Catholic church at it again. This time Holland.

[Svartalf]

When my granddad died the priest at the funeral said, "John is up there with God now." This is claiming special knowledge he can't possibly know. There is no way he could know that. We didn't mention to him my granddad was an atheist. According to the priest's own religion he should be in hell now.

Now I don't have proof the priest doesn't have special knowledge but I somehow seriously doubt it. The priest made the claim and it is he that should provide evidence that he is privvy to information I'm not.

Faith =/= knowledge

[Animavore]

When my granddad died the priest at the funeral said, "John is up there with God now." This is claiming special knowledge he can't possibly know. There is no way he could know that. We didn't mention to him my granddad was an atheist. According to the priest's own religion he should be in hell now.

Now I don't have proof the priest doesn't have special knowledge but I somehow seriously doubt it. The priest made the claim and it is he that should provide evidence that he is privvy to information I'm not.

Faith =/= knowledge

Where is the faith in that sentence? He made a specific statement. He didn't say, "I have faith that John is up there with God now".

[Svartalf]

You ask if they have special knowledge. They don't, they have faith, and because of that, they act as if they knew when they don't.

[Animavore]

Of course it's not just priests and preachers that do that. You also get people coming up and saying to you things like, "He's in a better place now" on someone's death

[Seth]

Regarding this, Seth, you said, "Fortunately, your definition of "fleece" and "con" doesn't apply. As for child sexual assault, you've yet to prove that it's an organizational objective to "fuck their kids." "

Using your logic, I don't have to prove shit. You can't prove me wrong. I "know" it. If you say I don't, unless I prove it, then you're just being prejudiced. Right?

Minor point, but since you are making the assertive claim in both cases (the church has an organizational objective to fuck kids, the clergy have no special knowledge), ordinarily speaking, the burden of proof lies on you in both cases. Nice dodge though. +2

I never made the affirmative allegation that there was an "organizational objective to fuck kids." I accepted Seth's factual assertion that the proportion of child sex abuse among the priesthood is the same as the general population. That was his assertion. I merely accepted it as true, and drew the conclusion that a religion that can't do better than the general population relative to the rate of child rape doesn't appear to be too good at getting people to behave morally better.

Again, this is fallacious reasoning because you have not analyzed the effects of religion on preventing child rape GENERALLY in society. You are trying to improperly isolate the existence of sociopaths at roughly equivalent rates in society and the clergy and then expand that into a generalize argument that religion is not effective at suppressing child rape without any evidence at all that religion is not already suppressing child rape which might explain why EVERYONE (or a larger proportion) is not raping children. The fact that religion may be IMPERFECT at suppressing the urge to rape children on the part of sexual sociopaths cannot be rationally expanded to support the claim that religion "doesn't appear to be too good at getting people to behave morally better."

This is a false dilemma fallacy:

If religion cannot suppress sexually sociopathic behavior in priests, then religion cannot get people to behave morally.
Religion cannot suppress sexually sociopathic behavior in priests.
Therefore, religion cannot get people to behave morally.

The fallacy is obvious because whether or not religion is 100 percent effective at suppressing sexually sociopathic behavior in priests in no way demonstrates that religion cannot get people to behave morally in other ways, it merely means that religion is not 100 percent effective at suppressing sexually sociopathic behavior either in priests or in the general public.

You really should give up on this argument, because you're just making embarrassing mistakes in logic pursuing it, and I know you're capable of better reasoning.

As for your second point, if a human being claims to have access to spiritual knowledge or the supernatural that other people don't have, then the burden of proof is on them to show it.

According to whom? You? Who made you arbiter of the burden of proof.

Otherwise, we are perfectly justified in assuming that they aren't materially different than other humans in that regard. I.e., the priests are the ones making the affirmative claim.

You may "ASSUME" whatever you like. But that's substantially different from PROVING a claim that they do not have special knowledge or that God does not exist. Your ASSUMPTION is not evidence of anything other than your inability to provide critically robust evidence of the falsity of their claims.

To start with the assumption that human beings are just human beings, rather than human beings with supernatural powers, is not an assertive claim.

Of course it's an assertive claim. You are assertively claiming a number of unsupported things, including an assertion that in order to be privy to special knowledge about God, human priests must have "supernatural powers." I've already explained the error inherent in this bit of illogic, but I'll do so again. Priests need not have "supernatural powers" in order to have received special knowledge about God. In fact, God is not required to have "supernatural powers" in order to communicate special knowledge to priests. All that is required for priests to have "special knowledge" that you are not privy to is that you not be privy to the special knowledge. No "supernatural powers" need be involved. You simply didn't get the memo.

Therefore, your argument fails, again.

The assertive claim would be that certain human beings are not merely human beings, but rather human beings with supernatural powers or special access to spiritual knowledge.

[/quote]

But that's exactly what you are claiming, wrongly.

[Seth]

We don't have to prove them wrong, they have to prove they're right. So far, zero evidence for them.

