Catholic church at it again. This time Holland.

Post Reply
Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Catholic church at it again. This time Holland.

Post by Coito ergo sum » Mon Dec 26, 2011 1:17 pm

Seth wrote:
Coito ergo sum wrote:
Coito ergo sum wrote:There isn't any evidence.
Seth wrote: No, there isn't any evidence that you're aware of that you are willing to give credence to. There is, however, evidence.
What is it?
Ask them. I believe the church has archives going back thousands of years documenting their evidence of God.
I have. I've spoken to priests as high as Monsignors, overseeing entire diocese. I've read a great deal of Catholic literature, well beyond the Catholic Bible (which is dramatically different than the Protestant and other non-Catholic versions of the Bible) seeking what they may claim to be their "evidence of God." They make grand claims, yes. But, they don't have evidence. They claim revelation through the man-appointed Pope, and the historical belief in the god-inspired nature of the Bible.

The Catholic Church says this, for example: "History alone allows us to establish the fact that Jews and Christians have always believed in the inspiration of the Bible. But what is this belief worth? Proofs of the rational as well as of the dogmatic order unite in justifying it. Those who first recognized in the Bible a superhuman work had as foundation of their opinion the testimony of the Prophets, of Christ, and of the Apostles, whose Divine mission was sufficiently established by immediate experience or by history. To this purely rational argument can be added the authentic teaching of the Church. A Catholic may claim this additional certitude without falling into a vicious circle, because the infallibility of the Church in its teaching is proved independently of the inspiration of Scripture; the historical value, belonging to Scripture in common with every other authentic and truthful writing, is enough to prove this."

So, the Catholic Church says: (1) folks "always" believed in the inspiration of the Bible, (2) those who first adopted that belief credited the "testimony" of the Prophets, Jesus and the Apostles (and they were deemed trustworthy by experience/history), and (3) it's rational to believe in the god-inspired nature of the Bible because the Church is infallible in this regard and the Church says so.

Now, in no other context would such insipid and trite "logic" be accepted. It boils down to "we believe it because folks have always believed it and authority figures say so and said so." Pure sophistry in the extreme. I've seen you, Seth, hand-wave away better arguments than that with a sniff and a sneer.

This is the "doubt" to which you confer the "benefit."

User avatar
Hermit
Posts: 25806
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am
About me: Cantankerous grump
Location: Ignore lithpt
Contact:

Re: Catholic church at it again. This time Holland.

Post by Hermit » Mon Dec 26, 2011 2:38 pm

Seth wrote:
Coito ergo sum wrote:
Coito ergo sum wrote:There isn't any evidence.
Seth wrote:No, there isn't any evidence that you're aware of that you are willing to give credence to. There is, however, evidence.
What is it?
Ask them. I believe the church has archives going back thousands of years documenting their evidence of God.
Would you care to provide one such example of "evidence for the existence of god"? Should be easy for you, seeing there are archives going back thousands of years documenting this evidence, and since you claim the evidence exists it looks to me that it is incumbent on you to provide at least some of it.

Meanwhile I claim that the existence of gods depends on faith rather than evidence, and that faith is the belief in something without the recourse to evidence. Martin Luther, among others, was very clear on that: "Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but - more frequently than not - struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God." That is pretty much the foundation of circular thinking that enables and underpins belief in the existence of gods. For example: "Why do you believe in the existence of your god?" "Because the bible says so." Why do you think what the bible says is true?" "Because it is the word of my god."
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Catholic church at it again. This time Holland.

Post by Coito ergo sum » Mon Dec 26, 2011 2:44 pm

Seth wrote:
Coito ergo sum wrote:
Seth wrote:
Coito ergo sum wrote:
If you proceed with your rationale, then there is no reason to disbelieve anything.


And why is it necessary to disbelieve anything? Can you not simply have no opinion on a subject because you have no evidence that satisfies your need for proof? "I have no opinion regarding the existence or non-existence of God" is a far more rational response than "God doesn't exist because theists don't prove he exists." That is, after all, what actual "atheism" means, isn't it? What you're telling me is that you're not an atheist, who has a simple "lack of belief in gods," rather you are an "explicit" religious Atheist who positively asserts that God does not exist, but does so without any critically robust evidence of that claim, which makes it a religious belief every bit as much as the belief that God does exist.
Well, I'll tell you, maybe we're saying the same thing. When I say I don't believe in gods, what I mean is that I have no evidence that satisfies my need for proof.
Exactly. I only ask you to recognize that YOUR need for proof is not necessarily the only metric upon which a belief may be based, even a rational belief.
In this case, it is, because the god-believers only offer private revelation, historicity/tradition, and authority as the basis for their belief. To accept that is not rational. It's the same "evidence" offered to support every myth, religion, or cult. To accept that a a rational basis for God would require the same to be accepted for all gods. The Romans were just as certain about Jupiter and the divinity of the Emperor, and they had the same basis. The thing is, it wasn't and isn't rational.

