Hello everyone I’m new here. I’m Roman Catholic. I look forward to sharing discussions with you. There were only two options for subjects to post to. I just wanted to say hello but I don’t want to post a thread that doesn’t follow the subject. So I’ll start with the following.
I assert that my Christian faith, while dependant on believing some things that I can not absolutely know, is as rational as holding the position that God does not exist.
Thank you again for having me.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
catholicray,
Welcome to the cauldron. If you chose to swin with us you will be pushed to your limit but we can be nice when we are not being mean. So come on in and have fun. We can use some new blood.
Hello,
You assertion that your belief is as rational as doubting the existence of the Christian god will be strongly challenged.
I suggest you do not make too long and unformatted posts
Stick to the argument being debated and I think you will enjoy your presence here.
catholicray,
In 1 Corinthians 5:9-13 (TLB) =" 9 When I wrote to you before I said not to mix with evil people. 10 But when I said that I wasn’t talking about unbelievers who live in sexual sin or are greedy cheats and thieves and idol worshipers. For you can’t live in this world without being with people like that. 11 What I meant was that you are not to keep company with anyone who claims to be a brother Christian but indulges in sexual sins, or is greedy, or is a swindler, or worships idols, or is a drunkard, or abusive. Don’t even eat lunch with such a person.
12 It isn’t our job to judge outsiders. But it certainly is our job to judge and deal strongly with those who are members of the church and who are sinning in these ways. 13 God alone is the Judge of those on the outside. But you yourselves must deal with this man and put him out of your church."
Now we all know that the Catholic church has had countless members of its clergy, and even nuns, who have engaged in sexual sins overs the centuries. But the church leadership has generally refused to expel such people from its midst.
As a self-confessed Catholic who professes to believe in Jesus and in the Bible as the word of God why are you still supporting that gang of unrepentant sinners? If they won't leave why won't you leave? By refusing to cut them off from the body don't you think you along with all of them will becast into hell as Jesus said in Matthew 5:29-30? Remember, you as an individual will be judged by your own works on Judgment Day (Revelation 20:13-15) and your name may not be written in the Book of Life because you did not expel the evil person from your midst.
WOW! I was going to wait until his first post before I accused him of supporting pedophilia. And I always wonder if the Catholic supporters know that 50% of their Bishops are gay even though the bible prohibits men lying with men? What do you imagine all those gay Bishops are doing?
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/02/14/europe/vatican-book-analysis/index.html
Good luck again on the site. We are really looking forward to what you have to say. Seriously!
Half the priests and bishops in the US are also gay and Aids is a huge problem among them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8-E_lbdslM
Now I would be happy for the religion to simply admit that being Gay is okay. It's not a big problem for me. But when they openly oppose homosexuality while being homosexual and a Hot Spot for the AIDS epidemic. Something is certainly wrong.
Hello,
You make a claim of god...as it is not proven by you upon your claim, it is not reasonable to even consider. You are asking us to consider your thoughts on something that does not even have a metric to measure within reality. You can not measure something that is not measurable, and then compare it to our reality. That by definition, is irrational.
Welcome catholicray.
As said, your ideas will be strongly challenged here. Some may be funny, some will seem indifferent, some … you'll see.
Come right on in. It ain't called the Debate Room for nothing.
As for, "holding the position that God does not exist." I have never held the position that no deity does not exist. I just do not believe the preposterous claims that are unsubstantiated. I work as a field specialist scientist, thus I need OBJECTIVE HARD EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE.
Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit non ei qui negat.
rmfr
Hi Ray welcome to AR.
As a Christian you believe in a God.
As an atheist I reject your claim that there is a god.
That's all it takes for me to be an atheist. That is as rational as I need to get.
You in the meantime are being modest. You need to beleive in more than just "some things" you can not "absolutely know". You need to believe in a seemingly unending plethora of unproven, mythic, improbable, and impossible biblical and religious superstitions as well.
And its fine if you choose to believe any, or all, of these things. As an ex-christian, I fully understand that position. But whatever you end up believing, it wont be from a position of rationality but of faith.
Even if your Christian faith made you believe in only one thing that you could not absolutely know, then it would still be less rational than my one rejection of your claim.
If the basis of your faith is that your God is real, then you need to prove that God exists, in order to establish any further claim for rationality. Otherwise it is still only a personal belief.
Hope you hang around.
