crisis of faith (long)

[revots33]

(Apologies in advance for the length of this post... I realize I am basically thinking out loud and rambling.)

I recently posted a thread on "cafeteria catholics", where I tried to address some of my issues with the teachings of the Catholic Church. I appreciated all of the replies.

One of the replies said something like, "this type of doubting is often how atheism starts". That really hit home to me, because as I considered "shopping around" for a new religion I realized that it's not only Catholic dogma I'm doubtful about, but my entire faith. All of it. This is very hard for a lifelong Catholic to admit. It's kinda scary to suddenly be so doubtful about something you took for granted as the truth for so many years.

As I thought about things, I realized the crux of my problem is that the claims of my religion are too much for my rational mind to accept without questioning. I actually wish I could "turn off" these rational doubts in my head. It's much more comforting just to believe.

But the nagging doubts are there, suddenly... and they won't go away. What if everything I've believed in is false? Made up? I never even considered it before but now it seems possible to me. I've prayed to God to help me quiet these doubts but it doesn't seem to help.

Here are some of the questions that keep popping into my mind:

How can a loving, all-powerful God let innocent children get washed away in tsunamis, killed in earthquakes, blown up by terrorists (who do it in the name of their own god), killed by cancer, etc.? The answer I always hear, "It's God's plan and we can't know his ways" - seems like a royal copout. It's like he gets credit when something good happens, but gets a pass when horrific tragedy strikes.

How can it be that people who don't believe cannot get into heaven? What about some poor people in a 3rd-world country who've never even heard of Jesus? Or someone born into an Islamic family? Am I supposed to think they are going to hell because of the circumstances/geography of their birth? Even if they lived good lives? It just doesn't seem right.

Is there even a "heaven"? I mean, the concept of a soul is one I also never questioned until recently. But is a soul really nothing more than the brain chemistry that makes us who we are? Is heaven just wishful thinking?

When I receive communion, I am supposed to believe that I am actually eating the real flesh and blood of Jesus. Lately my rational mind is rebelling at this thought.

Jesus was born to a virgin. Again, I always believed this without question, but lately I'm having a hard time with it.

Why, if God is all-loving and all-powerful, does he refuse to show himself clearly to us? What is the point of making it so difficult to believe in him? He could allay all doubt, (and all the spiritual suffering that doubt causes), and likely end all the death and destruction that religious wars have wrought – simply by showing himself clearly to humankind.

All other religions believe just as fervently in their own god. How am I to know that I was born into the "right" religion? I didn't choose it, and would likely have believed in whatever religion my parents brought me up under.

I apologize for the length of this post. I’m not sure what responses I’m looking for, other than to perhaps hear from other people who’ve doubted, and how they’ve reconciled their rational doubts with their faith?

[Bill Haywood]

You cannot rationalize faith. Once you try, you've lost it.

There's a book I like called _The Sacred Depths of Nature_, which is basically an atheist confronting her desire to maintain spiritual meaning. The author finds religious meaning in the beauty of nature and elegance of science. She remains an active church goer, finding meaning in the spiritual community, even though she does not share many of the specific, literal beliefs.

Communion with other human beings can be a good replacement for communion with God.

Personally, I do not feel that my materialist philosophy makes the world less wondeful. To a believer, we were created to be part of God's family and love him -- a very tidy story that makes sense. But if you see yourself not as purposefully conjured by a creator, but the result of the most incredible series of coincidences -- then your existence is even more astounding.

Be true to yourself, respect your own thinking, as you pursue your journey.

[surftheiop]

As a christian i can tell you if your looking for help with your faith this probaly the wrong forum to look in as it is dominated by atheists. For me personally things like virgin birth are no problem because if i believe God made the universe then something like the virgin birth would be incredibly minor. The whole thing about why bad things happen always bothered me. I dont really understand it but i do know that alot of it is caused by the evil and sin of people (terrorist attacks, crusades,etc.) Also the bible is full of bad things happening to people but for some reason alot of Christians get the idea that bad things shouldnt happen. I dont think im any less likely to be killed in a freak accident than anyone else but i do know i really wouldnt mind if i died tommorow and then was in heaven 60 years before i might have been because in the scheme of enternity my life isnt even a blink. I focus on what god had done in my own life and the lifes of people close to me as evidence to his existence and trustworthiness.

You really should find some people at your church whose intelligence you respect and talk to them about it. For example ive talked to a physicist, a math professor and a few doctors in our church about a few things and its really good to know not all rational/highly schooled people are atheists as sometimes this forum sometimes makes it seem

[surftheiop]

Also, I know you consider yourself a catholic/ have been catholic for awhile. But have you ever actually read the whole bible or atleast the whole new testament? If you havent you have been just holding faith in the Catholic church and not in christianity. If you read the whole Bible you will see alot of Catholic doctrine (or any doctrine for that matter) isnt even biblical. If you make decicisions about your faith without reading the bible your missing a really huge aspect of christianity

[Nielsio]

Every single one of your doubts are appropriate.

I'll answer you main question:
[ QUOTE ]
What if everything I've believed in is false? Made up?

[/ QUOTE ]

..then you have been lied to and manipulated your entire life. AND this from the people you thought loved you. This realization is extremely hard to make. But you'll have to face it anyway.

I think this story will be very, very compelling to you. The story about the invisible apple:
http://www.freedomainradio.com/Traffic_Jams/how_to_control_a_human_soul.mp3

[Matt R.]

[ QUOTE ]
How can a loving, all-powerful God let innocent children get washed away in tsunamis, killed in earthquakes, blown up by terrorists (who do it in the name of their own god), killed by cancer, etc.? The answer I always hear, "It's God's plan and we can't know his ways" - seems like a royal copout. It's like he gets credit when something good happens, but gets a pass when horrific tragedy strikes.


[/ QUOTE ]

Consider that if there is an afterlife, presumably it is infinite. Any pain or suffering that one would experience while "alive" here on Earth is finite. Therefore, any suffering that innocents experience on Earth is meaningless when compared to eternity.

I am a Christian (although I don't agree with all the church's ideas), and essentially I think that God does not choose to intervene in the vast majority of cases. He let's nature and randomness play itself out; i.e. he doesn't swoop down and save every innocent child when bad things happen. This combined with my above idea of an infinite afterlife allows me to have faith in a benevolent God (emphasis on the word faith -- I'm not saying this is proof).

[Carl_William]

Just some thoughts:

Maybe two years ago while surfing on the cable TV channels I came across a preaching black Protestant minister (unfamiliar to me) whose theme was; “God is just but not fair.” He used repeated examples to get his point across, and as I listened and watched – I built up an admiration for this man and his view(s) on life. This preacher was warning people not to be guilty of excessive self-pity. As I thought about his essential theme “God is just but not fair--” I realized there are lots of times where this theme seems to pop up here on earth. Good and bad, and often random things happen to good, bad, and indifferent people across the globe. Terrible accidents and crimes, violent acts-of-nature, good and bad things such as completing school and college degrees, flunking out happen to people every day. On balance, it appears to me that the good outweighs the bad, but the bad makes the news on a much more frequent basis. The good is usually taken for granted and/or sometimes used as a basis for false pride. In my opinion, I feel this points to a God who created the universe with all of its objects and creatures on a hands-off basis. That is….

God set everything in motion and let it go “hands-off” once it got started. And God gave man a free will and some brains. Of course within these parameters, there are physical and mental constraints, but we can try to do anything we desire. Of course sometimes the things we do are successes and other times not successful – like making a successful landing after going over the Niagara Falls in a barrel – it doesn’t always have a good ending…. Also consider the nursery rhyme about the three “maybe little” pigs;” they had free will and the wise pig built a stronger fire-proof house (bricks rather than straw) than the dumber pig. But considers parts of the world subject to 7.0 Richter quakes – the wise pig living there has the free will to build a straw house rather than a mud brick house which will crush the pig in a big quake. So the bad things are….

The somewhat random (but somewhat predictable) acts of nature, and also evil acts of some men (excessive evil power and excessive greed). Hopefully the good people on earth can control the bad…. Christians, Catholics, Jews and most of the major religions believe that God intervenes to some degree to make earth a better place for man and make man better.

I was once told by a Jew and also by a priest that most Christians believe in a somewhat more personal God than the God of the Jews. I wonder? I get the feeling that the average Christian and Jew do not consider this conception.

[Cerril]

Good stuff, and while you're going to get more words than support in this forum, maybe the words will help you as well. We've got a lot of atheistic (nonreligious) people here, as well as the full spectrum from practicing believers to hard core anti-religionists. The nice part is that the majority of us are also pretty well spoken and thoughtful, and respectful of each other (to a point).

Anyway... it all starts with faith. As was mentioned, once you've got God, then it gets a little easier. You can't really start with the 'small stuff' like miracles and the truth of the bible without God.

By way of background (skip this if you're easily bored), I was raised among a variety of religions (mostly Christian denominations) so I have a healthy respect for the good that well-applied religion can do as well as the evil that a bad religion (one that doesn't fit with the individual, or one that's poorly interpreted or just has bad tenets) can cause in an individual life. I've spent a lot of time talkin with my cousin (theology major/Catholic) and various other friends, members of my family, professors (I was a philosophy major - if that doesn't sour you on the rest of what I have to say), and pretty much anyone interested. Lately my girlfriend (Catholic) and cousin are half-jokingly trying to get me to attend some RCIA (for those, like me last week, who aren't aware, that's the program for adults to join the church, but apparently also just for those who want to learn more and seek truth, albeit Catholic/Christian biased truth) classes. If I can find a mindset that allows me to attend without ruining the experience for the others there, I will probably do it.

Fact is, in long, LONG discussions about religion and catholicism, it all comes down to a few simple things:

- Taking things piecemeal from the bible is a bit nonsensical. Either it's the word of God or it isn't. If you're a Catholic, you're relying on what's there to be the divinely inspired writings of men, judged true by infallible judgements of men. That's a big leap of faith, but the rest of the christian community doesn't have it much easier. They're placing that same burden of infallible-truth-of-message on either other, different, men, or on themselves.

- It all starts with a personal God. Even if your interpretation of historical records tells you that there was Something Different <tm> about Jesus and the circumstances leading to the foundation and growth of Christianity and/or Catholicism, you still have to find the God in the man. If you're working with another religion (here I'm using religion in an overly tight way, to describe a deity-based, well-defined setting), it's very likely even more imperative that you get to God on your own.

- You can't force faith. This is really the last point regarding God in particular. It's why I still consider myself an atheist. I'd like to believe one thing or another, often enough, but more importantly I want to believe what's -true-. If in what I see and what I feel I don't see God, then I can't just place him in my framework of beliefs for the sake of doing it. No matter how important a change it would be, if true.

- You are, at some point, accountable to yourself. Even if you're ultimately responsible to God, you have to get by your own standards as well. If intellectual honesty is important to you, then you will never allow there to be a final word. Keep your eyes open, and process new facts, new sensations, new beliefs. I would say 'keep an open mind,' but more importantly is to keep your mind as open as it needs to be.

PostScript. And in a grand tradition of very long winded people, I will add a final 'final' thought. When asked by exasperated people what example I would give of an absolute proof, something that my reason could not deny as 'true' existence of God and a particular reason, I have (after, if you would believe it, quite a bit of deep thought) come upon the answer. Simply, if I need to have Faith, then God will give it to me. If I need to believe, then I will believe. It seems simple and flippant, but I seems that for an omnipotent personal deity, flipping the 'belief' switch in my head to 'on' would be so much more an elegant solution than any 'proof' of divinity that anyone cares to give.

[savageorc]

I'm usually a lurker, but I feel compelled to reply to this post.

I was in the same boat. I was raised catholic, went to church, even considered becoming a priest. I came to the conclusion that catholism wasn't right for me. I "shopped around" and looked into eastern thought. But nothing was really personally satisfying for me. Right now, I waffle between aethist and agnostic. The breaking point for me was realizing that it is impossible for anyone to know the mind of god, therefore faith is truly a personal venture and organized religions, while they may have good insights into various topics, are not the end all an be all of faith.

Faith is a personal journey. Utimately, you have to find answers to the questions you ask that are satisfying to you. I think that attempting to answer these questions by yourself by exploring the answers to these questions put forth by various religions and philosphers will result in a personally satisfying faith, not necessarily based on any organized practices, or aetheism/agnosticism.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
What if everything I've believed in is false? Made up?