Actually, they don't have to prove anything. It's Atheists who are making the claim that God does not exist, so it's up to Atheists to prove that claim. People of faith are under no obligation whatsoever to prove the existence of God to unbelievers.

Neither side is under an obligation to do anything.

However, the positive claim is that a god or gods, or God, or some other particular god, exists. The claim that there isn't any proof for there being any such entities is not the positive claim.

It's irrational to accept positive assertions without evidence.

It's you who doesn't have evidence sufficient to convince you, but then again, you're not among the faithful, who appear to have all the evidence they need. The fact that they have evidence that you do not does not mean that there is no evidence, it merely means that YOU do not have the evidence.

I'm told, however, that if you genuinely seek evidence of God's existence, he will provide it to you...if you're honest in your attempt. However, I'm also told that if the only reason you seek evidence of God is to disparage him and confirm your skepticism, he will likely deny you the evidence you seek because, well, he's not required to (or evidently interested in) reveal himself to disbelievers just to satisfy their idle curiosity.

[amused]

We don't know if we're better off with or without religion, or any specific religion since they are just accidents of history.



But I suspect we'll be much better off once religion is more widely regarded as bollocks.

[Coito ergo sum]

You ask if they have special knowledge. They don't, they have faith, and because of that, they act as if they knew when they don't.

Bingo.

They don't know.

They act as if they do.

And, they tell others that they do know, and hold their hand out for money.

[Seth]

Seth, regarding the priest's claim to know about the afterlife, how to reduce time in purgatory, etc. you said, "So? What's your point? Perhaps they do know. Can you prove that they are wrong?"

What is advanced without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Of course...or not.

Accept something without evidence is arbitrary. One might as well accept a madman's claim to be Napoleon. Maybe he is.

Maybe you just aren't privy to the evidence.

They are human beings, and there is no evidence that they have any knowledge or information about supernatural or spiritual matters that anyone else doesn't have.

Based on the lack of any basis for their claims, their claims are baseless. QED.

In your view.

In any view. A claim without any basis, is baseless, by definition.

They claim to have a basis. You simply reject that basis and that claim. That does not make the claim invalid.

But then again you don't have faith.

Right, I don't believe something without proof or evidence.

Evidently, if you go looking for the evidence honestly and with an open heart, it's likely you will find it, or so my religious friends tell me. God, you see, is under no obligation to provide you with evidence unless he wants to do so, and evidently the requirement to be privy to that special knowledge is an honest and open heart. Now, how you go about that I'm not certain of, but my friends tell me that they did so, and they got the evidence they needed to believe.

I see no reason to disbelieve them or deny their experience since I don't know them to be delusional or liars.

In reality, priests are just people who are dedicated to education in their religion, and they DO have a hell of a lot of information about their religion that you don't have, and they spend many years studying in the seminary to achieve that knowledge. Whether you believe the knowledge they have or not is completely irrelevant. What is relevant is that THEY believe it, and so do the members of their church.

My suspicion is that most of them know they have no real reason to believe it. I can't prove that. But, I suspect it.

Your skepticism is evidently what prevents you from attaining the knowledge you seek.

Those that do actually believe it concern me, because they are basing belief in some extraordinary things on nothing except some ancient writings and tradition.

Which they believe, based on their experiential evidence, to be true. And so what if they are? So long as they aren't hurting others, and it makes them happy and helps them get through the day, who cares what they believe?

And religion, particularly Catholicism, is much more complex and nuanced than just supernatural claims. It is deeply involved in human psychology and behavior and priests have a good deal of psychological training in addition to their "spiritual" training.

Catholic priests, particularly Jesuits, are some of the most intelligent and well-educated people on the planet, which belies your casual dismissals and insults, and some of the greatest philosophers of all time were Catholic priests.

I didn't opine about their intelligence.

Well, you do so implicitly when you disparage them because you don't think they have evidence for their beliefs.

So whether or not you believe their spiritual claims is not the metric by which they are judged by their followers, who are the only important people in the equation. If they don't think they are being "fleeced," then they aren't being fleeced and they are receiving value for their investment in the church, which is the definition of a fair deal.

Well, certainly they may be snowed into thinking it's a fair deal. In my view, it's a snow job. Everyone is entitled to opine otherwise, though.

Given the fact that there are a billion of them, and in history more than that, including some of the greatest thinkers and intellects of history, I'd say it's you who has a lack of information, not them.

[Animavore]

We don't know if we're better off with or without religion, or any specific religion since they are just accidents of history.

Well our version of Christianity wasn't the only one around in the early days. There were many sects including gnostic ones so any of them could've grew dominant and we'd have a different history. Same with Judaism. They were polytheistic once but the Yahweh-ists took over (read Karen Armstrong's A History of God. Great, well researched book) and again if circumstances had've been different the religion wouldn't have evolved the way it did.
That graph you've posted is highly inaccurate, especially since the so-called 'Dark Ages' were not as dark as once thought. Try Judith Herrin's Byzantium for more about this. Diarmiad McCullough's A History of Christianity is also essential reading.
This is all beyond the scope of this thread though.