Hi Ray
well, you make life interesting for yourself. If you are looking for converts I suspect you will have an uphill struggle. Most on these boards know all the apologetics (lies) backwards, forwards and in several languages.
Atheists all have on thing in common, we lack a belief in a god or gods. Apart from that we have a rainbow, a plethora of views, certitudes, opinions and positions about just about everything. I would counsel never to say "atheist say, or atheists believe" you will have a red hot fried arse within seconds.
Also understand this is a world wide forum, the time differences make it difficult to follow all the replies in your time zone, have patience.
Now, welcome Ray....the ball is in your court.
Welcome to the site, sorry to hear about your fearless leaders. We would love a good discussion and sincerely hope you are not another inane presuppositionalist.
"I just wanted to say hello but I don’t want to post a thread that doesn’t follow the subject" THANK YOU!
You have no idea at all, how much different that sounds from the average theist we have had on the site lately.
"some things that I can not absolutely know."
I hope you will be able to take them one at a time and substantiate your position clearly. Atheism is a position of non-belief and the primary reason for that non-belief is the lack of evidence for theist claims. The ball is in your court, you get to serve. (You have the burden of proof.) It will be interesting to see what you come up with.
Atheists are not people who assert "God does not exist." until that god you speak of is defined. Some gods are self contradictory and therefore can not exist. Others are amorphous and have no influence and so it really does not matter if they exist or not, they are the same thing as nothing. It will be interesting to see which God you bring to the table. Once again, you have the ball. You are making the claim that a God exists. All we are looking for is the evidence so we can become believers too.
Good Luck!
Greetings! I am an ex-catholic.
Welcome catholicray. May I call you "Ray"? I hope that we may engage in a respectful and adult exchange of opinions. if you give respect, you shall receive it in return.
"I assert that my Christian faith, while dependant on believing some things that I can not absolutely know, is as rational as holding the position that God does not exist. "
Unfortunately, we require some clarification. The definition of an atheist is one who does not believe in the existence of any god(s). Of course there are different atheists who take this further and state that no god exists. But the general definition is what is practiced in here by almost all.
The default position for any claim is disbelief until proven otherwise. For example, I may claim that I am eight feet tall. You have the right to withhold belief until I have proven my claim. You do not have to take the position that I am not eight feet tall, but you should not accept my claim until you have sufficient proof.
This is the same with the god claim, I do not believe in the existence of any god. I am not stating that any god does not exist, I withhold belief until a theist provides sufficient proof on their claim.
Additionally, think of this place like a court of law. Empirical evidence carries a lot of weight, while anecdotal and personal experiences carry almost zero weight. And any holy book is absolutely worthless in any debate. It carries as much weight as a Spider Man comic book.
Anyhewwww , back to the topic. I was a theist, and in my life journey, searched long and hard for proof of anything spiritual. I turned over many rocks, engaged many theists in debate, and my personal conclusion is that there is absolutely zero empirical evidence in any god or anything spiritual, I withhold belief. My mind is not closed, at times I wish there was a god. But I just don't see any proof.
Thank you for welcoming me. I appreciate your responses. To start, I can not speak for every theist and I don't agree with every apologetic theist offer. So to be clear I am only defending the rationality of my personal faith. That being said I'd like to address a couple of responses.
@Cognostic @Diotrephes
Concerning the immoral actions of leaders of my particular institution, there does not exist a single institution which is free from all error. The problem of pedophilia, for example, is actually more of an issue in Protestant leadership than my own. If you move outside of a religious institution, the problem still exists, even among atheist. The difference is that there is not an easily identified central power structure by which one can easily point the finger and place blame. All of that to say, the sins of some within an institution are not a profitable measure of the entire institution. If that were the method by which we judged, then every nation and its people are guilty by association. There is more to say on this subject but my point, for now, is that my subscription to an institution which consists of people who participate in evil is not irrational due to the fact that no single institution exists free from the errors of people.
@Grinseed
You make a fair point. I do in fact believe in a multitude of things I do not absolutely know. For example, I believe in the big bang. What I mean by that is I personally have not researched or studied the scientific data that supports the model. So while there may be evidence that supports the model, I myself have never seen the research. I merely accept the testimony of others on the matter. That being said, I misspoke. Thank you.