[/ QUOTE ] It is certainly not the case the EVERYTHING you've believed in is false. Make no mistake about it the tennets of the xtian faith are benefical to you. Some false and some true. If you took your bible and cut out everything that had to do with Jesus and Miracles you would have yourself a very good ethical code. In your "cafe" post I think you pointed out some of the places where the code was lacking. Since you have allready decided certain places where you can determine correct action from incorrect action in the context of there being a God, I think you have a head start on those that never were able to understand that these concepts have meaning outside of a religious worldview.

A method that I might take is to list the percieved benefits that religion brings to your life. And make an attemp to replace those benefits in the secular arena.
A list might look something like this.

Prayer-
Benefits-
Focus on tasks that need to accopmlismed, relievement of worry,(ie it's in Gods hands), evaluation of those that you value, and things that you value.
Replacement-
Meditation, Understanding of what is under your responsibilty, yet not under your control, and focusing instead on thing that are under both your responsibility and control. Carefull decision playing inrelation to your values.

Sense of Belongingness-
There are many secular groups that you can join.

Forgiveness- We all make mistakes and repenting to a priest and God seems to alievate some of the remourse, and expediate the path to recovery.

Afterlife- Both regarding our own and others.

It's a long list, and some solutions you might find difficult or impossible to find. If it was possible for you to regain your faith, I would recommend that route. As I think the benefits of being atheist are minimal, baring several exceptions. (Advanced sceintific research in Cosmo, Genetics.. almost require a atheist world view, a religious life that comsumes your identity)

[benjdm]

[ QUOTE ]
I’m not sure what responses I’m looking for, other than to perhaps hear from other people who’ve doubted, and how they’ve reconciled their rational doubts with their faith?

[/ QUOTE ]

Faith is nothing more than believing something to be true because you wish to do so. Why not reconcile your beliefs to be rational instead ?

[benjdm]

[ QUOTE ]
I think this story will be very, very compelling to you. The story about the invisible apple:
http://www.freedomainradio.com/Traffic_Jams/how_to_control_a_human_soul.mp3

[/ QUOTE ]

Holy cow, that thing is two hours long ! I'll have to check it out in pieces.

[magiluke]

[ QUOTE ]
Every single one of your doubts are appropriate.

I'll answer you main question:
[ QUOTE ]
What if everything I've believed in is false? Made up?

[/ QUOTE ]

..then you have been lied to and manipulated your entire life. AND this from the people you thought loved you. This realization is extremely hard to make. But you'll have to face it anyway.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think that it's fair to say that the people that he thought loved him were lied to. It would be more like society as a whole was lied to, and we have been taught to perpetuate the lie that we think is true.

I completely agree with Karl Marx, religion is just there for control. I don't think that religion is completely a bad thing, however. There are a lot of values that can be extracted out of it. Be nice to others, for instance. I went to Catholic school, and attribute a much of how I turned out to that fact.

The funny thing is, I'm not completely opposed to teaching religion. I've taken numerous religious classes in college. And for the future, when I have kids, I'm still debating whether or not it would be beneficial to have them grow up in a religious home.

[pilliwinks]

I'd have to say I'm impressed by the quality of responses here. I would have expected fifteen atheists all saying join the revolution you have nothing to lose but your chains.

Instead I see thoughtful responses including a great list of what you do have to lose.

I think the one thing the atheists and christian would agree on, is that you have to sort it out for yourself. The questions are unlikely to go away. I would strongly support the guys who advised talking to folk you respect about the issues that trouble you.

You aren't alone - most of us have at some point, or still do wrestle with these ideas. Many of us feel that this has made us better, stronger, more mature christians.

In my experience, finding someone whose life, outlook, intelligence and faith you respect, and spending time with them, is the best medicine for crises of faith. You may find one such on this forum, but I'd be looking closer to home.

[soon2bepro]

[ QUOTE ]
I didn't choose it, and would likely have believed in whatever religion my parents brought me up under.

[/ QUOTE ]

Most of the answers you seek can be found through reasoning, starting from there.


[ QUOTE ]
and how they’ve reconciled their rational doubts with their faith?

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe you should ask yourself why you need faith so badly. In any case, this can't be done. Faith is the antithesis of scientific knowledge, which is rational doubts applied.

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think this story will be very, very compelling to you. The story about the invisible apple:
http://www.freedomainradio.com/Traffic_Jams/how_to_control_a_human_soul.mp3

[/ QUOTE ]

Holy cow, that thing is two hours long ! I'll have to check it out in pieces.

[/ QUOTE ]

Great.

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Every single one of your doubts are appropriate.

I'll answer you main question:
[ QUOTE ]
What if everything I've believed in is false? Made up?

[/ QUOTE ]

..then you have been lied to and manipulated your entire life. AND this from the people you thought loved you. This realization is extremely hard to make. But you'll have to face it anyway.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think that it's fair to say that the people that he thought loved him were lied to. It would be more like society as a whole was lied to, and we have been taught to perpetuate the lie that we think is true.

[/ QUOTE ]

Children are being told: this is how it is. Obviously the parents have never tried to find out the truth of the matter, as religion has zero proof, nor has anything to do with knowledge (there are no theories, there is nothing to test, there is nothing to explain). So don't make excuses here.

[ QUOTE ]
I completely agree with Karl Marx, religion is just there for control. I don't think that religion is completely a bad thing, however. There are a lot of values that can be extracted out of it. Be nice to others, for instance. I went to Catholic school, and attribute a much of how I turned out to that fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

O RLY. Explain to me where the values come from.

[ QUOTE ]
The funny thing is, I'm not completely opposed to teaching religion.

[/ QUOTE ]

You cannot teach religion.

"Scientific ideas, like all memes, are subject to a kind of natural selection, and this might look superficially virus-like. But the selective forces that scrutinize scientific ideas are not arbitrary and capricious. They are exacting, well-honed rules, and they do not favor pointless self-serving behavior. They favor all the virtues laid out in textbooks of standard methodology: testability, evidential support, precision, quantifiability, consistency, intersubjectivity, repeatability, universality, progressiveness, independence of cultural milieu, and so on. Faith spreads despite a total lack of every single one of these virtues."
http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/Worl...sesofmind.shtml (http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work/Articles/1993-summervirusesofmind.shtml)

[ QUOTE ]
I've taken numerous religious classes in college. And for the future, when I have kids, I'm still debating whether or not it would be beneficial to have them grow up in a religious home.

[/ QUOTE ]

Listen to the invisible apple story, and think again about what it means to present it.

[New001]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Every single one of your doubts are appropriate.

I'll answer you main question:
[ QUOTE ]
What if everything I've believed in is false? Made up?

[/ QUOTE ]

..then you have been lied to and manipulated your entire life. AND this from the people you thought loved you. This realization is extremely hard to make. But you'll have to face it anyway.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think that it's fair to say that the people that he thought loved him were lied to. It would be more like society as a whole was lied to, and we have been taught to perpetuate the lie that we think is true.

[/ QUOTE ]

Children are being told: this is how it is. Obviously the parents have never tried to find out the truth of the matter, as religion has zero proof, nor has anything to do with knowledge (there are no theories, there is nothing to test, there is nothing to explain). So don't make excuses here.

[/ QUOTE ]
Their parents aren't lying. They're telling what they themselves believe to be true. Maybe they haven't really looked into it themselves, but that most certainly doesn't mean their parents are lying. If I believed that should my children not become Christian (or Muslim or whatever religion I would be, if I had one) then they would be eternally punished, I would try my hardest to stop that from happening.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I completely agree with Karl Marx, religion is just there for control. I don't think that religion is completely a bad thing, however. There are a lot of values that can be extracted out of it. Be nice to others, for instance. I went to Catholic school, and attribute a much of how I turned out to that fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

O RLY. Explain to me where the values come from.

[/ QUOTE ]
The values come from the core tenets of most religions. Look at what Christian or Muslim or Buddhist or any religious teaching actually says. There is a vast wealth of good teaching in all of it if you can sort out the "noise." At the very least, it can give comfort to people who feel as if they need it.

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
The funny thing is, I'm not completely opposed to teaching religion.

[/ QUOTE ]

You cannot teach religion.

[/ QUOTE ]
You can teach the fundamental teachings and belief systems of various religions. You can teach what they say, you can teach their history, and you can compare and contrast belief systems with each other.

[ QUOTE ]

"Scientific ideas, like all memes, are subject to a kind of natural selection, and this might look superficially virus-like. But the selective forces that scrutinize scientific ideas are not arbitrary and capricious. They are exacting, well-honed rules, and they do not favor pointless self-serving behavior. They favor all the virtues laid out in textbooks of standard methodology: testability, evidential support, precision, quantifiability, consistency, intersubjectivity, repeatability, universality, progressiveness, independence of cultural milieu, and so on. Faith spreads despite a total lack of every single one of these virtues."
http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/Worl...sesofmind.shtml (http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work/Articles/1993-summervirusesofmind.shtml)

[ QUOTE ]
I've taken numerous religious classes in college. And for the future, when I have kids, I'm still debating whether or not it would be beneficial to have them grow up in a religious home.

[/ QUOTE ]

Listen to the invisible apple story, and think again about what it means to present it.

[/ QUOTE ]

[surftheiop]

""Obviously the parents have never tried to find out the truth of the matter, as religion has zero proof, nor has anything to do with knowledge (there are no theories, there is nothing to test, there is nothing to explain). So don't make excuses here.""

Wait so because something cant be tested that innately means its not true?

[surftheiop]

"but I'd be looking closer to home"

Most intelligent thing ive heard in this discussion

[magiluke]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Every single one of your doubts are appropriate.

I'll answer you main question:
[ QUOTE ]
What if everything I've believed in is false? Made up?

[/ QUOTE ]

..then you have been lied to and manipulated your entire life. AND this from the people you thought loved you. This realization is extremely hard to make. But you'll have to face it anyway.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think that it's fair to say that the people that he thought loved him were lied to. It would be more like society as a whole was lied to, and we have been taught to perpetuate the lie that we think is true.

[/ QUOTE ]

Children are being told: this is how it is. Obviously the parents have never tried to find out the truth of the matter, as religion has zero proof, nor has anything to do with knowledge (there are no theories, there is nothing to test, there is nothing to explain). So don't make excuses here.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know what you mean by don't make excuses.

[ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]
I completely agree with Karl Marx, religion is just there for control. I don't think that religion is completely a bad thing, however. There are a lot of values that can be extracted out of it. Be nice to others, for instance. I went to Catholic school, and attribute a much of how I turned out to that fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

O RLY. Explain to me where the values come from.

[/ QUOTE ]

The 10 commandments? The golden rule? The Beatitudes?

A good deal of sources, actually.

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
The funny thing is, I'm not completely opposed to teaching religion.

[/ QUOTE ]

You cannot teach religion.


[/ QUOTE ]

Let me just go back somewhere in your argument and see what I can use against you... Ahh, here:

[ QUOTE ]
Children are being told: this is how it is.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't that teaching? Doesn't someone have to teach what's going on? Even if they read it from a book, the author is teaching them.

This is what I was told when I was a child: 2 + 2 = 4.

There's no difference.

[ QUOTE ]


"Scientific ideas, like all memes, are subject to a kind of natural selection, and this might look superficially virus-like. But the selective forces that scrutinize scientific ideas are not arbitrary and capricious. They are exacting, well-honed rules, and they do not favor pointless self-serving behavior. They favor all the virtues laid out in textbooks of standard methodology: testability, evidential support, precision, quantifiability, consistency, intersubjectivity, repeatability, universality, progressiveness, independence of cultural milieu, and so on. Faith spreads despite a total lack of every single one of these virtues."
http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/Worl...sesofmind.shtml (http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work/Articles/1993-summervirusesofmind.shtml)

[ QUOTE ]
I've taken numerous religious classes in college. And for the future, when I have kids, I'm still debating whether or not it would be beneficial to have them grow up in a religious home.

[/ QUOTE ]

Listen to the invisible apple story, and think again about what it means to present it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't listen to the invisible apple story. And I really don't intend to.

Also, I agree with what New001 said too.

[whiskeytown]

what you choose to rationalize and not rationalize is unknown to me - but I'll give you my story -

grew up in fundi bible college but immediately thought it stunk like [censored] and stopped going to church - it was my social circle so I spent a couple more years around those folks but pretty soon the whole "If you love God you'll stop doing xxxxx, yyyy, and zzzz" got to be beyond intolerable and I quit.