The only reason anyone doesn't accept any theory or assertion as true is because the evidence isn't sufficient to satisfy their need for proof. That includes scientific theories. By your logic, we have to actually accept every scientific theory advanced by anyone, all the time, because we have to assume that the person advancing that theory knows something that we don't. I won't do that, though. It's up the person advancing the theory to prove it, not just assert it.

If what you are talking about is leaving open the possibility that someone making an assertion may well be correct. Well, I do that with everything. There may be unicorns, life on the 3rd planet to left in the Andromeda galaxy, my penis may be 12 inches long erect tonight, and I might really be a multi-millionaire. I suppose I might, but there is no REASON to believe in any of those things. Anyone making those assertions would be called upon to prove them, and their claim that an old book said it, or some authority figure said it, or they received a special delivery of knowledge that means those assertions are true - well, that's not evidence. Yes, it's not evidence sufficient to meet my need for proof; however, it should be insufficient for everyone. Anyone who would accept such things as proof is just not thinking clearly or rationally.

Now - if they say flat out that they feel it and they have faith in it, and they can't "prove" it. All they can say is that they sincerely believe it and they know it to be true in their hearts, well, I can understand that, and I can even respect it. It's not rational for me, however, to believe it.


Seth wrote:
However, I don't just have "no opinion" on things about which I have no evidence that satisfies my need for proof. Example - Santa Claus. I don't believe in Santa Claus. I don't just say I have "no opinion" on him because I have no evidence that satisfies my need for proof. I don't believe in him because I have no evidence that satisfies my need for proof. That's the same thing for life on Pluto. I don't believe in life on Pluto, because there is no evidence of life on Pluto that satisfies my need for proof. Similarly, I don't believe in gods, because there is no evidence that satisfies my need for proof.
Right. But what you're doing is assessing the probabilities of the truth value of the claim and you're assigning a degree of confidence in the truth-value of the claim based on what you know about the proposition. This is the definition of "belief." And belief is an essential component of religion.
It's the definition of "belief" in the sense of having an opinion or conviction that something exists or is true. That is, of course, ONE essential component of religion, but not the only one. There is nothing wrong with having beliefs. I have a belief that there are no gods. The difference is what the "basis" for the belief is. God-believers base their belief on "faith." I don't. I base mine on reason.
Seth wrote:
That doesn't forestall the possibility that there may come a time when evidence arises.


Correct. Nor does it impeach the possibility that there is evidence that you are not aware of or that you are aware of but in which you do not place sufficient confidence in to call it a belief that is in fact true. One can have a false belief based on mistake, error, ignorance or rejection of the evidence.
Of course. There are lots of things I'm not aware of, I think. However, what we're talking about here is that the religious people make an assertion and they don't give us, present us or provide us with the evidence that we are unaware of. I'm aware of what the Catholics say are their proofs/evidences. What they say is the stuff they rely is not rational. It's not that I don't place sufficient confidence in the person making the assertion, or an archaeological finding, etc. It's that I don't place confidence in irrational beliefs - a belief based on the historicity/tradition a book or a belief is true, based on authority figures, and based on assumption that the Church is infallible is not rational. It is a logical fallacy - a house of cards built on unsubstantiated premises - it's bootstrapping of the highest order.

You'll see what I mean when I start responding to instances where you suggest that someone's argument is illogical by using your thought process against you. You'll say "that's not right because you've committed logical fallacy X" (as you are wont to do). I will say in return that the person making the argument might be right, as they might have knowledge to which you are not privy, and also that you just don't place sufficient confidence in their statements. You're only response can be that it is the job of person making the argument to prove it, and to be rational about it, as irrational arguments are, well, irrational (not reasonable). Once you do that, you've shot yourself in the foot. You can't make exception for religious claims - well, you can, but it doesn't make sense that there should be two standards of reason.