As for the rationality of my own position, I believe a slightly modified version of Pascal's wager and the cosmological argument would render faith in the God of Abraham rational. The cosmological argument suggests an eternal objective reality exists and Pascal's wager suggests the God of Abraham (Jew, Christian, Muslim) is worthy of belief due to fear and the natural inclination to preserve one's own life. Please note this is merely where I start.
But what about God being all loving? Well, time is limited so perhaps in my next post, I will share my own insights on that if you offer your own objections.
Thank you all again for having me!
catholicray: Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ..... I love this. Please take it to the debate room. Your institution is the same as every other institution. Ha ha ha ha ha ha..... without legal systems or accountability. "It's the same as the protestants." Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ..... that is a "good thing?" ROFLMAO "That was not actually a serious post was it. You could get a stand up job with that one."
Problem exists even among atheists? Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha..... We are the ones who don't have a problem with gay marriage, remember? What Problem? Is this a conspiracy theory? Atheists are secretly hiding pedophiles and moving them around the world to avoid persecution? Really? For fk sake. If that was the case I would stop being an atheist right now. Or did you mean atheists secretly hate Gay people. We simply pretend they are normal human beings. Really, we are just like the Church and think they should all be taken to the edge of town and killed? Holy Shit!!! I might be in a cult!!! Have you any idea at all how inane your assertions are. "Catholicism is okay because everyone is doing it.? Ha ha ha ha ha... I nearly choked on my morning coffee. Funny man!!!!
"My subscription to an institution which consists of people who participate in evil is not irrational due to the fact that no single institution exists free from the errors of people."
You did not actually type this in all seriousness did you? You have to be a troll. No normal human being can justify themselves or an organization they belong to in such a way. It's barbaric and frankly a bit insane.
"I believe a slightly modified version of Pascal's wager and the cosmological argument would render faith in the God of Abraham rational."
No, it would not render anything rational. But this is not the debate room. RE: Pascal's wager. How stupid is your god? I believe so I can get to heaven. I believe so I can avoid hell. Is your god so stupid as to allow people into heaven because they are seeking a reward? I will be your friend if you give me ice cream. I will be your friend if you don't torture me. The bible is very clear on how you must "LOVE" God. Pascal's wager is a farce and completely opposes any and all biblical teachings on how one must LOVE GOD.
The cosmological argument gets you nowhere near a god. Everything that began to exist has a cause. (I'm using the Kalam, the argument for Allah by the way. Did you think Kalam was an English word?). The universe began to exist. (How so? How do you know this? What do you mean by began? How did you rule out eternal? We know stuff exists, was there a time when there was no stuff? Where then did the stuff come from? If there was always stuff wasn't that stuff just the universe in a different form? Not sure what you mean by "began to exist." You will have to prove this. And then of course you will have to demonstrate the cause. Something science can't even do.
Therefore the universe has a cause. (That's it. Finished. That is the cosmological argument according to Kalam and our Arab friends.) THE UNIVERSE HAS A CAUSE: I suppose it is possible once you rule out eternal. This cause says NOTHING ABOUT A GOD. NOTHING. The cosmological argument does not get you to "What the cause is" or frankly "if there was actually a cause." You must still demonstrate the cause. You must rule out natural causes. Then you have to prove a God thing actually exists and that it is your God thing. That means ruling out all other God things. Frankly, around here, we are real big on BLUE UNIVERSE CREATING BUNNIES. Only after that can you demonstrate that your god thing actually created anything. We would also like to know, where your god thing came from. Wouldn't a more powerful God thing have had to create your god thing? Move it to the debate room. See you there. Just put your argument down as the topic to be debated. Love to see it. The morality of the Catholic Church would be another great topic. It's okay for the Catholics to be pedophiles because all the Churches are doing it. Ha ha ha ha ha .... This is so funny, I might go over and start the thread for you.
@David Killens
I respect your position except for your assertion about Holy books. While I may not be able to use lazy arguments like "the bible says so", I do think certain respect should be given as regards the historical attributes of such documents. By that, I mean that the Bible, in particular, makes historical claims, some of which have been verified. Therefore I think it is fair to consider the claims of the Bible.
Thank you for the response catholicray.
Spider Man comics also make reference to historical realities, such as wars and the Brooklyn Bridge. Harry Potter books reference WW2 and such locations as London. So please explain what separates your bible from those other works? And if you use "age" as a difference, then I will reference the "Iliad" which is even older than your bible, does mention real world sites and also mythical gods.
