Atheism-o-phobia Part 2

Brother_Chris · November 16, 2010, 7:59pm

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
Cortes, I wasn’t trying to disparage the tilma…it was your own quote that referenced it as an apron.

My point is that religious people sometimes use pseudo science to bolster their supernatural claims, but inevitably when you test their claims in a controlled scientific setting they prove false. Any attempts to conduct these studies are dismissed as sacrilegious, as if their god is offended by actual proof and instead insists on faith, which is belief without proof.

Is it any wonder that faith gets such high billing in the religious world? Imagine what would happen if the tilma was actually tested in a controlled setting, and proved to be destructible like any other piece of cloth.

Take a step back and think for a minute. Science is based on the principle of repeatability. Any hypothesis that cannot be tested and replicated by an objective observer is useless, because it cannot be reliably confirmed or disconfirmed.

You may be firm in your religious beliefs, and unwilling to question whether they are grounded in reality. Just in case though, I highly recommend reading “Demon Haunted World” by Carl Sagan. He discusses these cognitive fallacies and the (imperfect but preferable) protection science offers from them. [/quote]

Ugh…I guess you don’t get it, yet. Not everything is repeatable. And, as Catholics not everything is true because “science” can prove it. We’re not skeptics, we’ll take something as truth because there are witnesses.[/quote]

Believing in something on hearsay, without the ability to repeat or scientifically confirm the claim, is tantamount to wishful thinking. This is why there are so many different religions, because nobody provides actual proof for their claims. [/quote]
There are many things that we all believe and consider reasonable to believe that cannot be scientifically proven, such as logic, there are minds out there that are not my own and even science itself which presupposes logic.[/quote]

As I’ve pointed out, religion is full of logical inconsistencies. For example, a prime mover is logically impossible because nothing created it…the whole idea is predicated on the necessity of a creator and the created, but it logically fails to answer what created the creator.[/quote]

How is it logically impossible?

Brother_Chris · November 16, 2010, 8:00pm

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
I never said defining evil is the same as creating evil.[/quote]

End of objection.[/quote]

Does you statement mean that evil doesn’t exist until defined by humans? Or that evil exists regardless (even prior) of human definition, belief, opinion, or even whim? Let’s shed some light here.[/quote]

I’m saying that evil is defined by humans, but the process of defining evil doesn’t equate to doing evil. Every priest on the planet has his own definition of evil, and many disagree with one another, but that doesn’t mean they actually do evil according to their own or another priest’s belief system. Definition is not causation.[/quote]

How is each priest’s definition different?

Brother_Chris · November 16, 2010, 8:01pm

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
Where is the justice in creating good souls that choose right and are blessed for it, and evil souls that choose wrong and are punished for it?[/quote]

Don’t know. That’s not my theology/faith. You’ll have to find and talk to them (whatever adherents practice such a faith).[/quote]

You suffer from the same logical fallacy, because you assert a prime mover while insisting on the existence of free will. So answer the question: what quality of a person causes them to choose evil or good?[/quote]

Their free will. [/quote]

That’s not what I asked.

Free will is the free exercise of will.

But what causes the will itself? Where does the will come from?[/quote]

The will created by God, he gave us the ability to exercise His will, or to choose our will.

Brother_Chris · November 16, 2010, 8:02pm

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
You suffer from the same logical fallacy, because you assert a prime mover while insisting on the existence of free will[/quote]

I take it you’re of the “illusion of free will” camp?[/quote]

Not necessarily. If we are entirely created, we cannot logically have free will. Logically, free will is only possible if the part of us that makes choices has always existed.

So have our wills always existed? I doubt it, but it’s theoretically possible. [/quote]

Are you saying that God’s omnipotence allows Him to create evil, but not free will? Are you limiting God’s omnipotence?

Brother_Chris · November 16, 2010, 8:06pm

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Swole, were the actions of the Boston Strangler evil (if you’re uncomfortable with the word, ‘wrong’ will suffice)?[/quote]

We are not talking here about my definition of evil or wrong. [/quote]

Answer the question.[/quote]

Okay. I’ll play along - I think his actions were wrong. [/quote]

You’re now responsible for creating and maintaing the evil of his acts. [/quote]

COME ON! Seriously… Sloth, I can confidently say that you are not this stupid.