Seth wrote:
The religious are the ones who say "I believe and I will always believe in God, and I don't believe and I will never believe in Ahura-Mazda or Thor." I'm open to proof of their existence. The God believers are not.
Correct. But that may be because they have evidence that they find compelling that you do not.
I've heard the evidence that they have presented. Obviously, I can't be sure if they are hiding evidence or keeping it secret. If they are doing that, then it can't be helped. Grimm may have buried the evidence that his fairy tales were true, and JKRowling may be hiding the entrance to the Hogwarts Express. I can't possibly know that. But, I do know what the Catholic Church, various Protests, Jews, Muslims, Mormons, and many other religions base their beliefs in gods on, and it is not reason or evidence. It's faith, and then they build houses of cards based on "tradition," "authority," "revelation," or "miracle." None of those things is rational evidence, and all of those so-called evidences are no stronger proof of the existence of God than it is of gods, Zeus, the divinity of the Roman Emperors or Egyptian kings, the fact that David Koresh was the second coming of Jesus, etc. Given that the same "evidence" can be used to support anything from fairy tale creatures to gods, it isn't reasonable to accept one based on that evidence.
Seth wrote:
But it cannot be said by you that there is "no evidence" because you are neither necessarily privy to what evidence there is, nor are you omniscient and therefore able to claim justifiably that you have knowledge of all the possible evidence demonstrating that God exists.
There is no evidence until the person advancing the theory, notion or fact presents it. Obviously, there may be evidence of gods in some spectrum of existence that we don't have access to. Maybe the gods are standing in front of me, but I can't see, hear, taste, touch or smell them because they have a smell my nose can't detect, live in a light spectrum I can't see, make noises I can't hear, and don't taste like anything I can taste. It's assumed and understood that stuff we don't know we don't know. There still is "no evidence" of those gods. Savvy? It's not reasonable to believe in them.

If what you're asking people to be is open to new evidence that comes to light, then you won't get any argument from too many atheists. What you seem to be doing, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, is arguing that it is reasonable to believe in gods even though there is no evidence known now because someone is entitled to take tradition/history, personal revelation, miracle and authority as "evidence" (even though it is illogical to do so). Well, we'll just have to disagree o that. I don't count that as evidence. Please let me know if you do.
Seth wrote: So any claim you make in that regard must be qualified by your own fallibility and ignorance, and thus, because you are simply assigning a degree of confidence in the truth value of what evidence you do (or do not) know of, you are merely expressing a belief, not a fact.
Well, that's a third grade argument if I've ever heard one.

So, the fact that I reject the Steady State theory of the universe must be qualified by my own fallibility and ignorance, or the fact that I reject a flat earth or a hollow earth theory is just my fallibility and ignorance, because I'm simply assigning a degree of confidence in the truth value of what evidence I do or do not know of, and I am merely expressing a belief, not a fact.

Look - every statement of fact is a statement of belief. You play a shell game with the word "belief." Belief in the primary sense simply means an opinion that something exists or is true. Beliefs can be based on reason or faith. Just because someone says they believe in something doesn't mean they do so just as rationally as anyone else who says they believe in something. Belief in the religious sense means faith. When someone says they "believe" in Jesus, they mean they have faith in him.

When I say, "I believe my desk exists." I base that belief in being able to see it, touch it, bump into it, open it, close it, etc. I have detected it with my senses, and others can repeat that experiment, and they can verify it.

When someone says "I believe God exists." They base that belief in nothing they they see, hear, taste, touch or smell, whether with human senses directly or with the assistance of tools, devices, and implements which improve the range of human perception. They merely state that they have faith in tradition/history of lots of other people holding a belief, the authority of prophets/apostles, and perhaps unverifiable personal revelation or miracle. All that is special pleading. It's not any reason to believe something. Well, except "personal revelation." In that sense, it may be reason for THAT INDIVIDUAL to believe something, but it is certainly no reason for you and me to believe it.

Like the Jodi Foster character in Contact. She saw something in that machine which she knows to be real because all her senses were engaged and she saw, heard, smelled and touched something. However, when she got back she wasn't believed, because all the implements and instruments said that what she said happened, well, simply did not happen. In that case, there really is no reason to believe her. She may swear up and down that she went to another planet and saw her dead father. But, there is no reason to believe her. Why? Because while she is stating that she saw, heard, smelled, tasted or touched something, we all know the human mind is susceptible to a lot of things and that people can believe something happened when it didn't. We aren't RATIONALLY justified in taking her word for it, and that is all we have.