But I sorta had faith - more of a "I hope this faith is true"

cause no matter what anyone says about Christians, the fact is, the stuff Jesus said (not what the demoninations or pastors say, but what he said in the gospels) is what people will live and die for. That's what inspires men like Martin Luther King Jr. to stand up and preach non-violence as Jesus did -

Those words were so powerful Hindus and Muslims alike consider Christ at least a great teacher. That letter the Iranian Prez. sent to ours was religious in nature and they kept adding PBUH after the name of Jesus - (peace be upon him) -

A world like the Sermon on the Mount sounds like paradise to me - I'll follow his teachings on that - and at one point folks have to decide whether he's who he said he was or not (God incarnate in the flesh) -

I figure, the message he spoke is the sort of message I'd expect to hear God speak - and if I live by his teachings but I'm wrong about his deity, I've still lived a life of mercy, forgiveness, love, joy, etc, etc, etc, - right? - so either way I'm covered -

but I figure, anyone who can say those things in the middle of one of the most xenophobic societies of all time and also said "I am the path to the forgiveness of sins" - well, I'm not one for saying I like some of his stuff but some of it I don't like - if I believe what he said, I should believe it all.

take my advice - stop going to church - read the gospels for a while - you'd be amazed at how what you read sounds nothing like what you hear in Church,

RB

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
Their parents aren't lying. They're telling what they themselves believe to be true. Maybe they haven't really looked into it themselves, but that most certainly doesn't mean their parents are lying. If I believed that should my children not become Christian (or Muslim or whatever religion I would be, if I had one) then they would be eternally punished, I would try my hardest to stop that from happening.

[/ QUOTE ]

Representing something as the holy truth while knowing that you have no evidence, logic, rationality or anything behind it is clear dishonesty. Do you think a child has any capacity to judge what it's parent says critically?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
O RLY. Explain to me where the values come from.

[/ QUOTE ]

The values come from the core tenets of most religions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Try to add more meaning to your sentences.

[ QUOTE ]
Look at what Christian or Muslim or Buddhist or any religious teaching actually says.

[/ QUOTE ]

What teaching?

[ QUOTE ]
There is a vast wealth of good teaching in all of it if you can sort out the "noise."

[/ QUOTE ]

In what? And how are we supposed to do this filtering?

[ QUOTE ]
At the very least, it can give comfort to people who feel as if they need it.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're sidestepping the issue.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You cannot teach religion.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can teach the fundamental teachings and belief systems of various religions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Teach a belief system? Can you point me to the Theory of Christianity plz.

[ QUOTE ]
You can teach what they say, you can teach their history, and you can compare and contrast belief systems with each other.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're repeating yourself without any meaning. Now you've added history to it. What does history have to do with religion. History is history. And clearly the child of the believer isn't shown any meaningful historical evidence.

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
""Obviously the parents have never tried to find out the truth of the matter, as religion has zero proof, nor has anything to do with knowledge (there are no theories, there is nothing to test, there is nothing to explain). So don't make excuses here.""

Wait so because something cant be tested that innately means its not true?

[/ QUOTE ]

If something can't be tested, it's not knowledge. And most obviously cannot be represented as the end-all truth.

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know what you mean by don't make excuses.

[/ QUOTE ]

You were trying to misrepresent the situation the parent puts the child through.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
O RLY. Explain to me where the values come from.

[/ QUOTE ]

The 10 commandments? The golden rule? The Beatitudes?

[/ QUOTE ]

Commandments aren't values. And besides, you are referring to a book. What about this book?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Children are being told: this is how it is.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't that teaching? Doesn't someone have to teach what's going on? Even if they read it from a book, the author is teaching them.

This is what I was told when I was a child: 2 + 2 = 4.

There's no difference.

[/ QUOTE ]

If something has no logical theory, then it cannot be explained. Do you know what explaining means? It means showing the logic and causality behind it, preferably including empirical evidence.

[New001]

[ QUOTE ]
Representing something as the holy truth while knowing that you have no evidence, logic, rationality or anything behind it is clear dishonesty. Do you think a child has any capacity to judge what it's parent says critically?

[/ QUOTE ]
It's being represented as a "holy truth" as you say because the parent believes, mostly irrationally, that it is such. Of course a child (typically) can't judge it critically, and I feel incredibly lucky that I wasn't raised to be religious. It's not dishonest though. It's not lying. If I truly believed something that inherently cannot be either proven or disproven, trying to teach that to others is not necessarily wrong. That is not to say all parents are honest with their children with regards to religion, but a parent passing his religion onto his child is not inherently dishonest.

[ QUOTE ]
Try to add more meaning to your sentences.

[/ QUOTE ]
Ask more meaningful questions /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[ QUOTE ]
What teaching?

[/ QUOTE ]
I'll use Buddhism since I'm most familiar with it. Buddhist teaching is, at its core, an attempt to remove suffering from the world. As a child growing up with Buddhist parents, I was taught to respect living creatures. I make a point to never harm or kill animals. I was taught to show compassion to other people, almost to a fault.

Look at the Old Testament commandments. Do not kill, do not steal, etc.

[ QUOTE ]
n what? And how are we supposed to do this filtering?

[/ QUOTE ]
In my opinion, the "noise" is mostly the teaching concerning the supernatural and otherworldly. Stuff regarding heaven, hell, enlightenment, divinity. The most useful teaching, again in my opinion, is that which is meant to better human life on earth, and there is plenty of that in religion.

[ QUOTE ]
You're sidestepping the issue.

[/ QUOTE ]
What issue? You asked what the value of religion comes from. Some people are afraid of death. Some might be confused about their life. Whatever their issue may be, religion can and does often confront these issues and, if not solve them, hide them well enough so as not to consume the person.

[ QUOTE ]
Teach a belief system? Can you point me to the Theory of Christianity plz.

[/ QUOTE ]
Again, you don't teach someone to believe Christianity, you teach them what Christians believe and what (for Christianity) the Bible says.

[ QUOTE ]
You're repeating yourself without any meaning. Now you've added history to it. What does history have to do with religion. History is history. And clearly the child of the believer isn't shown any meaningful historical evidence.

[/ QUOTE ]
You asked how you teach a religion. I told you what teaching a religion would look like. History is extremely important to religion. Religious views and ideas change over time even when based on a relatively unchanging scripture. Look at the history of Islam for a very clear example of this.

[surftheiop]

Nielso as much as you would like to you cant change a true religous person's mind by attempting to tear down religon. For someone to truly believe something they must have experienced it and you arguing with them cant take away that experience. You can throw all the logic statements in the world at me and thats not going to change the fact that i live in a relationship with God, if you choose not to take part in a relationship with God there is nothing i can do about it but pray that someday you might. Im completly convinced that their is a God who loves me (and you) nothing you can say could change my opinion of this.

[Peter666]

Something you must realize as a Catholic, is that while Faith cannot be rationalized, human action can be. The entire moral foundation of the Catholic Church is based on the science of natural ethics. So while questioning things like the Virgin birth or Jesus's Divinity is a supernatural problem that requires prayer, the other things that you have questioned in your previous post can be answered with human logic.

Anybody who will defy the Church's teaching on matters of morality is really defying logic and the science of ethics itself. Without this natural foundation, your supernatural faith is built on quicksand. So I would first do a serious study in logic, metaphysics and a history of philosophy before trying to tackle issues that are literally out of this world.

[pilliwinks]

Surfthiop, I know what you mean, but saying 'you can't change my mind' to an atheist is a red rag at a bull.

For scientolatrists (a convenient neologism), you are just saying "I insist on being not only wrong but wilfully ignorant". They are usually reluctant to accept that the relationship you experience is a datum, a reproducibly observed fact for which gives you better evidence for your belief in God than you have for your belief in a heliocentric solar system (mostly hearsay, unless you're an astronomer).

[pilliwinks]

Peter, you may be right, but I would like to know why you think "The entire moral foundation of the Catholic Church is based on the science of natural ethics".

I would have thought the moral foundation should have been based on the teachings of the founder. If Jesus had said God agrees with slaying the infidel, then infidel slaying would be OK for Catholics, regardless of natural ethics, no?

I think my own opinion is the reverse of yours - if you can build a robust faith, a close relationship with God, ethical questions are dead easy to deal with. Focussing on ethical issues while ignoring God is a great way to become depressed and frustrated. Nobody on earth has sorted out the 'right' answer to the ethical issues, despite millenia of earnest effort and occasional flashes of insight.

[Prodigy54321]

good luck with this one home slice..I went through the same thing a while back..I wound up being an atheist...

1) your questions on "why" god does things are simply not valid IMO...if your god does indeed exist..then aything that this god decides is right or wrong..is by definition (since he is the ultimate authority on everything) right or wrong respectively...you just have to accept that all feelings you have about this or that being "wrong" are simply a product of you being human rather than god..

I will give you this advice..which is probably pretty damaging unless you derive great satisfaction from searching for what is right..rather that what you are comfortable with..

most religious people wind up with certain beliefs because it is what they are comfortable with..regardless of evidence..many christians (the liberal one/hippies /images/graemlins/tongue.gif) feel much better with themselves (because of what they are taught or what other might think of them) when they choose to believe in certain things like...

people don't have to believe that jesus christ is our savior to go to heaven..

basically taking a pretty liberal approach to christianity..throwing in whatever they like..

I would suggest truly searching for what is correct rather than simply making up your own religion...

I suppose that this advice is somewhat luring you into atheism..since I am confident that a pursuit of truth will inevitably lead you toward rational thought..and thus confidence that all this stuff is just nonsense...

but either way..I hate to see people who wind up not thinking for themselves at all.

Chris

[ChrisV]

I'll give my thoughts. They're going to be atheist since I am atheist, but I won't try to indoctrinate you.

[ QUOTE ]
What if everything I've believed in is false? Made up? I never even considered it before but now it seems possible to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is odd to me, never to consider that possibility. I've always considered everything I believed carefully.

[ QUOTE ]
How can a loving, all-powerful God let innocent children get washed away in tsunamis, killed in earthquakes, blown up by terrorists (who do it in the name of their own god), killed by cancer, etc.? The answer I always hear, "It's God's plan and we can't know his ways" - seems like a royal copout. It's like he gets credit when something good happens, but gets a pass when horrific tragedy strikes.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's a summary of philosophy surrounding the Problem Of Evil here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil). Really I think this is a side issue to the main issue, which is, as you say, that God is always credited and never blamed. Either God does not deserve praise when prayers are answered, because they were "part of God's plan" already, or he deserves blame when they are not.

[ QUOTE ]
How can it be that people who don't believe cannot get into heaven? What about some poor people in a 3rd-world country who've never even heard of Jesus? Or someone born into an Islamic family? Am I supposed to think they are going to hell because of the circumstances/geography of their birth? Even if they lived good lives? It just doesn't seem right.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not a theologian, but didn't Jesus address this and say that people who had never heard of him would be spared the requirement to accept him as Saviour? I don't have an answer to the one about being brought up Islamic, however. I guess you're supposed to convert to Christianity. Given the low rates of conversion from other religions, I guess people born into other religions must all be evil.

[ QUOTE ]
Is there even a "heaven"? I mean, the concept of a soul is one I also never questioned until recently. But is a soul really nothing more than the brain chemistry that makes us who we are? Is heaven just wishful thinking?

[/ QUOTE ]

There's no aspect of a human being's personality that I can think of that cannot be altered by altering their brain. Placid individuals can turn very aggressive after brain injury, for example. People can be robbed of their whole identity by memory disorders. The most disturbing case I ever heard about was a man who, midway through his life, developed strong paedophilia. He did not act on his urges but went into counselling, but it was too much for his wife, who left him. Eventually it was discovered he had a brain tumour. It was removed surgically and his paedophilia disappeared. If you think about this stuff long enough it raises disturbing questions about criminal punishment and free will versus determinism and so forth.

Even if you do come up with something in an individual's personality that it is not known how to alter, the soul then becomes (analogous to the situation with God and science) a kind of magic bandaid, to be stuck over the explanatory gaps where the underlying brain function is not understood. The original idea was of the soul, and then corruption by demonic possession and so forth. Since then the idea of the soul has been relentlessly whittled down towards nothing.

[ QUOTE ]
When I receive communion, I am supposed to believe that I am actually eating the real flesh and blood of Jesus. Lately my rational mind is rebelling at this thought.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's because it's actually wine and bread.

[Silent A]

[ QUOTE ]
Anybody who will defy the Church's teaching on matters of morality is really defying logic and the science of ethics itself.

[/ QUOTE ]

They're not defying "logic and the science of ethics", they're defying the Church's base assumptions about Jesus, who he was (and wasn't), what he said (and didn't), and the Church's relationship to him.