I am not omnipotent.

Omnipotent - Having unlimited power; able to do anything. Having ultimate power and influence.

The concepts of right and wrong existed long before I did. But, they did not exist before your god, as you define him. The difference here is the most vast divide conceivable. [/quote]

Just because God is all powerful does not mean he doesn’t have limits on himself, otherwise known as characteristics. God is good, nothing that is not good is in Him. God cannot create a rock so heavy God couldn’t pick it up, it’s illogical. God cannot create evil, he created free will and knowledge, we choose knowledge over immortality.[/quote]

Right… honestly, I was just trying to point out the illogicality of god as the prime mover.

I think it is safe to say that much of christian theology falls outside of the bounds of logic. That’s fine. I really do not begrudge anyone for believing on something that is not logical. My mind doesn’t work that way, though. [/quote]

Besides the idea that reason has created more madmen in this world than anything else, I have no qualms with reason, what parts of Christianity does not use logic?

forlife · November 16, 2010, 8:08pm

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

Not necessarily. If we are entirely created, we cannot logically have free will.[/quote]

Uh, you realize we didn’t create ourselves through force of will, correct? Through dumb processes alone, or through dumb processes set into motion by an intelligence, we were brought into being. You either deny free will under both possibilities, or neither.

Uh…

No, it’s not. Not by a natural/materialistic explanation. Your ‘will’ is an emergent property of an organ supported by other organs. Which in turn display emergent properties of tissues, and then cells the simplest unit of life. Brain dies/doesn’t exist, no will. So no, you don’t accept free will. In which case morality too is an illusion to you. There are only actions, reactions, and risk assesments. [/quote]

Like I said, I doubt it, but it’s as theoretically possible as is the existence of a god. If a god could always exist, it’s possible that our wills could always exist in some supernatural reality that none of us fully comprehends. Some religions believe all of us are immortal, in fact. Maybe they’re right, but again I doubt it.

forlife · November 16, 2010, 8:12pm

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
Cortes, I wasn’t trying to disparage the tilma…it was your own quote that referenced it as an apron.

My point is that religious people sometimes use pseudo science to bolster their supernatural claims, but inevitably when you test their claims in a controlled scientific setting they prove false. Any attempts to conduct these studies are dismissed as sacrilegious, as if their god is offended by actual proof and instead insists on faith, which is belief without proof.

Is it any wonder that faith gets such high billing in the religious world? Imagine what would happen if the tilma was actually tested in a controlled setting, and proved to be destructible like any other piece of cloth.

Take a step back and think for a minute. Science is based on the principle of repeatability. Any hypothesis that cannot be tested and replicated by an objective observer is useless, because it cannot be reliably confirmed or disconfirmed.

You may be firm in your religious beliefs, and unwilling to question whether they are grounded in reality. Just in case though, I highly recommend reading “Demon Haunted World” by Carl Sagan. He discusses these cognitive fallacies and the (imperfect but preferable) protection science offers from them. [/quote]

Ugh…I guess you don’t get it, yet. Not everything is repeatable. And, as Catholics not everything is true because “science” can prove it. We’re not skeptics, we’ll take something as truth because there are witnesses.[/quote]

Believing in something on hearsay, without the ability to repeat or scientifically confirm the claim, is tantamount to wishful thinking. This is why there are so many different religions, because nobody provides actual proof for their claims. [/quote]
There are many things that we all believe and consider reasonable to believe that cannot be scientifically proven, such as logic, there are minds out there that are not my own and even science itself which presupposes logic.[/quote]

As I’ve pointed out, religion is full of logical inconsistencies. For example, a prime mover is logically impossible because nothing created it…the whole idea is predicated on the necessity of a creator and the created, but it logically fails to answer what created the creator.[/quote]
You are misrepresenting the cosmological argument, it looks at the causal chain of created things and states that no cause or an infinite regress(which is begging the question) are both less plausible than a first cause.[/quote]

How is a first cause not begging the question? How about the possibility that the universe, or a string of universes, have always existed? That is the most logical conclusion since energy/matter can’t be created or destroyed.

forlife · November 16, 2010, 8:15pm

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
Cortes, I wasn’t trying to disparage the tilma…it was your own quote that referenced it as an apron.