And if you bring in the question of authorship, I suggest you have all your ducks in a row because a few in here definitely know all about when the bible was written, and by whom.
edit: to include the last paragraph
Any edits should be mentioned, we try to keep things honest here.
There are historical claims in the Harry Potter books, as well, which can be corroborated more accurately than those in the bible.
Should we consider all of the claims of the Harry Potter books?
I can't wait to hear which biblical claims have been verified! I am so excited I am about to pee myself.
One more piece of logic to consider is that if one makes 99 accurate claims, that does not guarantee that the 100th will be true. Just because some claims come true, that does not guarantee that the claimant is accurate, just that they made a few lucky guesses.
@catholicray,
What are those historical claims?
Your argument falls flat at the spaghetti monster...and if god is proven, who created god. Aquinas made the same mistake as you. So, as is routine, your suppositionalist proposition begins without merit.
Your view does not exist with the advent of quantum mechanic physics...preceding something in time, requires time to already exist to have any meaning. A viable existence if time is infinite, or appears in multi universes. Add a crunch to what we already know, and this is true. So, obviously self causation is a possibility.
More importantly, your first cause causal chain, back in time, will always arrive at the same starting point, god. This seems right, but its not. For this to be true, the laws of nature can not be contravigned, and by your buybull, god contravigns all four of them. Stop with the special pleading...its pathetic...proof is by far, better. By your logic, I prefer the Spaghetti Monster...he is a much more tasty deity.
Also, anyone named Blaise, makes me cringe...let alone a dishonest blaise. For his wager to be valid, we have to assume that a god is a possibility...and that is dishonest without proof. His purpose was to have others concede that god/religious doctrine is a possibility (which it obviously isn't.). But, at that alone, this, by his own admission, is obviously not proof of god or even a rational thought experiment...it was his way of using slight of hand to sway belief. "naturellement meme cela vous fera croire et vous abetira." Furthermore, by his own admission that no proof of god exists, he invalidates his whole premise of his wager. In english: "when we are incapable of knowing, either what he is, or if he is."(quote 233, Pascal's Pensees). Dishonest by his own admission...but theitards, rarely, if at all, read his work in entirety.
Again, as mentioned previously, it is irrational to believe in a god because of lack of evidence. We can not measure his existence in the realm of the supernatural, as that is where he resides by his and his claimants own admission...there is no metric to measure him. However, there is a metric to measure probability within a natural world...and using his supernatural nature, his existence contravigns the laws of nature, which almost infinitely makes his existence unlikely.
Hello Catholicary , Wow even your name is a catholic ! Welcome man .. I hope you gonna have an informative conversations or debates on this website ... Reply to your post ... I disagree with your speach cause basically when you believe in something you stop thinking rationally about this thing whatever you want to call it " God " or even any subject in your daily life and in case of religions almost all of them are creeds They give you as packages , Full of commands morally and socially ,etc And all of the religions failed in a moral debate They look to the world by a dualism way Evilness and goodness and of course this mentality has been destroying the humanity until this day , Each religion claims It has an absolute truth about our existence + No one of them Think about it They just " Believe " .... I don't believe in god so I don't believe in any metaphysical world ! All what I care about is the reality and I look pragmatically to the others with no caring about their imaginable friend " Their god "
catholicray: "My point is that my subscription to an institution which consists of people who participate in evil is not irrational due to the fact that no single institution exists free from the errors of people."
In other words, since people are capable of evil deeds, that makes the evil done in the name of religion rational. Oh, my…
To make that kind of statement, to me, is utterly deplorable. How can you say such a thing? The scientific institution is not free from the errors of people. However, how many scientists do you see committing appalling acts of evil?
Evil is not irrational. That is perhaps … That is just …
Why Religion is Pure Evil.
rmfr
@Arakish,
The word "Evil" is of religious origin...why should we except it as a valid word? I do not believe that evil exists. To do so, is admitting that a supernatural force is present...a harbinger of evil is just a figment of a deluded and irrational mind.
Just my thoughts.
@ doG
You sure? My study into the etymology of the "evil" shows its origins stretching back into times before existed. That is why I call religion Evil. Since the word evil comes from ancient myths and legends thousands of years older than the Bible, just like the myths and legends the Bible is based on.
The concepts of good and evil probably extend tens, maybe hundreds, of thousands of years into our history.
At least that is what I can remember from my decades of research into the history and veracity of the Bible.
