then once they'd left, you'd log right on to Slashdot to dash off an outraged comment bemoaning how awful religion is from the safety of your anonymous basement, and how tough you'd be if they ever showed their faces around you again.
TL;DR: Shut the fuck up, your bloviating is obnoxious and boring, and none of us believe the tough guy schtick.
Is that what you'd do, you pathetic little troll? If someone were threatening my safety, I guarantee that the contents of the closet not 10 feet behind me would be more than sufficient to discourage them. I am quite willing to defend myself and my family, and to tell stupid people to go fuck themselves.
Speaking of which: go fuck yourself.
Didn't mean it that way, it just seemed like a nice springboard quote to give me a chance to say my fill.
Ah, cool! :)