If you disagree with the Church's stance on any of these things you can reject its mroal teachings without defying logic or ethics.

[pilliwinks]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The answer I always hear, "It's God's plan and we can't know his ways" - seems like a royal copout. It's like he gets credit when something good happens, but gets a pass when horrific tragedy strikes.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's a summary of philosophy surrounding the Problem Of Evil here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil). Really I think this is a side issue to the main issue, which is, as you say, that God is always credited and never blamed. Either God does not deserve praise when prayers are answered, because they were "part of God's plan" already, or he deserves blame when they are not.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are lots of answers to the problem of evil - personally I note that our free will constrains God's omnipotence, that there can be second order good from suffering, and that it is tough to determine whether or not there is more suffering than there really has to be.

I have trouble understanding the praise/blame problem. We don't praise God because he answers a prayer for a carpark, or blame him if we have to drive around for a half-hour. We praise God because we know who he is, and what he's doing. We don't blame him when we're suffering because we know that he doesn't want us to suffer either. At least, no more than necessary /images/graemlins/grin.gif Parents know what I mean.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How can it be that people who don't believe cannot get into heaven? What about some poor people in a 3rd-world country who've never even heard of Jesus?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not a theologian, but didn't Jesus address this and say that people who had never heard of him would be spared the requirement to accept him as Saviour? I don't have an answer to the one about being brought up Islamic, however. I guess you're supposed to convert to Christianity. Given the low rates of conversion from other religions, I guess people born into other religions must all be evil.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you'll find that Jesus spends surprisingly little time condemning other religions (I can't think of a single instance). He spends a lot of time trying to reform his own. We are not called to judge others, we're called to help them. If you think God hates unbelievers and wants to hurt them, you have problems. I believe in a God who loves everyone, and wants the best for them.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is there even a "heaven"? I mean, the concept of a soul is one I also never questioned until recently. But is a soul really nothing more than the brain chemistry that makes us who we are? Is heaven just wishful thinking?

[/ QUOTE ]

There's no aspect of a human being's personality that I can think of that cannot be altered by altering their brain ... The original idea was of the soul, and then corruption by demonic possession and so forth. Since then the idea of the soul has been relentlessly whittled down towards nothing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Brains are indeed the means by which we experience everything that is true in the world, including God. If you mess with our brains, you mess with our experience of the world. The idea of soul is problematic, no two ways about it. So is the idea of personality. We know we have one, but it's a cow to pin down where it lives, or what it's made of. My simplistic explanation is that soul is the permanent component of personality, and the bit that deals with relationships with God rather than people. As such it is a description of a pattern of behaviour, rather than an object to be located in the brain. As for heaven, well, it's not wishful thinking for me - I have no great desire for immortality, but Jesus says the relationship with God continues, for better or worse. So I say, better work on it.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
When I receive communion, I am supposed to believe that I am actually eating the real flesh and blood of Jesus. Lately my rational mind is rebelling at this thought.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's because it's actually wine and bread.

[/ QUOTE ]

Know what? I agree. However, I would say that if you have problems with being partly responsible for the death of Christ when you take communion, then you have issues. Having problems with transubstantiation, however, just puts you in a long and distinguished line of faithful believers.

[siegfriedandroy]

you should not apologize. dont know what to say, but your doubts are much like mine were in high school ten years ago. the questions are legitimate, but what are your alternative solutions? they are far worse, let me assure you. all these questions are age old, i am drunk and in need of another beer, yeah a thousnd bucks is nothing, but i am still not a millionaire, so i fret. as for your post, forgive my levity, i can relate to it, the questions are fine, what are the answers- were hitler's legitimate? now blah, blah, that is a bad analogy, etc, etc ad infinitum f u all, i will become an atheist now on this forum, since it rings so firmly of truth

[siegfriedandroy]

u r unusually intelligent, but why does paedophili disturb u- some say socrates practiced it. it disturbs me, but only b/c im not an atheist, if i was, then my disturbance would be unjustifiable. u are all so certain in your thinking (apparently), and that disturbs me, considering the vast barren desert your thought evokes.

[ChrisV]

It wasn't actually paedophilia that I referred to as "disturbing", but the idea that something as deeply rooted in a person's psyche as sexuality could be messed with by something as simple as a brain tumour.

Paedophilia, or more accurately the practice of it (sometimes, somewhat inaccurately, called "pederasty") is disturbing and immoral because it involves "use", for want of a better word, of the bodies of those who are unable to give consent to this. Not because God said so. It is analogous to forcibly administering children a mind-altering drug. Considering it immoral is totally justifiable for atheists. If you want to pick something where atheists have a hard time explaining why it's immoral, pick (adult) incest.

Anyway. This is a thread hijack. I just wanted to clarify what I meant by "disturbing".

[Peter666]

"If you disagree with the Church's stance on any of these things you can reject its mroal teachings without defying logic or ethics."

This is simply incorrect. If you believe this, than you believe that there is no such thing as objective truth. Your "Jesus" would have no more relevance than any other person's belief of "Jesus" because personal interpretation can twist itself to believe anything it wants.

The Catholic Church is universal. It's authority comes directly from Christ Himself and applies to everyone equally. It is easy to condemn the Catholic Church, but if one is right, than by whose authority or what principles does one make that condemnation, and how can they be proven to be right?

[Peter666]

"I would have thought the moral foundation should have been based on the teachings of the founder. If Jesus had said God agrees with slaying the infidel, then infidel slaying would be OK for Catholics, regardless of natural ethics, no?"

The problem is, millions of people existed before the founder was born. How could they determine what was right and wrong? Could they go around and do anything they want and not get punished by God because he did not inform them personally of what to do?

The founder of the Church at Pentecost is the same creator of the universe. Logic was designed by the Creator as the human way to determine right and wrong, truth and falsehood. When Jesus was incarnated, He would not and could not say: ok, now because I am God, 2+2 can equal both 4 and 5. It would contradict His very nature.

"Nobody on earth has sorted out the 'right' answer to the ethical issues, despite millenia of earnest effort and occasional flashes of insight."

This is incorrect. Every single ethical issue has been sorted out and has a definite answer. If not, having Faith would be an absolutely useless and superfluous thing in this life. One has to know what is right and wrong before they can do what is right or wrong.

[siegfriedandroy]

while i do not dispute what you said, you in turn cannot possibly dispute that considering it moral is no less 'totally justifiable' for atheists.

[Silent A]

[ QUOTE ]

"If you disagree with the Church's stance on any of these things you can reject its mroal teachings without defying logic or ethics."

This is simply incorrect. If you believe this, than you believe that there is no such thing as objective truth. Your "Jesus" would have no more relevance than any other person's belief of "Jesus" because personal interpretation can twist itself to believe anything it wants.

[/ QUOTE ]

One does not have to reject the idea of objective truth to believe this. One simply has to reject the idea that the Catholic Church has a monopoly on it.

[ QUOTE ]
The Catholic Church is universal. It's authority comes directly from Christ Himself and applies to everyone equally. It is easy to condemn the Catholic Church, but if one is right, than by whose authority or what principles does one make that condemnation, and how can they be proven to be right?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, the Catholic Church *claims* to be universal with its authority coming straight from Jesus. This is based solely on a particular reading of a single line from a single gospel.

[Peter666]

Yes, it is true that the Catholic Church claims a monopoly on the truth, based not only on one line of the Gospel, but on its entire tradition and direct link to St. Peter.

By what authority can you back up your claim that it does not have monopoly on the truth?

[ChrisV]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, it is true that the Catholic Church claims a monopoly on the truth, based not only on one line of the Gospel, but on its entire tradition and direct link to St. Peter.

By what authority can you back up your claim that it does not have monopoly on the truth?

[/ QUOTE ]

lol. You have to be kidding me.

Burden of proof rests with the person making the claim. I don't have to provide you with evidence that there is NOT a giant space squid orbiting the Earth, if you claim there is.

[Silent A]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, it is true that the Catholic Church claims a monopoly on the truth, based not only on one line of the Gospel, but on its entire tradition and direct link to St. Peter.

[/ QUOTE ]

Um, the value of that direct link relies entirely on that one line in one gospel. Without it, the Church is just the modern decendent of Peter's school of early Christianity.

[ QUOTE ]
By what authority can you back up your claim that it does not have monopoly on the truth?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is too funny for reasons the previous poster already mentioned. One doesn't get to claim a monopoly on truth without *a lot* of supporting evidence. And one of those pieces of evidence can't be "We have a monopoly on truth". Circular reasoning isn't logical and it was *you* who claimed that to side against the Church is to defy logic.

[Peter666]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, it is true that the Catholic Church claims a monopoly on the truth, based not only on one line of the Gospel, but on its entire tradition and direct link to St. Peter.

By what authority can you back up your claim that it does not have monopoly on the truth?

[/ QUOTE ]

lol. You have to be kidding me.

Burden of proof rests with the person making the claim. I don't have to provide you with evidence that there is NOT a giant space squid orbiting the Earth, if you claim there is.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a matter for Christians, not a matter for people interested in giant squids orbitting the Earth. I just gave a reason to back up my Faith which claims to have a monopoly on the Truth, and I would like to here the reason someone would have to dispute that, who also claim to have the truth.

I don't give a damn about anybody else's opinion.

[Peter666]

"Circular reasoning isn't logical and it was *you* who claimed that to side against the Church is to defy logic."

Absolutely. I have made the claim that the Church's moral teachings are built on a foundation of logic and the science of ethics. If you deny one of those moral principles, you deny the science of ethics.

What specific moral principle can you produce that goes against the teaching of the Church and is still logical or ethical (since you dispute my claim)?

[bluesbassman]

[ QUOTE ]
Here are some of the questions that keep popping into my mind:

How can a loving, all-powerful God let innocent children get washed away in tsunamis, killed in earthquakes, blown up by terrorists (who do it in the name of their own god), killed by cancer, etc.?

[/ QUOTE ]

He can't and he wouldn't. At least not without completely twisting the definitions of omnipotence and omniscience into a meaningless muck of unintelligibility. (I'm momentarily ignoring the problems with defining "god" in the first place.)


[ QUOTE ]
The answer I always hear, "It's God's plan and we can't know his ways" - seems like a royal copout.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, when cornered, the theist will always just appeal to "god's" incomprehensibility.

[ QUOTE ]
How can it be that people who don't believe cannot get into heaven? What about some poor people in a 3rd-world country who've never even heard of Jesus? Or someone born into an Islamic family? Am I supposed to think they are going to hell because of the circumstances/geography of their birth? Even if they lived good lives? It just doesn't seem right.

[/ QUOTE ]

It obviously isn't right. As a matter of fact, it's horribly evil.

[ QUOTE ]

But is a soul really nothing more than the brain chemistry that makes us who we are? Is heaven just wishful thinking?


[/ QUOTE ]

There is no evidence of a supernatural "soul." And yes, I would guess people believe in heaven out of wishful thinking and fear of death.

[ QUOTE ]

When I receive communion, I am supposed to believe that I am actually eating the real flesh and blood of Jesus. Lately my rational mind is rebelling at this thought.

[/ QUOTE ]

Rebelling with good reason. It makes so sense whatsoever. The only reason you give it more credit (I would guess) than, say, the silly beliefs about aliens held by Scientologists, is because you were indoctrinated from an early age.

[ QUOTE ]

Jesus was born to a virgin. Again, I always believed this without question, but lately I'm having a hard time with it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Compared to all the other silly beliefs, this one doesn't seem to be any more or less plausible.

[ QUOTE ]

Why, if God is all-loving and all-powerful, does he refuse to show himself clearly to us?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because there is no such being.

[ QUOTE ]

All other religions believe just as fervently in their own god. How am I to know that I was born into the "right" religion? I didn't choose it, and would likely have believed in whatever religion my parents brought me up under.


[/ QUOTE ]

The possible blossoming of a rational mind is a beautiful thing.

[magiluke]

[ QUOTE ]
If something has no logical theory, then it cannot be explained. Do you know what explaining means? It means showing the logic and causality behind it, preferably including empirical evidence.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's Wikipedia's definition:

An explanation is a statement which points to causes, context and consequences of some object (or process, state of affairs etc.), together with rules or laws which link these to the object. Some of these elements of the explanation may be implicit.

I don't see how you can't explain religion as according to this definition.

Nah... I guess I just don't care any more.

[Silent A]

[ QUOTE ]
What specific moral principle can you produce that goes against the teaching of the Church and is still logical or ethical (since you dispute my claim)?