Seth wrote:
I don't believe in them, because there is no evidence for them.
No, YOU are UNAWARE of any evidence for them. That's substantially different from the claim that there is "no evidence for them."
Of course it's that I'm unaware of the evidence for them. But, here it's not a question of being ignorant of the things advanced as evidence. I've heard the evidence of the religious. It isn't.

I am, of course, open to the possibility that someone will come up with evidence that makes sense, just as I am open to the fact that someone may come up with evidence that the Earth is flat, or that it is hollow, or that the universe is in a Steady State. Maybe. But, right now, there isn't any evidence for those things, or gods.
Seth wrote:
The God believers believe in God irrespective of the lack of evidence,


Many of them would tell you that they see evidence of God all around them, every day, in every object that exists.
Many do say that. However, what they are really saying is that they see things and objects all around them, and they arbitrarily attribute those things to a god or gods.
Seth wrote:
Others would tell you of their personal experiences with what they believe is God.
They do say that. But, that isn't evidence I am rationally justified, logically justified, in accepting. Jodi Foster had a personal experience that she traveled to another planet and met her dead father who was hologrammed by aliens to give her a message. No evidence other than her personal experience existed for that happening. There was no reason - no "reason" - to believe her when the evidence from all the equipment and instruments said she was wrong. That isn't to say that the instruments might not be wrong, and she might not be right. She might be. What she thought happened may have happened. But, there is no REASON to believe her.
Seth wrote:
The church might refer you to various "miracles" that are well documented but unexplained by science. So, contrary to your claim, there is evidence, it's just that your belief in that evidence is slight. That does not however mean that there is "no evidence."
You can certainly phrase it that way. However, I don't count miracles as evidence at all, and there is no "reason" to count miracles as evidence. One must act unreasonably to include miracles as evidence, because one is not limited in miracles attributed to God by the Church. To accept THOSE miracles one must reject the miracles in Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Norse, Greek and Roman mythologies. The same miraculous "evidence" supports any belief in anything. That's why it isn't evidence. It is merely an ASSERTION (except perhaps to the individual who thinks they experienced a miracle). THEY may credit their senses. We may not. Well, we may, but we may not REASONABLY credit their senses that a miracle happened. It would be unreasonable to do so. They may be sure, but their certainty is nothing we can rationally rely on. We;'d be committing one of your vaunted logical fallacies, Seth. Can you tell me which one, or do you need me to tell you?
Seth wrote:
and don't believe in Ahura-Mazda or Thor because they have no evidence that satisfies the need for proof.
That is correct. But the qualifier "that satisfies the[ir] need for proof" is a required part of the statement which makes it true.
That is true of everything.

There aren't any unicorns because there is no evidence that satisfies my need for proof. Therefore, I don't believe in them. That's what it means to say that there aren't any evidences for unicorns. There aren't. Sure, they're mentioned in the Bible and in various other writings. Sure, lots of people in the world have believed in them, even some authority figures. However, that isn't evidence. It isn't evidence that can rationally satisfy anyone's need for proof.
Seth wrote:
Everything is plausible and all of science is no more substantiated than magic. We might not be privy to the evidence that the universe is upside down and sideways, and consists of trapezoidal shaped particles, each named Fred, which create reality by playing word games and charades among themselves.

After all, you might not be privy to the evidence.
Indeed. And God may be an advanced, non-corporeal intelligence inhabiting a neighboring membrane universe who created this membrane universe and injected a monoblock of infinitely compressed matter into it as a high-school science experiment...and you may not be privy to that evidence.
[/quote][/quote]

Both are equally evidenced, and the same evidence supports every god ever asserted. So, the trapezoidal particles are playing charades with the gods, maybe. I don't know.

What I do know, however, is it isn't logical or rational to believe in those things.
Seth wrote:
A god might be. But, at the moment, there is no reason to believe that, because there is no evidence sufficient to satisfy my need for proof. So, I don't believe it. I might later, though, if the evidence changes.
Well, this may be true for you, but only because YOUR "need for proof" is a self-imposed limitation that doesn't exist for everyone else. Others may have a lower standard of proof than you do,
Yes, that is true. Very low indeed. Irrational proof, even. Proof that doesn't stand to reason.
Seth wrote:
which does not make their conclusions necessarily or axiomatically incorrect
Who is talking about correct or incorrect? We're talking about belief here. Sure, a person who thinks Hogwarts School for Magic and Wizardry may, in fact, be correct. The question isn't whether they are or aren't correct. The question is whether it is logical or rational to think it is correct. It isn't. It may be correct, of course. But, it isn't logical or rational to accept it as true.
Seth wrote:
because they may have access to proofs that you are not privy to, perhaps in part because you choose not to examine the body of evidence that does exist.