My point is that religious people sometimes use pseudo science to bolster their supernatural claims, but inevitably when you test their claims in a controlled scientific setting they prove false. Any attempts to conduct these studies are dismissed as sacrilegious, as if their god is offended by actual proof and instead insists on faith, which is belief without proof.

Is it any wonder that faith gets such high billing in the religious world? Imagine what would happen if the tilma was actually tested in a controlled setting, and proved to be destructible like any other piece of cloth.

Take a step back and think for a minute. Science is based on the principle of repeatability. Any hypothesis that cannot be tested and replicated by an objective observer is useless, because it cannot be reliably confirmed or disconfirmed.

You may be firm in your religious beliefs, and unwilling to question whether they are grounded in reality. Just in case though, I highly recommend reading “Demon Haunted World” by Carl Sagan. He discusses these cognitive fallacies and the (imperfect but preferable) protection science offers from them. [/quote]

Ugh…I guess you don’t get it, yet. Not everything is repeatable. And, as Catholics not everything is true because “science” can prove it. We’re not skeptics, we’ll take something as truth because there are witnesses.[/quote]

Believing in something on hearsay, without the ability to repeat or scientifically confirm the claim, is tantamount to wishful thinking. This is why there are so many different religions, because nobody provides actual proof for their claims. [/quote]

How does the Catholic Church not provided actual proof?[/quote]

Its core claims are not subject to scientific inquiry, and those claims that actually could be tested (like the claim that the tilma is divinely protected) are refused scientific access.

forlife · November 16, 2010, 8:22pm

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

Fairy tales posit the existence of something in the universe, whether natural or supernatural, without providing evidence for the claim. Values are not fairy tales, but the hypothetical existence of a supernatural being is.
[/quote]

Show me these values in the universe. If you say ‘feelings’ or ‘opinion,’ well, you’ll have stalemated yourself with the religious.[/quote]

Again, fairy tales posit the material existence of objects in the universe like gods, aliens, or invisible pink unicorns, without reliable evidence to support the claim. Values, perceptions, and emotions aren’t physical objects.

forlife · November 16, 2010, 8:27pm

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
Sloth, you’re confusing definition with causality. The issue is not with your god defining evil, but with your god creating the universe and everything contained within it, good and evil both.

It’s a copout to say god created everyone with free will, because it ignores that little something that causes someone to choose good vs. evil. Whatever you want to call that little something, willpower, conscience, soul, etc., your god created that too. Hence, your god is ultimately responsible for the evil choices that people make. How could it logically be otherwise?[/quote]
Do you really find Tirib’s assertion that God has created us without free will any better? If God wanted us to love him, how could we if he didn’t allow his creation the option not to.[/quote]

Truth doesn’t depend on what I “find better”, I’m just pointing out the logical inconsistency. Any theory that posits a prime mover definitionally makes free will impossible. Think about it. What is the ultimate cause for a person’s choice to do evil? Whether it’s a bad soul, or a sickly conscience or whatever, that something was ultimately created by the hypothetical prime mover.[/quote]

Are you saying something that is omnipotent can’t make freewill? If God can make sons of Abraham from rocks, he can make free will.[/quote]

As you admitted earlier, omnipotence still doesn’t allow for the logically impossible to exist. Just as god can’t create something too heavy for him to pick up, god can’t create free will and simultaneously be the prime mover. If he created the universe, he is ultimately accountable for the universe and everything contained within it.

forlife · November 16, 2010, 8:29pm

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
Where is the justice in creating good souls that choose right and are blessed for it, and evil souls that choose wrong and are punished for it?[/quote]

Don’t know. That’s not my theology/faith. You’ll have to find and talk to them (whatever adherents practice such a faith).[/quote]

You suffer from the same logical fallacy, because you assert a prime mover while insisting on the existence of free will. So answer the question: what quality of a person causes them to choose evil or good?[/quote]

Their free will. [/quote]

That’s not what I asked.

Free will is the free exercise of will.

But what causes the will itself? Where does the will come from?[/quote]

The will created by God, he gave us the ability to exercise His will, or to choose our will.[/quote]

So why did god give some people the will to exercise his will, while he gave others the will to follow their own will instead?

JoabSonOfZeruiah · November 16, 2010, 8:32pm