[/ QUOTE ]

These are mortal sins according to the Church:

- publicly arguing against one of the Catholic Church's teachings
- missing one Sunday mass
- using contraception
- saying "Jesus Christ!" out loud after reading one of Peter666's posts
- arguing that the christian god, as described in the Bible, probably doesn't exist
- consensual adult homosexuality
- masturbation (maybe venial - have to look it up, but I can't find a reliable list right now)

I fail to see how any of these are illogical and/or unethical. Good luck trying to show that they are without resorting to the 10 commandments.

[Peter666]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What specific moral principle can you produce that goes against the teaching of the Church and is still logical or ethical (since you dispute my claim)?

[/ QUOTE ]

These are mortal sins according to the Church:

- publicly arguing against one of the Catholic Church's teachings
- missing one Sunday mass
- using contraception
- saying "Jesus Christ!" out loud after reading one of Peter666's posts
- arguing that the christian god, as described in the Bible, probably doesn't exist
- consensual adult homosexuality
- masturbation (maybe venial - have to look it up, but I can't find a reliable list right now)

I fail to see how any of these are illogical and/or unethical. Good luck trying to show that they are without resorting to the 10 commandments.

[/ QUOTE ]

But the 10 commandments are just the expression of natural law. If this fact is not accepted, there is no way to have a logical discussion.

The things you mentioned like contraception and homosexuality are so obviously abnormal and irrational ethical actions that to deny it is denying the ability for people to reason. They are purely selfish in nature.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
The things you mentioned like contraception and homosexuality are so obviously abnormal and irrational ethical actions that to deny it is denying the ability for people to reason. They are purely selfish in nature.

[/ QUOTE ]
Its at least as reasonable to deny these are irrational and unethical as it is to insist that they are.

Try putting together a reasonable argument and I'll demonstrate for you.

chez

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If something has no logical theory, then it cannot be explained. Do you know what explaining means? It means showing the logic and causality behind it, preferably including empirical evidence.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's Wikipedia's definition:

An explanation is a statement which points to causes, context and consequences of some object (or process, state of affairs etc.), together with rules or laws which link these to the object. Some of these elements of the explanation may be implicit.

I don't see how you can't explain religion as according to this definition.

Nah... I guess I just don't care any more.

[/ QUOTE ]

I assume you just forfeited your point as is clearly shown by the definition you gave.

[Peter666]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The things you mentioned like contraception and homosexuality are so obviously abnormal and irrational ethical actions that to deny it is denying the ability for people to reason. They are purely selfish in nature.

[/ QUOTE ]
Its at least as reasonable to deny these are irrational and unethical as it is to insist that they are.

Try putting together a reasonable argument and I'll demonstrate for you.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

The rightness or wrongness of an action is dictated by its final end. Contraception for example is an artificial nullification of the sex act. The primary reason for sex is procreation. A secondary reason can never absolutely substitute the primary reason without being unethical.

So there is your argument. Now demonstrate.

[ChrisV]

Wow. Peter is one of those people so totally divorced from reason that there's no point having an argument with them.

[ QUOTE ]
The rightness or wrongness of an action is dictated by its final end. Contraception for example is an artificial nullification of the sex act. The primary reason for sex is procreation. A secondary reason can never absolutely substitute the primary reason without being unethical.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is so completely ridiculous that I don't know where to start. I'll just say that one could just as easily argue along the same lines that cooking is unethical, since the flavour of food is secondary to its primary purpose of providing nutrition.

In any case, this is a thread hijack. Please try to stay on topic by replying to the OP's concerns.

[bluesbassman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The things you mentioned like contraception and homosexuality are so obviously abnormal and irrational ethical actions that to deny it is denying the ability for people to reason. They are purely selfish in nature.

[/ QUOTE ]
Its at least as reasonable to deny these are irrational and unethical as it is to insist that they are.

Try putting together a reasonable argument and I'll demonstrate for you.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

The rightness or wrongness of an action is dictated by its final end. Contraception for example is an artificial nullification of the sex act. The primary reason for sex is procreation. A secondary reason can never absolutely substitute the primary reason without being unethical.

So there is your argument. Now demonstrate.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is something that can be demonstrated to the OP here. Namely, that we can explicitly see what happens when reason is completely abandoned. This poster has been led to obviously absurd (and potentially psychologically damaging) ethical "conclusions" about an important aspect of the human experience. He could just as well argue that antibiotics, bypass surgery, and efficacious cancer treatments are "artificial" nullifications of sickness and death (at least for a while).

To the extent one accepts dogmatic faith, a person is quite literally losing his or her mind.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The things you mentioned like contraception and homosexuality are so obviously abnormal and irrational ethical actions that to deny it is denying the ability for people to reason. They are purely selfish in nature.

[/ QUOTE ]
Its at least as reasonable to deny these are irrational and unethical as it is to insist that they are.

Try putting together a reasonable argument and I'll demonstrate for you.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

The rightness or wrongness of an action is dictated by its final end. Contraception for example is an artificial nullification of the sex act. The primary reason for sex is procreation. A secondary reason can never absolutely substitute the primary reason without being unethical.

So there is your argument. Now demonstrate.

[/ QUOTE ]
As others have pointed out this is a very unreasonable argument. Here's an argument that is no more unreasonable denying your conclusion. I'll even stick with your arbitray premise.

The rightness or wrongness of an action is dictated by its final end. Fun without harm is an excellent final end. Sex without babies is excellent fun without harm, therefore contraception is good.

chez

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
The rightness or wrongness of an action is dictated by its final end. Contraception for example is an artificial nullification of the sex act.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nothing you say is irrelevant, because you are going to die no matter what.

[Peter666]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The things you mentioned like contraception and homosexuality are so obviously abnormal and irrational ethical actions that to deny it is denying the ability for people to reason. They are purely selfish in nature.

[/ QUOTE ]
Its at least as reasonable to deny these are irrational and unethical as it is to insist that they are.

Try putting together a reasonable argument and I'll demonstrate for you.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

The rightness or wrongness of an action is dictated by its final end. Contraception for example is an artificial nullification of the sex act. The primary reason for sex is procreation. A secondary reason can never absolutely substitute the primary reason without being unethical.

So there is your argument. Now demonstrate.

[/ QUOTE ]
As others have pointed out this is a very unreasonable argument. Here's an argument that is no more unreasonable denying your conclusion. I'll even stick with your arbitray premise.

The rightness or wrongness of an action is dictated by its final end. Fun without harm is an excellent final end. Sex without babies is excellent fun without harm, therefore contraception is good.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

You've made the assumption that sex without babies causes no harm. If the human body has been designed to to have sex with the possibility of babies, and people are rational creatures who can see this end, than I argue that there is definitely a psychological harm done to the individual who practices such things. It will be on their conscience at the very least. In fact, seeing how most couples practice contraception, and most couples also divorce, split up or are ultimately unhappy, I would argue there is a definite link between one's moral actions and ultimate marital happiness.

Besides that, we must distinguish between pleasure and happiness, which are not the same.

[Peter666]

"This is so completely ridiculous that I don't know where to start. I'll just say that one could just as easily argue along the same lines that cooking is unethical, since the flavour of food is secondary to its primary purpose of providing nutrition."

Why would this make cooking unethical? If the primary purpose is not seperated from its secondary purpose, than one can do as they wish. If all you were to do is eat junk food, than that would be unethical after a while because you are doing harm to your body for the sake of temporary pleasure. But if you can have a nutritious meal that is also pleasurable, than you have the best of both worlds and are doing nothing unethical.

[Peter666]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The things you mentioned like contraception and homosexuality are so obviously abnormal and irrational ethical actions that to deny it is denying the ability for people to reason. They are purely selfish in nature.

[/ QUOTE ]
Its at least as reasonable to deny these are irrational and unethical as it is to insist that they are.

Try putting together a reasonable argument and I'll demonstrate for you.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

The rightness or wrongness of an action is dictated by its final end. Contraception for example is an artificial nullification of the sex act. The primary reason for sex is procreation. A secondary reason can never absolutely substitute the primary reason without being unethical.

So there is your argument. Now demonstrate.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is something that can be demonstrated to the OP here. Namely, that we can explicitly see what happens when reason is completely abandoned. This poster has been led to obviously absurd (and potentially psychologically damaging) ethical "conclusions" about an important aspect of the human experience. He could just as well argue that antibiotics, bypass surgery, and efficacious cancer treatments are "artificial" nullifications of sickness and death (at least for a while).

To the extent one accepts dogmatic faith, a person is quite literally losing his or her mind.

[/ QUOTE ]

As far as your sickness and death arguments, you have failed to distinguish between evil conditions that effect the human body and good conditions. You can't apply principles to a faulty premise to begin with.

[Peter666]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The rightness or wrongness of an action is dictated by its final end. Contraception for example is an artificial nullification of the sex act.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nothing you say is irrelevant, because you are going to die no matter what.

[/ QUOTE ]

I assume you meant relevant. And if this is correct, than I will also assume you advocate total hedonism over ethical human conduct.

[Silent A]

[ QUOTE ]
But the 10 commandments are just the expression of natural law. If this fact is not accepted, there is no way to have a logical discussion.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have got to be kidding me. How is it logically necessary to accept the 10 commandments as logically necessary "natural law"? Is is impossible to conceive of a non-contradictory universe in which the creator god doesn't care whether or not we worship it 4 times per lunar cycle?

[ QUOTE ]
The things you mentioned like contraception and homosexuality are so obviously abnormal and irrational ethical actions that to deny it is denying the ability for people to reason. They are purely selfish in nature.

[/ QUOTE ]

Selfishness is not unethical if no outside party is harmed (there's another moral principle that runs afoul of the Church). This is why it's ok to eat tasty and nutritious food when equally nutritious yet foul tasting food is also avaiable.

It's obvious we have completely different concepts of what qualifies as logical, ethical, and natural so there's no point. I'm not going to comment further on this because it's hikacking this thread.

Also, I'm satisfied that the OP can now see what you meant when you said to defy the Catholic church is to deny all logic and ethics.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The things you mentioned like contraception and homosexuality are so obviously abnormal and irrational ethical actions that to deny it is denying the ability for people to reason. They are purely selfish in nature.

[/ QUOTE ]
Its at least as reasonable to deny these are irrational and unethical as it is to insist that they are.

Try putting together a reasonable argument and I'll demonstrate for you.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

The rightness or wrongness of an action is dictated by its final end. Contraception for example is an artificial nullification of the sex act. The primary reason for sex is procreation. A secondary reason can never absolutely substitute the primary reason without being unethical.

So there is your argument. Now demonstrate.

[/ QUOTE ]
As others have pointed out this is a very unreasonable argument. Here's an argument that is no more unreasonable denying your conclusion. I'll even stick with your arbitray premise.

The rightness or wrongness of an action is dictated by its final end. Fun without harm is an excellent final end. Sex without babies is excellent fun without harm, therefore contraception is good.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

You've made the assumption that sex without babies causes no harm. If the human body has been designed to to have sex with the possibility of babies, and people are rational creatures who can see this end, than I argue that there is definitely a psychological harm done to the individual who practices such things. It will be on their conscience at the very least. In fact, seeing how most couples practice contraception, and most couples also divorce, split up or are ultimately unhappy, I would argue there is a definite link between one's moral actions and ultimate marital happiness.

Besides that, we must distinguish between pleasure and happiness, which are not the same.

[/ QUOTE ]
So you claim that sex without babies cause harm. I no more unreasonably claim that it doesn't.

P1: Most couples practice contraception
P2: most couples divorce
Therefore contraception causes harm

This is an impressively invalid argument. I think it's unsound as well (is is possible for an invalid argument to be unsound?)

chez

[Peter666]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The things you mentioned like contraception and homosexuality are so obviously abnormal and irrational ethical actions that to deny it is denying the ability for people to reason. They are purely selfish in nature.

[/ QUOTE ]
Its at least as reasonable to deny these are irrational and unethical as it is to insist that they are.

Try putting together a reasonable argument and I'll demonstrate for you.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

The rightness or wrongness of an action is dictated by its final end. Contraception for example is an artificial nullification of the sex act. The primary reason for sex is procreation. A secondary reason can never absolutely substitute the primary reason without being unethical.

So there is your argument. Now demonstrate.

[/ QUOTE ]
As others have pointed out this is a very unreasonable argument. Here's an argument that is no more unreasonable denying your conclusion. I'll even stick with your arbitray premise.