As for your inevitable question "where is it?" I refer you to the Vatican archives.
Your assumption is incorrect. I have thoroughly examined what Catholics and other religious folks think is evidence.

Your reference to Vatican archives is a crock. I've heard the Vatican's position straight from the horse's mouth, and I've read the Vatican's position on the existence of their god straight from the Catholic Church. I don't have to go to the Vatican archives and read every book to make sure that the evidence for their god isn't buried in there somewhere. The Catholic Church is very candid in what they say is evidence for their god - and what they advance as evidence, quite simply, isn't anything a third party can rationally accept. Third parties can't accept miracles or personal revelation (the person who experiences them can certainly do so, with the caveat that their mind may be playing tricks on them), but a third person can't RATIONALLY take as evidence for the existence of gods the fact that someone else saw something amazing or supposedly "miraculous" and attributed to their chosen deity, and a third person can't RATIONALLY take some person revelation that another person had based on that person's reportage of it as evidence for gods.

Saying, "Seth says he experienced a miracle and had a personal revelation where the Catholic God spoke to him, and I trust Seth," -- someone can take that as evidence (their "lower standard of proof" you referred to), but they would not be rational in doing so. They would be arbitrary and capricious, because in accepting that evidence, they would be rejecting thousands of similar claims of equal weight by thousands of other people who claimed thousands of other things.

They aren't rational to accept ancient tomes for this proposition either, because the tomes are just ancient hearsay within hearsay. It's not rational to accept hearsay evidence for the existence of god, and in the case of the Bible, it's multiple hearsay, because we have to trust the translators who wrote and re-wrote the Bible over centuries, and we have to trust the original writers of the books, and we have to trust the people that told the original writers the stories that they wrote down, and then we have to trust the people quoted in the Bible. Example - Moses said "X, Y, and Z," means we have to not only trust Moses, but the people who said he said that, and then the people who wrote it down, and then the people who copied it and recopied it many times over until we get to the earliest version that we have in existence. Someone is free to call that "evidence" all they want, but they aren't free to call it rational or reasonable, because if that is to be considered reasonable evidence, then we must also accept Homer and other ancient Greek writers ancient writings about the shenanigans of the Greek Gods, and the writer of the Norse Heimskringla and Havamal must be credited as evidence as well. Homer and the Heimskringla are not rational evidences for gods, and neither is the Bible.

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Catholic church at it again. This time Holland.

Post by Coito ergo sum » Mon Dec 26, 2011 2:49 pm

bdelugma wrote:Atheists form a most unusual group. They exist to talk about a God they don't believe exists, the ways in which he doesn't exist, and to criticize the behavior of those who think he does. This distinguishes them from the merely non-religious, in whose lives religion plays no part, either to praise or condemn. It also distinguishes them from the religious for whom the gods simply aren't important. This very forum likely would not exist if not for a reaction to God and belief in him. Yet atheists as a whole vocally protest not to believe in anything particular, when the unity of purpose, thought, act, and word make clear that they do.
Your mistake here, or the mistake of the person you are quoting, is that atheists don't "vocally protest not to believe in anything particular." Atheists do believe in things.

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Stabsobermaschinist
Posts: 151265
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:24 am
About me: My posts are related to the thread in the same way Gliese 651b is related to your mother's underwear drawer.
Location: Sitting next to Ayaan in Domus Draconis, and communicating via PMs.
Contact:

Re: Catholic church at it again. This time Holland.

Post by Gawdzilla Sama » Mon Dec 26, 2011 2:51 pm

Coito ergo sum wrote:
bdelugma wrote:Atheists form a most unusual group. They exist to talk about a God they don't believe exists, the ways in which he doesn't exist, and to criticize the behavior of those who think he does. This distinguishes them from the merely non-religious, in whose lives religion plays no part, either to praise or condemn. It also distinguishes them from the religious for whom the gods simply aren't important. This very forum likely would not exist if not for a reaction to God and belief in him. Yet atheists as a whole vocally protest not to believe in anything particular, when the unity of purpose, thought, act, and word make clear that they do.
Your mistake here, or the mistake of the person you are quoting, is that atheists don't "vocally protest not to believe in anything particular." Atheists do believe in things.
"I believe I'll have another beer."
Image
Ein Ubootsoldat wrote:“Ich melde mich ab. Grüssen Sie bitte meine Kameraden.”