Basically, my actual point was the bold text and how catholicray justified the evil done by the very religion he believes.
rmfr
I will have to further my knowledge, as I am not sure. Thanks for calling me out. I understand your point...hope you understand mine, which was that there is a connotation of a supernatural force, that is "evil" in nature, perpetuating the good/evil dichotomy of so many religions.
@ doG
Arthur C Clarke once said, “One of the greatest tragedies in mankind’s entire history may be that morality was hijacked by religion. So now people assume that religion and morality have a necessary connection. But the basis of morality is really very simple and doesn’t require religion at all. Religion is the most malignant of all mind viruses.”
And I was not calling you out. I was going on my fallacious memory. It just seems that my decades of research seems to have proven that the good/evil dichotomy ages way back into our distant past.
However, I could be wrong, and I admit it if I am wrong.
The Epic of Gilgamesh has references to good/evil without actually using those words, and it dates back to about 1200 years before the oldest Bible. Thus, the concept of good/evil existed without any true religious undertones. And there are many other myths and legends older that the Epic of Gilgamesh.
Apologies if it seemed I was calling you out. That was not my intention. And, yes, I very well saw your point, and it was well stated. Thank you for your enlightening me upon your thoughts. It is rational discord like this that makes these forums a pleasure. I love it when someone points out where I get something wrong so I can correct it. It is never my intention to misrepresent anything. At least I try me best not to.
“…connotation of a supernatural force, that is "evil" in nature, perpetuating the good/evil dichotomy of so many religions.”
And yes. There has ALWAYS been an association of the good/evil dichotomy with supernatural forces. However, Jeffrey Dahmer being a good example, and Bill Gates on the other end, there are also natural forces for good/evil.
Lovely discord… I enjoy it.
rmfr
Bill Gates, a force of good? Since before he "became good" he was a robber baron with a conscious closer to that of Dahmer
Catholicity:
doG:
I want to point out that doG's post is the perfect example of how to handle the facts and evidence once you have been shown to be in error. Something theists on this site almost NEVER DO. Just admit your error, learn from it, and move on. This is the sign of an intelligent Ape. *Pun intended* We all have some silly ideas that we just haven't thought through. Sometimes it is merely a slip of the pen (keyboard) and sometimes just something we accepted without ever thinking about it. (Like the cosmological argument or Pascal's Wager). I invite you (catholicity) to take a hard look at the things you believe and when they are proved to be fallacious, simply admit it and move on. Like this......
"I will have to further my knowledge, as I am not sure. Thanks for calling me out."
HERE IS A SECRET:
There is no evidence for the existence of God or gods. If you want to believe, that is up to you. You can not justify your belief using logical arguments or examples. It is not possible. The best you can ever do is simply assert "I choose to believe. It feels right to me." Offer nothing else. No justifications, no facts, no arguments. No one can tell you what feels right to you. No one can tell you that you are not choosing to believe. Anything else you say can be used against you. You do not have to justify your own beliefs. Why do you believe? "I choose to and it feels right to me." NOTHING MORE. You want to believe, that is fine. That is on you. It is not justification for me to believe. We have 5000 years of failed apologetics for the existence of gods. You are not going to be able to argue any better than the millions of people who came before you. Believe if you want to, but know all of your arguments are inane and without warrant. That is just a FACT.
@Cognostic
"'You are not going to be able to argue any better than the millions of people who came before you. Believe if you want to, but know all of your arguments are inane and without warrant. That is just a FACT.'
Perhaps he might not be able to convince you of anything but....WOW !! If that isn't a sense of superiority I don't know what is.
You shut the door before hearing catholicrays' arguments, debates and evidence.
How do you know the arguments will not be better than what you already heard?
That is so uninviting and closed minded from the get-go.
Loosen up buddy. Had a bad day? Need a drink with me and Tin Man? We'll prepare e a nice soft seat to rest your bones, Although Tin Man might still be busy eating Hot Pockets somewhere else.
OW !! If that isn't a sense of superiority I don't know what is.
Stating a FACT does not make one superior. You have no evidence for your God or Any god. NONE. If you did, we would all be believers. Not worshipers perhaps but believers. Nothing theists have ever said, throughout history, has stood the test of time, stood against critical inquiry, contained rational thought free of emotional appeals or fallacies of logic. The God hypothesis is a failed hypothesis. The only honest position is to admit that you really do not know, whether you opt to believe or not.
Pages