The rightness or wrongness of an action is dictated by its final end. Fun without harm is an excellent final end. Sex without babies is excellent fun without harm, therefore contraception is good.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

You've made the assumption that sex without babies causes no harm. If the human body has been designed to to have sex with the possibility of babies, and people are rational creatures who can see this end, than I argue that there is definitely a psychological harm done to the individual who practices such things. It will be on their conscience at the very least. In fact, seeing how most couples practice contraception, and most couples also divorce, split up or are ultimately unhappy, I would argue there is a definite link between one's moral actions and ultimate marital happiness.

Besides that, we must distinguish between pleasure and happiness, which are not the same.

[/ QUOTE ]
So you claim that sex without babies cause harm. I no more unreasonably claim that it doesn't.

P1: Most couples practice contraception
P2: most couples divorce
Therefore contraception causes harm

This is an impressively invalid argument. I think it's unsound as well (is is possible for an invalid argument to be unsound?)

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not trying to form a syllogism, it is the "soundness" which you have alluded too from practical observance. People who lead an immoral life cannot lead a happy life. Putting pleasure ahead of what one ought to do is the surest way for long term unhappiness. People who follow their emotions rather than reason are doomed.

For example, when a couple initially falls in love, all is great because the emotions are corresponding. However, after some time, this first fervour dies down. Yet conveniently, nature usually intervenes at this point by producing a child. And this child has the terrific effect of renewing the love and admiration within the couple. I have never seen a large unhappy family. I have definitely seen couples who live for pleasure break up and repeat the same cycle over and over again with other people. And they can't have a clear conscience either. There cannot be happiness without peace of soul first.

[Silent A]

[ QUOTE ]
People who lead an immoral life cannot lead a happy life.

[/ QUOTE ]

If this is valid then my life is a solid piece of evidence that many of the Catholic Church's teachings are not moral.

[ QUOTE ]
Putting pleasure ahead of what one ought to do is the surest way for long term unhappiness.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unless, of course, your conception of "ought" doesn't correspond to reality.

[ QUOTE ]
I have never seen a large unhappy family.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did it ever occur to you that you might be getting your causality backwards?

[Peter666]

"If this is valid then my life is a solid piece of evidence that many of the Catholic Church's teachings are not moral."

You do realize that your claim goes against the collective wisdom of moralists in the Western tradition from ancient times to today. Althouth I have no doubt you lead a pleasurable life.

Secondly, the final judgement of one's happiness is made at the end of life, and not during it, so you are jumping the gun by using yourself as an example. Do you think you will die happy, leaving behind all the happiness you now have?

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
In fact, seeing how most couples practice contraception, and most couples also divorce, split up or are ultimately unhappy, I would argue there is a definite link between one's moral actions and ultimate marital happiness.

[/ QUOTE ]

you guys are arguing with a person who is capable of writing something like this and then defending it.

[CharlesDarwin]

[ QUOTE ]
In fact, seeing how most couples practice contraception, and most couples also divorce, split up or are ultimately unhappy, I would argue there is a definite link between one's moral actions and ultimate marital happiness.

[/ QUOTE ]


Peter666,

out of respect and honor for the human genome, can you promise me that you will kill yourself?

And, if for some reason you are too selfish to do this, can you at least promise that you will not procreate?


Thanks,

Charles /images/graemlins/heart.gif

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
I am not trying to form a syllogism, it is the "soundness" which you have alluded too from practical observance. People who lead an immoral life cannot lead a happy life. Putting pleasure ahead of what one ought to do is the surest way for long term unhappiness. People who follow their emotions rather than reason are doomed.

[/ QUOTE ]
You're assuming your conclusion. You are supposed to be showing that its unreasonable to deny that contraceptive is immoral, so concluding anything from it being immoral is besides the point.

and its not putting anything ahead of what anyone ought to do. You need to demonstrate that not only ought people to have kids but that everytime they have sex it needs to include the possibility of procreation. So fr you've offered nothing except a claim that contracpetion causes harm but no reason for believing this claim anymore than the counterclaim that contraception doesn't cause harm.

chez

[AJackson]

Revots,

You're doing some great thinking, it was those very questions that led me to my own crisis of faith and was the start of a five year intellectual journey.

I read everything I could get my hands on, discussed my quesitons with people of different faiths and ended up getting a philosophy degree.

It was a tough journey, I was raised in a very conservative Christian home and my journey was leading me to a conclusion that would probably result in the loss of friends and family.

In the end I became an atheist. Not the strong preaching kind of atheist who trys to convert, buy more of stance that just like elves and unicorns, I don't believe in things I can't find any proof of. In the ten years since I've become so much more confortable with myself and my place in the world.

This isn't saying my conclusions would be correct for you. You have to go on your own journey.

If you would like reading suggestions for specific questions or discuss anything feel free to pm me.

[CallMeIshmael]

Peter, just a question. Your name is Peter666, and you call yourself 'antichrist' in your local, yet you are highly religious.

Whats up with that?

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
You've made the assumption that sex without babies causes no harm. If the human body has been designed to to have sex with the possibility of babies, and people are rational creatures who can see this end, than I argue that there is definitely a psychological harm done to the individual who practices such things. It will be on their conscience at the very least. In fact, seeing how most couples practice contraception, and most couples also divorce, split up or are ultimately unhappy, I would argue there is a definite link between one's moral actions and ultimate marital happiness.


[/ QUOTE ]

If the human body has been designed to to have sex with the possibility of NO babies, then it must be meant to be that way and avoidance of this is likely to result in serious psychological harm.

[AceofSpades]

[ QUOTE ]
Surfthiop, I know what you mean, but saying 'you can't change my mind' to an atheist is a red rag at a bull.

For scientolatrists (a convenient neologism), you are just saying "I insist on being not only wrong but wilfully ignorant". They are usually reluctant to accept that the relationship you experience is a datum, a reproducibly observed fact for which gives you better evidence for your belief in God than you have for your belief in a heliocentric solar system (mostly hearsay, unless you're an astronomer).

[/ QUOTE ]

Pilliwinks,
In my estimation, the fact that the God of bible is logically impossible, does not negate the reality of your experience. In as much as you experienced it. It's not that I am "reluctant to accept that the relationship you experience is a datum, a reproducibly observed fact for which gives you evidence for your belief." But simply that the experience you ascribe as support for that belief are unsigned, and not direct evidence for the belief in say a just, loving, all-powerful God that requires faith for salvation. In short, like the famous poem, you have had the experience but missed the meaning.

Joseph

[Peter666]

"If the human body has been designed to to have sex with the possibility of NO babies, then it must be meant to be that way and avoidance of this is likely to result in serious psychological harm."

There is a world of difference between natural and unnatural possibilites. When you introduce the unnatural to the process, you need a rationalization for it. The rationalization in this instance is human pleasure above procreation. It may be nice for the individual, but horrible for the species.

[Peter666]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In fact, seeing how most couples practice contraception, and most couples also divorce, split up or are ultimately unhappy, I would argue there is a definite link between one's moral actions and ultimate marital happiness.

[/ QUOTE ]


Peter666,

out of respect and honor for the human genome, can you promise me that you will kill yourself?

And, if for some reason you are too selfish to do this, can you at least promise that you will not procreate?


Thanks,

Charles /images/graemlins/heart.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

No Mr. Darwin, I will not try to kill myself, although I suppose you may try to kill me if you wish. Interesting to see that people would be pleased to have others be killed who do not agree with them. Definitely following in the footsteps of other great humanitarians with similar thinking like Hitler and Stalin. The capacity for evil in people never ceases to amaze me, along with their inability to learn from history.

[AceofSpades]

[ QUOTE ]
(Apologies in advance for the length of this post... I realize I am basically thinking out loud and rambling.)

I recently posted a thread on "cafeteria catholics", where I tried to address some of my issues with the teachings of the Catholic Church. I appreciated all of the replies.

One of the replies said something like, "this type of doubting is often how atheism starts". That really hit home to me, because as I considered "shopping around" for a new religion I realized that it's not only Catholic dogma I'm doubtful about, but my entire faith. All of it. This is very hard for a lifelong Catholic to admit. It's kinda scary to suddenly be so doubtful about something you took for granted as the truth for so many years.

As I thought about things, I realized the crux of my problem is that the claims of my religion are too much for my rational mind to accept without questioning. I actually wish I could "turn off" these rational doubts in my head. It's much more comforting just to believe.

But the nagging doubts are there, suddenly... and they won't go away. What if everything I've believed in is false? Made up? I never even considered it before but now it seems possible to me. I've prayed to God to help me quiet these doubts but it doesn't seem to help.

Here are some of the questions that keep popping into my mind:

How can a loving, all-powerful God let innocent children get washed away in tsunamis, killed in earthquakes, blown up by terrorists (who do it in the name of their own god), killed by cancer, etc.? The answer I always hear, "It's God's plan and we can't know his ways" - seems like a royal copout. It's like he gets credit when something good happens, but gets a pass when horrific tragedy strikes.

How can it be that people who don't believe cannot get into heaven? What about some poor people in a 3rd-world country who've never even heard of Jesus? Or someone born into an Islamic family? Am I supposed to think they are going to hell because of the circumstances/geography of their birth? Even if they lived good lives? It just doesn't seem right.


[/ QUOTE ]

Hi OP,

I've been where you are at. It's a tough place to be, wanting to believe and not being able to. Especially because in my experience and others, God is never as silent as the time when we need his voice the most.

I don't know whether it is comforting or disturbing to you that I no longer believe. It wasn't really a choice in as much as I had doubts, then after really looking into things found it impossible to believe what is clearly contradictory and therefore impossible. Plus learning about the evidence for evolution, and how I had been lied to by creationists also gave me the ability to realize that there were possible(and more likely) alternatives than the bible's view of creation.

Even though at one time I thought the evidence I had for God was great, when I truly faced the evidence against my conception of God, I realized that contradictory evidence cannot exist, so my conception of God must be wrong. Besides, can God really be less loving than something he created-a human?

The reason it doesn't make sense is because it isn't true.
It seems a monster of a claim to make, but without resorting to absurb rationalisations, changing the meaning of words, ignoring vast sections of the bible, considering God deliberately deceives people so they will go to hell, or simply saying it makes no sense but I'll believe it anyway(the royal copout), it is the only rational decision I could come to.

The problem of pain and the injustice of requiring belief for salvation from eternal hell (while at the same time not providing certainty, so people could make an actual choice, knowing the eternal decision they are making) are the two worst contradictions in the christianity.

Since you are a catholic consider also the doctrine of children going to heaven until the age of accountabilty. If you think about it, basically, it says you can sin, and God can CHOOSE to forgive that sin without any action or belief on your part. Why could he simply not choose to forgive everybody else? If you believe that, then you must also believe that God while desiring all to be saved, doesn't save them when the decision is solely his?

The doctrine is clearly not biblical, however sending children to hell seems so unjust that it was made up.

But basically your concerns are valid. And nobody else really has an valid answer beyond "We just have to believe it." Because there are none.

The world is a beautiful place without the christian God though. Freedom from the spector of hell, eternal punishment for well meaning people, that simply don't believe. Not having to condemn people that clearly can't help being attracted to others of the same sex, to the prospect of lifelong celibacy or a lifelong struggle against basic biological urges. Not having to ascribe to God plan the most horrible things. But most of all you are free from constantly trying to resolve the unresolvable and can fully follow what seems reasonable and right without a fear that somehow you might lose the Truth.

Hope that helps,

Joseph

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
When you introduce the unnatural to the process, you need a rationalization for it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly, since no baby is the most likely outcome of coitus, you need a rationalisation for it not being so, and your rationalisation for that is your religion.

To me it has all aspects of a neurosis.

[Peter666]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
When you introduce the unnatural to the process, you need a rationalization for it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly, since no baby is the most likely outcome of coitus, you need a rationalisation for it not being so, and your rationalisation for that is your religion.

To me it has all aspects of a neurosis.

[/ QUOTE ]

"you need a rationalisation for it not being so, and your rationalisation for that is your religion."

This is not true. The rationalisation for it not being so is simply natural and not religious. We let nature take its course in a good cause (procreation and pleasure). That's what we ought to do. Whether the baby comes or not is irrelevant to the ethical action. The only choice we have is to inhibit the end or not to, and choices are always either ethical or unethical.

Also, what's more neurotic: Stopping the natural process from taking place due to fear of some sort, or letting it happen? Obviously, if one fears the consequences of something that is not meant to be fearful, they are suffering from the neurosis. This is especially true in wealthy countries like America: "oh no, can't have another baby, I won't be able to afford another SUV."