[Coito ergo sum]

We don't have to prove them wrong, they have to prove they're right. So far, zero evidence for them.

Actually, they don't have to prove anything. It's Atheists who are making the claim that God does not exist, so it's up to Atheists to prove that claim. People of faith are under no obligation whatsoever to prove the existence of God to unbelievers.

Neither side is under an obligation to do anything.

However, the positive claim is that a god or gods, or God, or some other particular god, exists. The claim that there isn't any proof for there being any such entities is not the positive claim.

It's irrational to accept positive assertions without evidence.

It's you who doesn't have evidence sufficient to convince you, but then again, you're not among the faithful, who appear to have all the evidence they need.

By definition, they don't have evidence, or it wouldn't be "faith." Faith is belief without proof or evidence.

The fact that they have evidence that you do not does not mean that there is no evidence, it merely means that YOU do not have the evidence.

Neither do they. They have faith. Faith is not evidence.

I'm told, however, that if you genuinely seek evidence of God's existence, he will provide it to you...if you're honest in your attempt. However, I'm also told that if the only reason you seek evidence of God is to disparage him and confirm your skepticism, he will likely deny you the evidence you seek because, well, he's not required to (or evidently interested in) reveal himself to disbelievers just to satisfy their idle curiosity.

That is sophistry, and begging the question.

Told by whom?

On what basis do they claim to know that?

[Seth]

When my granddad died the priest at the funeral said, "John is up there with God now." This is claiming special knowledge he can't possibly know. There is no way he could know that. We didn't mention to him my granddad was an atheist. According to the priest's own religion he should be in hell now.

Now I don't have proof the priest doesn't have special knowledge but I somehow seriously doubt it. The priest made the claim and it is he that should provide evidence that he is privvy to information I'm not.

Except in this case, it isn't the preist making the claim, but Coito, as a premise in his argument against the church. Bluntly speaking, I don't think they have any special knowledge, but I'm not going to include that as a premise of any substantial argument I choose to make either, at least not without better support. At minimum, it's tactically unwise.

The only assertion I made was that priests are human beings.

Unless someone proves that a human being has some powers beyond that of a human being, I think I'm justified in stating that they only have the powers of a normal human being. If someone wants to claim a pipeline to spiritual knowledge of the afterlife, then it's incumbent upon them to show they have that. Priests do make that claim, every time they opine on what "God" wants, or what the afterlife is like, or purgatory or hell, etc.

As I said before, this is false logic. Priests do not have to have supernatural powers in order to be privy to information that you don't have, and neither does God. All that's required is that you be ignorant of the information. Nor are they under any obligation to show or prove anything to non-believers. And the fact that they don't choose to do so does not support the claim that the information does not exist because the absence of evidence (to you) is not evidence of absence (to the priests), it's just ignorance on your part.

[Seth]

We don't have to prove them wrong, they have to prove they're right. So far, zero evidence for them.

Actually, they don't have to prove anything. It's Atheists who are making the claim that God does not exist, so it's up to Atheists to prove that claim. People of faith are under no obligation whatsoever to prove the existence of God to unbelievers.

Neither side is under an obligation to do anything.

However, the positive claim is that a god or gods, or God, or some other particular god, exists. The claim that there isn't any proof for there being any such entities is not the positive claim.

It's irrational to accept positive assertions without evidence.

It's you who doesn't have evidence sufficient to convince you, but then again, you're not among the faithful, who appear to have all the evidence they need.

By definition, they don't have evidence, or it wouldn't be "faith." Faith is belief without proof or evidence.

Faith is only part of Catholicism.

The fact that they have evidence that you do not does not mean that there is no evidence, it merely means that YOU do not have the evidence.

Neither do they. They have faith. Faith is not evidence.

Strange, because all the Catholics I know have both faith and evidence. Just because you have neither doesn't mean they don't. You are trying to impose your beliefs on them, which is a bad for your credibility.

I'm told, however, that if you genuinely seek evidence of God's existence, he will provide it to you...if you're honest in your attempt. However, I'm also told that if the only reason you seek evidence of God is to disparage him and confirm your skepticism, he will likely deny you the evidence you seek because, well, he's not required to (or evidently interested in) reveal himself to disbelievers just to satisfy their idle curiosity.

That is sophistry, and begging the question.

Told by whom?

By my Catholic friends.

On what basis do they claim to know that?

Evidently, God told them so, using the Bible as a vehicle for communicating that information, which is available to you if you care to examine it.

[Seth]

You ask if they have special knowledge. They don't, they have faith, and because of that, they act as if they knew when they don't.

Er, they have faith AND special knowledge.

[Seth]

Of course it's not just priests and preachers that do that. You also get people coming up and saying to you things like, "He's in a better place now" on someone's death

Well, that may be true. Being in a hole in the ground decomposing may indeed be a "better place" than suffering in agony in a hospital bed.