User avatar
Robert_S
Cookie Monster
Posts: 13416
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 5:47 am
About me: Too young to die of boredom, too old to grow up.
Location: Illinois
Contact:

Re: Catholic church at it again. This time Holland.

Post by Robert_S » Mon Dec 26, 2011 2:55 pm

Look, just because I was in the bank vault after hours and just because all the money's missing doesn't mean that there's not some evidence somewhere that proves I didn't take it?

Oh.. the new house, car, yacht and bloated bank account? you can't prove that some long lost rich relative hasn't left me a large amount of inheritance with one of the stipulations being that I never anyone who it was?

I mean, it looks like there's a more or less straightforward answer, but you can't prove that there isn't evidence somewhere...
What I've found with a few discussions I've had lately is this self-satisfaction that people express with their proffessed open mindedness. In realty it ammounts to wilful ignorance and intellectual cowardice as they are choosing to not form any sort of opinion on a particular topic. Basically "I don't know and I'm not going to look at any evidence because I'm quite happy on this fence."
-Mr P

The Net is best considered analogous to communication with disincarnate intelligences. As any neophyte would tell you. Do not invoke that which you have no facility to banish.
Audley Strange

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Stabsobermaschinist
Posts: 151265
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:24 am
About me: My posts are related to the thread in the same way Gliese 651b is related to your mother's underwear drawer.
Location: Sitting next to Ayaan in Domus Draconis, and communicating via PMs.
Contact:

Re: Catholic church at it again. This time Holland.

Post by Gawdzilla Sama » Mon Dec 26, 2011 3:04 pm

Robert_S wrote:Look, just because I was in the bank vault after hours and just because all the money's missing doesn't mean that there's not some evidence somewhere that proves I didn't take it?

Oh.. the new house, car, yacht and bloated bank account? you can't prove that some long lost rich relative hasn't left me a large amount of inheritance with one of the stipulations being that I never anyone who it was?

I mean, it looks like there's a more or less straightforward answer, but you can't prove that there isn't evidence somewhere...
I have faith in you, man. :hugs:
Image
Ein Ubootsoldat wrote:“Ich melde mich ab. Grüssen Sie bitte meine Kameraden.”

User avatar
Animavore
Nasty Hombre
Posts: 39276
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:26 am
Location: Ire Land.
Contact:

Re: Catholic church at it again. This time Holland.

Post by Animavore » Mon Dec 26, 2011 3:11 pm

I've been to Catholic school. I know the type of evidence they present. One they love to bandy about is the one of the miracle of Padre Pio's stigmata (which he done to himself using acid). St Patrick's expulsion of snakes from Ireland (unverified by archaeology). The miraculous lighting in a dark ward on a documentary about Mother Teresa (cameraman merely used newly developed Kodak film). Mother Mary visiting some girls at Lourdes (unverified). And so forth like that. It is piss-poor, half-baked and bat-shit. Their standard for evidence is laughably bad. They are a circus, a remarkably unentertaining one, and should be treated as such. I don't know how anyone could lend serious thought to their proposals except those that have already decided they want to believe and seek confirmation with bias.
Libertarianism: The belief that out of all the terrible things governments can do, helping people is the absolute worst.

User avatar
Robert_S
Cookie Monster
Posts: 13416
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 5:47 am
About me: Too young to die of boredom, too old to grow up.
Location: Illinois
Contact:

Re: Catholic church at it again. This time Holland.