[Peter666]

To clarify, commandments 1-3 deal with the supernatural. When it comes to ethics, we deal with numbers 4-10, which deal with the natural.

And the statement: "Selfishness is not unethical if no outside party is harmed" is not true, because you may be hurting YOURSELF. Trying to poison oneself is unethical.

[Peter666]

"You need to demonstrate that not only ought people to have kids but that everytime they have sex it needs to include the possibility of procreation."

But people don't have to have kids, they just need to justify their free choices. And that justification must take into consideration all the real consequences, and not just the ones we like.

My claim is that as rational animals, all free choice must be made rationally and have a rational end. Pleasure can be a rational end so long as it does not interfere with any other natural ends of that particular good action. By interfering with those other rational ends, you stump the process which always has bad consequences.

[AceofSpades]

[ QUOTE ]
[...] And that justification must take into consideration all the real consequences, and not just the ones we like.

My claim is that as rational animals, all free choice must be made rationally and have a rational end. Pleasure can be a rational end so long as it does not interfere with any other natural ends of that particular good action. By interfering with those other rational ends, you stump the process which always has bad consequences.

[/ QUOTE ]

But if you can prevent a consequence by your action, then it really isn't a consequence.

Also, saying that stumping the process always results in bad consequences is a vast claim which you didn't support.
In some cases the consequences of using contraception are much better than the possible consequences of not using them.

Like when people have AIDS, or the baby would have a high chance of some deadly genetic disease, for example.

Also, if we didn't take steps to avoid natural consequences that would happen naturally we would be viewed as insane. We wouldn't take drugs when you are sick. Or flee a hurricane/flood/tornado. We wouldn't wear warm clothing in the winter to avoid frostbite. It's natural right?

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
"you need a rationalisation for it not being so, and your rationalisation for that is your religion."

This is not true. The rationalisation for it not being so is simply natural and not religious. We let nature take its course in a good cause (procreation and pleasure). That's what we ought to do. Whether the baby comes or not is irrelevant to the ethical action. The only choice we have is to inhibit the end or not to, and choices are always either ethical or unethical.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not sure if you are intentinally avoiding the fact, that if coitus rather rarely results in delivery, that the primary puropse of sex may very well be pleasure in the natural order of things. To view it as primarily to be for continuation of the species, seems to me to distort the intention of god (ie not in accorad with the facts). That is the sense in which I feel that the ascetic inclinations, self-inflictions of suffering (sacrifice etc..) and avoidance of pleasure are neurotic expresssions in some religions.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
This is an impressively invalid argument. I think it's unsound as well (is is possible for an invalid argument to be unsound?)

chez

[/ QUOTE ]
Complete sidetrack but just in passing - any invalid argument is unsound as a sound argument is defined as a valid argument with true premises.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is an impressively invalid argument. I think it's unsound as well (is is possible for an invalid argument to be unsound?)

chez

[/ QUOTE ]
Complete sidetrack but just in passing - any invalid argument is unsound as a sound argument is defined as a valid argument with true premises.

[/ QUOTE ]
Thanks, that sounds right. So Peters argument was invalid and unsound.

chez

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
"You need to demonstrate that not only ought people to have kids but that everytime they have sex it needs to include the possibility of procreation."

But people don't have to have kids, they just need to justify their free choices. And that justification must take into consideration all the real consequences, and not just the ones we like.

My claim is that as rational animals, all free choice must be made rationally and have a rational end. Pleasure can be a rational end so long as it does not interfere with any other natural ends of that particular good action. By interfering with those other rational ends, you stump the process which always has bad consequences.

[/ QUOTE ]
Its rational to chose to have sex and avoid pregnancy. and its also natural for a sentient being to be rational in that way.

You still haven't provided any reasonable argument as for your 'natural end' claim and it just sounds like you claim that what you think is right is natural. perhaps you can clear it up.

1) what is the objective distinction between a natural and unnatural end.

2) assuming you answer 1), why is it immoral to choose the unnatural option.

chez

[magiluke]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If something has no logical theory, then it cannot be explained. Do you know what explaining means? It means showing the logic and causality behind it, preferably including empirical evidence.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's Wikipedia's definition:

An explanation is a statement which points to causes, context and consequences of some object (or process, state of affairs etc.), together with rules or laws which link these to the object. Some of these elements of the explanation may be implicit.

I don't see how you can't explain religion as according to this definition.

Nah... I guess I just don't care any more.

[/ QUOTE ]

I assume you just forfeited your point as is clearly shown by the definition you gave.

[/ QUOTE ]

I started typing something, then I realized that I don't care enough to feel like arguing.

[CallMeIshmael]

Peter666...

Many animals (especially the primates) engage in homosexual behaviour. They also masturbate (sometimes engaging in mutal masturbation).

These are all acts of sex without the possibility of procreation. Are these all morally wrong?


Also, does human masturbation/oral sex fall into the same category as protected intercourse?

[Peter666]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"You need to demonstrate that not only ought people to have kids but that everytime they have sex it needs to include the possibility of procreation."

But people don't have to have kids, they just need to justify their free choices. And that justification must take into consideration all the real consequences, and not just the ones we like.

My claim is that as rational animals, all free choice must be made rationally and have a rational end. Pleasure can be a rational end so long as it does not interfere with any other natural ends of that particular good action. By interfering with those other rational ends, you stump the process which always has bad consequences.

[/ QUOTE ]
Its rational to chose to have sex and avoid pregnancy. and its also natural for a sentient being to be rational in that way.

You still haven't provided any reasonable argument as for your 'natural end' claim and it just sounds like you claim that what you think is right is natural. perhaps you can clear it up.

1) what is the objective distinction between a natural and unnatural end.

2) assuming you answer 1), why is it immoral to choose the unnatural option.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

What is unnatural is done at our behest. What is natural is not done at our behest. To choose that which is unnatural is not wrong, so long as it does not subvert the attempts of the natural. To subvert the natural consequences while engaging in natural activities is the perversion of nature.

Contraception is the attempt to secure individual sexual satisfaction while getting rid of the responsibilities attached to it. It is an attempt to replace natural law with an artificial convention. But natural law can never be replaced. A human being trying to avoid pregnancy while having sex and coming up with an excuse for it is an attempt at rationalization, but is not rational in itself.

What must be made absolutely clear in this matter is:Sex is not made for the individual, it is made for the species as a whole. We are social creatures whether we like it or not.

[Peter666]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"you need a rationalisation for it not being so, and your rationalisation for that is your religion."

This is not true. The rationalisation for it not being so is simply natural and not religious. We let nature take its course in a good cause (procreation and pleasure). That's what we ought to do. Whether the baby comes or not is irrelevant to the ethical action. The only choice we have is to inhibit the end or not to, and choices are always either ethical or unethical.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not sure if you are intentinally avoiding the fact, that if coitus rather rarely results in delivery, that the primary puropse of sex may very well be pleasure in the natural order of things. To view it as primarily to be for continuation of the species, seems to me to distort the intention of god (ie not in accorad with the facts). That is the sense in which I feel that the ascetic inclinations, self-inflictions of suffering (sacrifice etc..) and avoidance of pleasure are neurotic expresssions in some religions.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree completely that trying to suppress the pleasure associated with sex is also unethical. Anybody who views the natural pleasure of sex as evil is perverted too.

The procreative aspect and pleasure aspect go hand in hand. That's why artificial insemination, which perverts the natural process, is also unethical.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
Sex is not made for the individual, it is made for the species as a whole.

[/ QUOTE ]

That assumes that sex was made. Made by whom? If it is the product of evolution, then is should seem that it came into existence without any intended goal.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
What is unnatural is done at our behest. What is natural is not done at our behest.

[/ QUOTE ]
Everything we do conciously is at our behest, so still no objective distinction between natural and unnatural - its still just what you do or don't approve of.

[ QUOTE ]
To choose that which is unnatural is not wrong, so long as it does not subvert the attempts of the natural

[/ QUOTE ]
why? are you going to make any attempt to justify this or is it just your arbitary view? I can't comment as you haven't yet given any means of distinguishing natural from unnatural.

[ QUOTE ]
What must be made absolutely clear in this matter is:Sex is not made for the individual, it is made for the species as a whole.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why is this of any ethical concern. The species is not in need of my offspring. Ethically, the reverse seems more reasonable - there's no shortage of humans

chez

[Peter666]

"Everything we do conciously is at our behest, so still no objective distinction between natural and unnatural - its still just what you do or don't approve of."

Absolutely not. This is just using the sophisms of certain modern philosophers against objective common sense. If you don't believe me, try to not breathe, eat, poo, or get horny and tell me the results after a while.

"Why is this of any ethical concern. The species is not in need of my offspring. Ethically, the reverse seems more reasonable - there's no shortage of humans"

Why do you make the decision of what's best for the entire species? Nature decides what is best to propagate the species, not any of us.

[Peter666]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sex is not made for the individual, it is made for the species as a whole.

[/ QUOTE ]

That assumes that sex was made. Made by whom? If it is the product of evolution, then is should seem that it came into existence without any intended goal.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course we must accept the supposition that there is some sort of order in the universe. If this is not accepted, than chaos is the only alternative.

But the fact that you are using ordered words and sentences to convey abstract ideas that discuss objective realities makes the chaos theory null and void.

Ethics presupposes the conclusions of metaphysics.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
The rightness or wrongness of an action is dictated by its final end. Contraception for example is an artificial nullification of the sex act. The primary reason for sex is procreation. A secondary reason can never absolutely substitute the primary reason without being unethical.

So there is your argument. Now demonstrate.

[/ QUOTE ]
What evidence do you have that the primary reason for sex is procreation? This seems like an arbitrary assigning of privileged status to one of the many consequences of sex.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
"Everything we do conciously is at our behest, so still no objective distinction between natural and unnatural - its still just what you do or don't approve of."

Absolutely not. This is just using the sophisms of certain modern philosophers against objective common sense. If you don't believe me, try to not breathe, eat, poo, or get horny and tell me the results after a while.

[/ QUOTE ]
Come on don't be silly, we're talking about things we chose to do or not. We consciously chose whether to have sex or not and whether or not to use contraceptive. Whichever is chosen they are all at our behest.

So still nothing close to a distinction between natural and unnatural.

[ QUOTE ]
Why do you make the decision of what's best for the entire species? Nature decides what is best to propagate the species, not any of us.

[/ QUOTE ]
Nature doesn't decide what's best for anything. Unless you invoke god then nature's dumb - it has nothing to say about ethics or what's best or anything at all.

Nature just is, and anything that is within our nature is natural. For example its natural for you to claim that things you don't approve of are unnatural - it's just natural intolerence.

chez

[atrifix]

[ QUOTE ]
What is unnatural is done at our behest. What is natural is not done at our behest.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sex is done at our behest, so it is unnatural. The end of sex is procreation. Therefore procreation is unnatural.
QED

[ QUOTE ]
I have never seen a large unhappy family.

[/ QUOTE ]

Have you ever been to Niger?

[atrifix]

[ QUOTE ]
What is unnatural is done at our behest. What is natural is not done at our behest. To choose that which is unnatural is not wrong, so long as it does not subvert the attempts of the natural. To subvert the natural consequences while engaging in natural activities is the perversion of nature.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or: What is natural is good. The primary reason for sex is to spread AIDS. Not spreading AIDS is a perversion of nature. So spreading AIDS is good. Contraception limits the spread of AIDS, so contraception is bad.

[Peter666]

I have already stated that the end must be good if stumping the process is to be judged as evil.

But you and atrix or whatever have brought up a very interesting question with your speculation about AIDS. You guys seem to make one of the worst conditions in existence, and it probably is. But answer this question:

Is it better to have never existed and not have AIDS, or to have existed and have had AIDS?

I don't know why the millions of people with AIDS are not committing mass suicide if ceasing to exist is so much better as you guys make it seem.

This is an example of conventions trying to overcome nature.

[Peter666]

"We consciously chose whether to have sex or not and whether or not to use contraceptive. Whichever is chosen they are all at our behest."

I still do not agree and don't know why you can't make a distinction. Unlike contraception, man has a natural inclination towards sex. It is within his nature and he can't hide from it. It is in the nature of all animals to reproduce. Whether he chooses to do it or not is a different matter. But he can't hide from the desire.

Contraception had to be rationalized, and was never a natural inclination or desire of man.

Men and women will always have the desire to have sex. Men and women will not always have the desire to pierce their nipples. Here is a distinction between the natural law and unnatural conventions. Contraception likewise is an unnatural convention.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
Is it better to have never existed and not have AIDS, or to have existed and have had AIDS?