Post by Robert_S » Mon Dec 26, 2011 3:25 pm

Animavore wrote:I've been to Catholic school. I know the type of evidence they present. One they love to bandy about is the one of the miracle of Padre Pio's stigmata (which he done to himself using acid). St Patrick's expulsion of snakes from Ireland (unverified by archaeology). The miraculous lighting in a dark ward on a documentary about Mother Teresa (cameraman merely used newly developed Kodak film). Mother Mary visiting some girls at Lourdes (unverified). And so forth like that. It is piss-poor, half-baked and bat-shit. Their standard for evidence is laughably bad. They are a circus, a remarkably unentertaining one, and should be treated as such. I don't know how anyone could lend serious thought to their proposals except those that have already decided they want to believe and seek confirmation with bias.
But they have good evidence stashed away. If they presented it, it would make you less blessed than if you took it on faith:

John 20:29

King James Version (KJV)
Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.
What I've found with a few discussions I've had lately is this self-satisfaction that people express with their proffessed open mindedness. In realty it ammounts to wilful ignorance and intellectual cowardice as they are choosing to not form any sort of opinion on a particular topic. Basically "I don't know and I'm not going to look at any evidence because I'm quite happy on this fence."
-Mr P

The Net is best considered analogous to communication with disincarnate intelligences. As any neophyte would tell you. Do not invoke that which you have no facility to banish.
Audley Strange

User avatar
Animavore
Nasty Hombre
Posts: 39276
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:26 am
Location: Ire Land.
Contact:

Re: Catholic church at it again. This time Holland.

Post by Animavore » Mon Dec 26, 2011 3:32 pm

It shouldn't be surprising that Catholic people have such a want for miracles to the extent they see Jesus' in everything they can. The church doesn't ward them off it or discourage them. Most protestants do, some quite aggressively, because they warn against idolatry. The Catholic church do too. Sort of. They say one thing and do another and are tiresomely vague about everything. They have 'sceptics' who investigate supposed miracles but do they ever announce their findings loudly? No. The supposed miracle gets all the press attention. People flock to it. You might see a brief article in the paper after where they mention in passing the blood on the statue was just rusty water dripping down from the iron rafters above but then mention some waffle about how this could still be God working through natural processes. The revellers still flock. The donations continue.
Why aren't they having official press releases debunking the miracles after they've been investigated loud and clearly? Why aren't they warding off the people making pilgrimage and warning against idolatry? Let's face it, the church don't genuinely want scepticism. They just want reasons to try rationalise their beliefs to outsiders while pandering to their flock and tip-toeing around anything which may make them question them and the miracle business they propagate.
Libertarianism: The belief that out of all the terrible things governments can do, helping people is the absolute worst.

User avatar
Animavore
Nasty Hombre
Posts: 39276
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:26 am
Location: Ire Land.
Contact:

Re: Catholic church at it again. This time Holland.

Post by Animavore » Mon Dec 26, 2011 3:34 pm

Robert_S wrote:
Animavore wrote:I've been to Catholic school. I know the type of evidence they present. One they love to bandy about is the one of the miracle of Padre Pio's stigmata (which he done to himself using acid). St Patrick's expulsion of snakes from Ireland (unverified by archaeology). The miraculous lighting in a dark ward on a documentary about Mother Teresa (cameraman merely used newly developed Kodak film). Mother Mary visiting some girls at Lourdes (unverified). And so forth like that. It is piss-poor, half-baked and bat-shit. Their standard for evidence is laughably bad. They are a circus, a remarkably unentertaining one, and should be treated as such. I don't know how anyone could lend serious thought to their proposals except those that have already decided they want to believe and seek confirmation with bias.
But they have good evidence stashed away. If they presented it, it would make you less blessed than if you took it on faith:

John 20:29

King James Version (KJV)
Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.
How very self-serving and convenient.
Libertarianism: The belief that out of all the terrible things governments can do, helping people is the absolute worst.

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Stabsobermaschinist
Posts: 151265
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:24 am
About me: My posts are related to the thread in the same way Gliese 651b is related to your mother's underwear drawer.
Location: Sitting next to Ayaan in Domus Draconis, and communicating via PMs.
Contact:

Re: Catholic church at it again. This time Holland.

Post by Gawdzilla Sama » Mon Dec 26, 2011 3:36 pm

And no doubt retrofitted.
Image
Ein Ubootsoldat wrote:“Ich melde mich ab. Grüssen Sie bitte meine Kameraden.”

User avatar
Svartalf
Offensive Grail Keeper
Posts: 41035
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:42 pm
Location: Paris France
Contact:

Re: Catholic church at it again. This time Holland.