[/ QUOTE ]

It is better not to have ever existed, regardless of having AIDS or not. The only light at the end of the tunnel is that life is finite. The only reason not to commit suicide is compassion. [probably beyond you Peter]

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
"We consciously chose whether to have sex or not and whether or not to use contraceptive. Whichever is chosen they are all at our behest."

I still do not agree and don't know why you can't make a distinction. Unlike contraception, man has a natural inclination towards sex. It is within his nature and he can't hide from it. It is in the nature of all animals to reproduce. Whether he chooses to do it or not is a different matter. But he can't hide from the desire.

Contraception had to be rationalized, and was never a natural inclination or desire of man.

Men and women will always have the desire to have sex. Men and women will not always have the desire to pierce their nipples. Here is a distinction between the natural law and unnatural conventions. Contraception likewise is an unnatural convention.

[/ QUOTE ]
Its not a matter of whether you agree or not. If your argument about natural and unnatural desires is to make any sense then its necessary (but not sufficient) that you have an objective distinction between them.

Now you've moved from behest and talk about inclinations and conventions but they are still purely subjective on your part.

Then you talk of instinct and desires which cannot be hidden from, which seems more of a possibility but is that what you really want? Anything that involves thought and involuntary desire isn't natural? Trouble is the instinct of many of us (maybe its not what the catholic church wants /images/graemlins/smile.gif) is to think about things.

Essentially you're saying that using our sentience is unnatural. I can simply disagree but if that's the definition you want to satisfy part 1) then you need to deal with part 2) and show that using our sentience to behave in a way animals wouldn't is unethical - just sounds like nonsense to me as its only because we are sentient that there is any possibility of behaving ethicaly at all.

chez

[Peter666]

"It is better not to have ever existed, regardless of having AIDS or not. The only light at the end of the tunnel is that life is finite. The only reason not to commit suicide is compassion. [probably beyond you Peter]"

Wow, that is the most pessimisstic, bleakest philosophy of life I have ever heard. If it was better to have never existed, than surely "compassion" (your reason to exist) is just nature's joke on you. Why wouldn't you use your rational brain to come to this conclusion and then end this life after you experience some pain?

I can only say that if life really is chaos, the only philosophy that makes sense is Nietszche who uses man's powers to totally extract what he can from it without regard to morals or other persons' feelings. To hell with compassion.

[Peter666]

"Essentially you're saying that using our sentience is unnatural."

Those are your words, not mine. How can using something that is programmed within our nature be unnatural?

It is the conclusions we draw by using our sentience that are important, and tells us whether it is natural or unnatural. Whether the conclusions are ethical or not depends on the means to the end they wish to achieve and not on their naturalness.

There is nothing unethical about being unnatural so long as that unnaturalness does not lead to perverted means to ends, or simply to bad ends.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
"Essentially you're saying that using our sentience is unnatural."

Those are your words, not mine. How can using something that is programmed within our nature be unnatural?

It is the conclusions we draw by using our sentience that are important, and tells us whether it is natural or unnatural. Whether the conclusions are ethical or not depends on the means to the end they wish to achieve and not on their naturalness.

There is nothing unethical about being unnatural so long as that unnaturalness does not lead to perverted means to ends, or simply to bad ends.

[/ QUOTE ]
Fine we can agree on that. So homosexuality, using contraceptives, even <gasp> monogomy can all be ethical. They can also be natural by your new improved definition.

That leaves the tradional ethical question of which ends are good and which bad which you now seem to acknowledge is independent of any idea of naturalness.

chez

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
Peter666...

Many animals (especially the primates) engage in homosexual behaviour. They also masturbate (sometimes engaging in mutal masturbation).

These are all acts of sex without the possibility of procreation. Are these all morally wrong?


Also, does human masturbation/oral sex fall into the same category as protected intercourse?

[/ QUOTE ]


Peter, you have posted several times since I posted this quetsion but have left it unanswered.

I need to know: are monkeys who have gay relations living in sin? And, IF SO, where can I get some stones?

[atrifix]

[ QUOTE ]
But you and atrix or whatever

[/ QUOTE ]

C'mon, two letters can't be that hard.

[ QUOTE ]
have brought up a very interesting question with your speculation about AIDS. You guys seem to make one of the worst conditions in existence, and it probably is. But answer this question:

Is it better to have never existed and not have AIDS, or to have existed and have had AIDS?

[/ QUOTE ]

My point had nothing to do with this. My point was that you said that the primary end of sex was procreation. I no less authoritatively claimed that the primary end of sex was to spread AIDS. Since spreading AIDS is natural, it must be good (or at least better than the unnatural prevention of spreading AIDS).

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
The only reason not to commit suicide is compassion.

[/ QUOTE ]


So, all the animals that arent killing themselves, are they compassionate, or just cant find some good cyanide?



Humans dont kill themselves because its evolutionarily favourable. Its gonna take one hell of an arugment before Im convinved compassion is the only emotion that is a means to that end.

[benjdm]

[ QUOTE ]
I think this story will be very, very compelling to you. The story about the invisible apple:
http://www.freedomainradio.com/Traffic_Jams/how_to_control_a_human_soul.mp3

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm about an hour through it. I think it's pretty good but I think the speaker sets up some false dichotomies of conclusions the child has to choose between.

[Dominic]

God FAQ (http://www.400monkeys.com/God/)

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
Why, if God is all-loving and all-powerful, does he refuse to show himself clearly to us? What is the point of making it so difficult to believe in him? He could allay all doubt, (and all the spiritual suffering that doubt causes), and likely end all the death and destruction that religious wars have wrought – simply by showing himself clearly to humankind.

[/ QUOTE ]

The one thing that makes me believe in God is free will. I believe men have free will. It seems to me that if man came into being purely as a result of the laws of physics, our wills would be deterministic.

If God came down and clearly showed himself to us and instructed us on exactly how we should behave so there is no doubt whatsoever, would man still have free will or a coierced will? If God wants man to have free will it seems to me he would keep his existence somewhat in doubt.

Stu

[revots33]

I appreciate all the replies. Regardless of your points of view, you've all given me a lot to think about and it helps.

[ QUOTE ]
For example, when a couple initially falls in love, all is great because the emotions are corresponding. However, after some time, this first fervour dies down. Yet conveniently, nature usually intervenes at this point by producing a child. And this child has the terrific effect of renewing the love and admiration within the couple. I have never seen a large unhappy family.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is probably another reason I've felt unhappy in my Catholic faith lately. My wife and I do not have children, nor do we plan to. (And yes we are quite happily married). So we are effectively committing a sin by having sex. I also feel like somewhat of an outcast in a church where couples without children seem to be pitied or at the very least looked down upon.

I think this is likely the beginning of a long journey for me. I am planning on reading as much as I can and learning as much as I can about this faith that I always accepted without questioning. I am currently reading "Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis and plan to follow up with Bertrand Russell's "Why I am Not a Christian". Any other reading suggestions would be appreciated. I look forward to learning and hopefully forming a personal worldview that I can truly believe in.

Thank you all again.

[atrifix]

[ QUOTE ]
The one thing that makes me believe in God is free will. I believe men have free will. It seems to me that if man came into being purely as a result of the laws of physics, our wills would be deterministic.

[/ QUOTE ]

Modern physics is indeterministic rather than deterministic. And if you take exception to the indeterminstic view because random luck isn't "free", you are going to have the same problem after you posit the existence of God, unless you also endow him with the power to do contradictory things. Denying the law of noncontradiction leads to other problems, though. And having free will does not necessitate any of the three characteristics that philosophers usually assign to God (omnipotent, omniscient, or omnibenevolent).

Also, having free will is an assumption that is not at all clear to me, but I'll accept that.

[ QUOTE ]
If God came down and clearly showed himself to us and instructed us on exactly how we should behave so there is no doubt whatsoever, would man still have free will or a coierced will? If God wants man to have free will it seems to me he would keep his existence somewhat in doubt.

Stu

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see why this is. How does knowing what the right thing is to do preclude you from doing the wrong thing?

[atrifix]

[ QUOTE ]
Any other reading suggestions would be appreciated. I look forward to learning and hopefully forming a personal worldview that I can truly believe in.

Thank you all again.

[/ QUOTE ]

Make certain that you read some eastern philosophy/religion/popular texts. If you're anything like most people, you are overwhemled with western ideas and more or less ignorant of eastern ones. I suggest looking into Buddhism/Confucianism/Taoism.

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think this story will be very, very compelling to you. The story about the invisible apple:
http://www.freedomainradio.com/Traffic_Jams/how_to_control_a_human_soul.mp3

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm about an hour through it. I think it's pretty good but I think the speaker sets up some false dichotomies of conclusions the child has to choose between.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me know which ones those are when you're through.

[benjdm]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think this story will be very, very compelling to you. The story about the invisible apple:
http://www.freedomainradio.com/Traffic_Jams/how_to_control_a_human_soul.mp3

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm about an hour through it. I think it's pretty good but I think the speaker sets up some false dichotomies of conclusions the child has to choose between.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me know which ones those are when you're through.

[/ QUOTE ]
Finished it. I am glad I listened to it. To me, the big false dichotomy he sets up for the child is the my parents are trying to screw me up, I must hate them or I am defective. I know my parents weren't particularly religious but when they were, I just kept my opinion to myself and disagreed with them. I can't recall feeling threatened by praying or going to confession. I know I have some kind of ingrained arrogance in that I am perfectly comfortable with my own judgement on matters regardless of who agrees with me. Being 34, though, who knows how fuzzy my memory is. But I can't recall ever accepting any faith based knowledge once I learned contradictory faith based knowledge existed.

The only other point that annoyed me was toward the end when he was getting a little too far on the anti-group anti-weaponry slant. To me, being unwilling to employ weapons to hurt others is essentially saying you are willing to die yourself before you kill someone else in defense. I am not nearly so pacifistic - more in theory than in practice. Same thing with his individual vs. group thing. He seemed much more concerned about what SHOULD be and less concerned with the messy reality of some people acting the way they SHOULD while others were violent sheeple.

It was quite interesting and I'm glad I found the time to listen to it.

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think this story will be very, very compelling to you. The story about the invisible apple:
http://www.freedomainradio.com/Traffic_Jams/how_to_control_a_human_soul.mp3

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm about an hour through it. I think it's pretty good but I think the speaker sets up some false dichotomies of conclusions the child has to choose between.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me know which ones those are when you're through.

[/ QUOTE ]
Finished it. I am glad I listened to it. To me, the big false dichotomy he sets up for the child is the my parents are trying to screw me up, I must hate them or I am defective. I know my parents weren't particularly religious but when they were, I just kept my opinion to myself and disagreed with them. I can't recall feeling threatened by praying or going to confession. I know I have some kind of ingrained arrogance in that I am perfectly comfortable with my own judgement on matters regardless of who agrees with me. Being 34, though, who knows how fuzzy my memory is. But I can't recall ever accepting any faith based knowledge once I learned contradictory faith based knowledge existed.

The only other point that annoyed me was toward the end when he was getting a little too far on the anti-group anti-weaponry slant. To me, being unwilling to employ weapons to hurt others is essentially saying you are willing to die yourself before you kill someone else in defense. I am not nearly so pacifistic - more in theory than in practice. Same thing with his individual vs. group thing. He seemed much more concerned about what SHOULD be and less concerned with the messy reality of some people acting the way they SHOULD while others were violent sheeple.

It was quite interesting and I'm glad I found the time to listen to it.

[/ QUOTE ]

The child is faced with an impossible situation; which is placed earlier than what you are talking about. What happens is a person must deal with it, and this is where the false self comes in (the false self is a metaphor, but equally real).

Prayer, confession, etc, comes much later.

That was actually a two-parter, this is the second part:
http://www.freedomainradio.com/Traffic_Jams/culture.mp3

And it's part of this:
http://www.freedomainradio.com/index_files/listen_in.htm

So yeah, quite an advanced topic and the things you mention are probably dealt with earlier; although I'm not sure what points you are actually talking about. But: the fact that you couldn't place these things was also because you're diving quite deep into it.

If you want to talk more about the impossible choice you can pm me for IM/skype, or come onto the board:
http://www.freedomainradio.com/board/forums/ .

[CallMeIshmael]

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...c=1#Post6252054 (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=6252054&page=0&vc=1#Post 6252054)

I think those who argued with peter about contraception might be interested in that thread.

Also, I mean, isnt this the definition of trolling? This has to be bannable.