Post by Svartalf » Mon Dec 26, 2011 3:37 pm

Gawdzilla wrote:
Coito ergo sum wrote:
bdelugma wrote:Atheists form a most unusual group. They exist to talk about a God they don't believe exists, the ways in which he doesn't exist, and to criticize the behavior of those who think he does. This distinguishes them from the merely non-religious, in whose lives religion plays no part, either to praise or condemn. It also distinguishes them from the religious for whom the gods simply aren't important. This very forum likely would not exist if not for a reaction to God and belief in him. Yet atheists as a whole vocally protest not to believe in anything particular, when the unity of purpose, thought, act, and word make clear that they do.
Your mistake here, or the mistake of the person you are quoting, is that atheists don't "vocally protest not to believe in anything particular." Atheists do believe in things.
"I believe I'll have another beer."
I believe there will be suitable beer at the market when I go renew my supply. There, I have expressed faith in something.
Embrace the Darkness, it needs a hug

PC stands for "Patronizing Cocksucker" Randy Ping

User avatar
Robert_S
Cookie Monster
Posts: 13416
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 5:47 am
About me: Too young to die of boredom, too old to grow up.
Location: Illinois
Contact:

Re: Catholic church at it again. This time Holland.

Post by Robert_S » Mon Dec 26, 2011 3:48 pm

Animavore wrote:
Robert_S wrote:
Animavore wrote:I've been to Catholic school. I know the type of evidence they present. One they love to bandy about is the one of the miracle of Padre Pio's stigmata (which he done to himself using acid). St Patrick's expulsion of snakes from Ireland (unverified by archaeology). The miraculous lighting in a dark ward on a documentary about Mother Teresa (cameraman merely used newly developed Kodak film). Mother Mary visiting some girls at Lourdes (unverified). And so forth like that. It is piss-poor, half-baked and bat-shit. Their standard for evidence is laughably bad. They are a circus, a remarkably unentertaining one, and should be treated as such. I don't know how anyone could lend serious thought to their proposals except those that have already decided they want to believe and seek confirmation with bias.
But they have good evidence stashed away. If they presented it, it would make you less blessed than if you took it on faith:

John 20:29

King James Version (KJV)
Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.
How very self-serving and convenient.
They are so humble and selfless that they made themselves out to look like the dimmest, most laughable con-men so that you could have tru-faith™ and what do you do for them in return? You heap contempt upon them and persecute them with you devilish doubt and reason!

Incidentally:

Matthew 5:10
Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Which means you're doing them a favour.
What I've found with a few discussions I've had lately is this self-satisfaction that people express with their proffessed open mindedness. In realty it ammounts to wilful ignorance and intellectual cowardice as they are choosing to not form any sort of opinion on a particular topic. Basically "I don't know and I'm not going to look at any evidence because I'm quite happy on this fence."
-Mr P

The Net is best considered analogous to communication with disincarnate intelligences. As any neophyte would tell you. Do not invoke that which you have no facility to banish.
Audley Strange

User avatar
Animavore
Nasty Hombre
Posts: 39276
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:26 am
Location: Ire Land.
Contact:

Re: Catholic church at it again. This time Holland.

Post by Animavore » Mon Dec 26, 2011 4:01 pm

Robert_S wrote:
Animavore wrote:
Robert_S wrote:
Animavore wrote:I've been to Catholic school. I know the type of evidence they present. One they love to bandy about is the one of the miracle of Padre Pio's stigmata (which he done to himself using acid). St Patrick's expulsion of snakes from Ireland (unverified by archaeology). The miraculous lighting in a dark ward on a documentary about Mother Teresa (cameraman merely used newly developed Kodak film). Mother Mary visiting some girls at Lourdes (unverified). And so forth like that. It is piss-poor, half-baked and bat-shit. Their standard for evidence is laughably bad. They are a circus, a remarkably unentertaining one, and should be treated as such. I don't know how anyone could lend serious thought to their proposals except those that have already decided they want to believe and seek confirmation with bias.
But they have good evidence stashed away. If they presented it, it would make you less blessed than if you took it on faith:

John 20:29

King James Version (KJV)
Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.
How very self-serving and convenient.
They are so humble and selfless that they made themselves out to look like the dimmest, most laughable con-men so that you could have tru-faith™ and what do you do for them in return? You heap contempt upon them and persecute them with you devilish doubt and reason!

Incidentally:

Matthew 5:10
Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Which means you're doing them a favour.
Well of course they are going to say that. Every cult group needs to reassurre their slavishly devoted followers that they are in the right. Even against their own parents who may not be happy about their new chosen lifestyle. And if it means they break off with their parents all the better because they can now join their new found family in a more intense role.

Tiresome.
Libertarianism: The belief that out of all the terrible things governments can do, helping people is the absolute worst.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests