Atheistforums.com

Hello everyone, I am a cradle Catholic who fancies himself an apologist. I am not here because I have been sent by God to convert the heathen masses concentrated here, but because I believe there IS a competent, intellectual way of thinking about/understanding the existence of a deity (especially the Christian one.) All I want to do is see if I can hold my own in an open forum... (I'm a lamb in search of a slaughterhouse.) With that said, what is wrong with Christianity anyway? Is it anti-intellectual? Is it complete nonsense? Is it destructive? Are you indifferent to religion, or do you revile it? P.S. if this is the wrong place to post this, let me be rebuffed quickly, and I will post this elsewhere.   

Dude you should leave this  site if your plans are to troll the site. You will be eaten alive. Please reconsider your trolls plans.  :cool:

To the OP: Prove your god exists.

Quote from: Vercingetorix on March 23, 2014, 01:59:47 PM
Hello everyone, I am a cradle Catholic who fancies himself an apologist. I am not here because I have been sent by God to convert the heathen masses concentrated here, but because I believe there IS a competent, intellectual way of thinking about/understanding the existence of a deity (especially the Christian one.) All I want to do is see if I can hold my own in an open forum... (I'm a lamb in search of a slaughterhouse.) With that said, what is wrong with Christianity anyway? Is it anti-intellectual? Is it complete nonsense? Is it destructive? Are you indifferent to religion, or do you revile it? P.S. if this is the wrong place to post this, let me be rebuffed quickly, and I will post this elsewhere.   

Okay I will take the bait.  What's wrong with christianity ? (Almost EVERYTHING).  It is anti-intellectual? ( YEP)  it's complete nonse ? (YEP) it's destructive ? (In many cases YEP). In real life I'm indifferent to religion. Also you must prove your monster Yahveh god is more real than the Tooth fairy , santa , Easter bunny and Chuck Norris.

QuoteI am a cradle Catholic

I'm sorry to hear that.

QuoteIs it anti-intellectual?

Yes

QuoteIs it complete nonsense?

Yes

QuoteIs it destructive?

Yes

QuoteAre you indifferent to religion, or do you revile it?

Revile is a strong word. I need a much stronger one to describe how I feel about it.

Anyway... Welcome. I'm not sure what you mean by "Hold your own" Ihad a catholic tell me that she knew all the points against the lack of belief in her god, and all she really had to offer was nonsensical circular logic.

Good luck!  :smile2:

Quote from: Vercingetorix on March 23, 2014, 01:59:47 PM
... I believe there IS a competent, intellectual way of thinking about/understanding the existence of a deity ...

What's a deity?

Quote from: Vercingetorix on March 23, 2014, 01:59:47 PM
Hello everyone, I am a cradle Catholic who fancies himself an apologist. I am not here because I have been sent by God to convert the heathen masses concentrated here, but because I believe there IS a competent, intellectual way of thinking about/understanding the existence of a deity (especially the Christian one.) All I want to do is see if I can hold my own in an open forum... (I'm a lamb in search of a slaughterhouse.) With that said, what is wrong with Christianity anyway? Is it anti-intellectual? Is it complete nonsense? Is it destructive? Are you indifferent to religion, or do you revile it? P.S. if this is the wrong place to post this, let me be rebuffed quickly, and I will post this elsewhere.   

No, you came here because you are an ignorant moron who thinks he can prove something by posting topics that have been hashed over dozens of times. You will deny any evidence we bring, be unable to prove the validity of your beliefs and will either eventually leave or be banned.

QuoteThe generally accepted view is that Vercingetorix derives from the Gaulish ver- ("over, superior" â€" an etymological cognate of Latin super or Greek hyper),[1] cingeto- ("warrior", related to roots meaning "tread, step, walk", so possibly "infantry"),[2] and rix ("king") (cf. Latin rex), thus literally either "great warrior king" or "king of great warriors".[3]

Nice name to take. A better name would have been Charmin.

The way I see it perhaps some Catholicism was true at some time (such as people escaping from Egyptians or whatever), but it was over-exaggerated and eventually somebody made up God in order to insure order because most people who are Catholic are civilized only because they don't want to do a sin. The majority of Catholicism is mental and the occasional physical, but nothing proves the physical part is real. BTW, sins are for Math. :fU:

Quote from: the_antithesis on March 23, 2014, 03:44:44 PM
Nice name to take. A better name would have been Charmin.

Quote from: the_antithesis on March 23, 2014, 03:44:44 PM
Nice name to take. A better name would have been Charmin.

That's perfect! Charmin is the perfect name for this new troll.

Quote from: Vercingetorix on March 23, 2014, 01:59:47 PM
With that said, what is wrong with Christianity anyway?

Every person who comes here asking that question seems to have their own individual definition of what Christianity is and what it isn't. So why don't you define exactly what your particular brand of Christianity is first and then we'll tell you what's wrong with it.

Actually, if anything existed, then why do we have so many religions? Why doesn't everybody believe in the same religion? Because none of them are true. Just lies. Atheism isn't really a religion, but a lack of religion which is the only reasonable group of people.

**senses Leo mocks her dental deity and demands immediate apology. May you develop a bad gum disease that oozes from your ears!  :naughty:

Pass.

Welcome. You're better off taking this discussion to a forum full of intelligent muslims. You'll quickly realise they use the exact same arguments you use to prove your god to prove theirs, and it's much funnier to see that discussion happening.

Anti-intellectual? Yes, if you think that believing in something that has no evidence is anti-intellectual.

Nonsense? A man was claimed to have walked on water, made food from nothing, rose people from the dead, and himself rose from the dead. He did this in front of thousands of people. The only accounts of this were written long after he and anyone who could have witnessed it were dead. Those accounts were rewritten and translated many times over....and people still believe this.

Destructive? Aside from AIDS in Africa due to condoms being discouraged, women dying from miscarriages due to Catholic doctors refusing to perform an abortion, gay people being denied equal rights,  the molestation of children being covered up to preserve the image of a church, and several more I suppose it's not harmful.

I'll acknowledge the OPs right to remain woefully stupid. Why not?

Quote from: Vercingetorix on March 23, 2014, 01:59:47 PM
I am not here because I have been sent by God

Yeah, we already know

QuoteI believe there IS a competent, intellectual way of thinking about/understanding the existence of a deity

its called atheism....yer welcome.

Quotewhat is wrong with Christianity anyway? 

the same that is wrong with every religion that you think is bull-shit. What is wrong with their version of bull-shit

After some analysis comparing the various gods of mythology to omnipotent characters in fiction, you will find there are no differences between the two.

I know that gods don't exist. It's surprisingly simple to sum up: Any being claiming to fit the human concept of a god can offer no proof that cannot equally be offered by this guy:


It sounds like overly simplistic logic, but this is only because the nature of mythological gods itself speaks to how simplistic human imagination tends to be. Even the broadest interpretation of a god separate from the universe, that of deism, only exists to say, "The universe exists, therefore no matter how complex it is God surely must be able to make it," which is really just expanding an already made-up term to encompass new discoveries, rather than just admit that the concept was flawed to begin with.

Then you have the pantheistic and panentheistic definitions, respectively stating that god is the universe and the universe is within god; both of which pretty much mean the same thing after any deep analysis, and both of which beg the question, "If God and the universe are indistinguishable, then why separate the terms at all?" Like deism, the answer is obvious: it's expanding an older term to fit new discoveries, rather than admitting that the concept was flawed from the get-go.

The human concept of a god gets even more ridiculous once you introduce the concept of higher dimensions. Rob Bryanton's Imagining the Tenth Dimension (http://https//www.youtube.com/watch?v=gg85IH3vghA), while by no means describing a currently accepted scientific theory, nevertheless illustrates just how ridiculously huge our universe is should any concept of higher dimensions prove to be accurate (especially given the size of the observable universe we are already well aware of). As the universe gets bigger and bigger, any concept of gods must expand accordingly, to ludicrous levels as this concept should demonstrate.

Even if the observable universe is all there is, if it is really designed then it seems to act like what we would expect of a simulator; and any being capable of designing it should more accurately be referred to as a programmer than a god. "Why can't we just call the programmer God?" you ask. For the same reason we wouldn't call it a leprechaun: fictional though it may be, it already exists as a concept and, for the sake of not invoking confusion and/or emotional validation for irrational beliefs, the term should not be continually expanded to include any and every version of the universe's hypothetical creator. If it is more like a programmer than a god, then that is what we should call it, and how we should regard it. Given all of this, I cannot think of any explanation abiding by Occam's Razor that would lead me to believe that a being conforming to the mythical concept of a god exists.

tl;dr version: There is no way anything we would regard as a god could ever prove that it is what it claims to a skeptical individual. Because the universe less resembles a mythical god's realm than it does a simulator, any designer we did find should be called a programmer, not a god. Therefore, we can reasonably conclude that there is no god.

My goodness... I didn't come here to troll. I take it you are all trolled very often, or are completely uninterested in entertaining any conversations like this. Perhaps there are many topics of this type on this site that I should have known about before starting this one. I am obviously sorry for having irritated anyone here. I would like to acknowledge (albeit with unfair brevity) the posts here that were intended to be welcoming, informational and friendly. Thanks all.     

To the OP:
1. Are you willing to admit that you are wrong if faced with overwhelming evidence?
2. Do you understand that the bible does not count as evidence?
3. Are you willing to be insulted if(when) you repeat the same tired "arguments" and "theories" that have been disproven countless times?
4. Are you going to answer ALL legit questions posed to you?

^If yes to these good luck kid.^

And now my questions for you:

5.  Do you understand that most people here don't care IF you believe, so long as you don't try to force those beliefs on us?
6. Do you have ANY evidence of your gods existence?
7. What makes you think that we care if a god exists or not?

Quote from: Vercingetorix on March 23, 2014, 09:54:04 PM
My goodness... I didn't come here to troll. I take it you are all trolled very often, or are completely uninterested in entertaining any conversations like this. Perhaps there are many topics of this type on this site that I should have known about before starting this one. I am obviously sorry for having irritated anyone here. I would like to acknowledge (albeit with unfair brevity) the posts here that were intended to be welcoming, informational and friendly. Thanks all.     

you can bring nothing new that we have not heard many times previous...go ahead...try, if you wish. Or I might suggest you just read some of the threads to understand better.

I do not wish to misrepresent myself, so maybe I should have started with more of an introduction of myself (hence "Introductions," I suppose.) I do not intend to "convert" anyone, believe it or not I'm not THAT naive. I do not believe that I am in possession of any knowledge that isn't readily available to anyone. I do see how, if we have anything to discuss at all that it may be the institution or history of the Church rather than whether or not God exists.

Vercingetorix, why are you a Catholic? I saw that you called yourself a "cradle Catholic"; "Blessed are you for not having made me a gentile", eh? You just lucked out on being born into the proper religion? Good thing you weren't born to a Muslim family or you could be a cradle Muslim.

You can't bring anything new to the forum
you can't convince anybody of anything
you can't prove your beliefs or the validity of your bible

so, you want to prove the truth or value of your pedophile ridden, birth control denying, poverty creating religion?

Have fun with that.

@poison tree. Yes, I assume that if I had been born into a Muslim family, I would likely be a Muslim even now. There is evidence to support the idea that if I were aware (as a Muslim) of the gospels, and of the Catholic Church that I could be converted. Whether or not I were hypothetically converted, I could simply be ignorant of Christianity, or worthy of heaven regardless of the fact that I was a Muslim. It is not the teaching of the Catholic Church that Christians are the only ones that are "allowed" to go to Heaven. To be concise, the fact that I have been Catholic since I was baptized as an infant does not in any way mean that I grew up to be specifically uncritical. Biased maybe, but not unthinking, unreasonable, or uncritical. Fr. Georges Lemaître was not nonintellectual, uncritical, or notably unreasonable. To say that I was "born" Catholic is not to say that it is impossible to find what I believe to be the truth in another religion. I am able to decide for myself what I believe, analytically, regardless of apparent bias.

Quote from: Vercingetorix on March 24, 2014, 01:38:23 AMYes, I assume that if I had been born into a Muslim family, I would likely be a Muslim even now.

Does it bother you that the dominant factors in what religion a person has are geography and their parent's religion?

Quote from: Vercingetorix on March 24, 2014, 01:38:23 AMI am able to decide for myself what I believe, analytically, regardless of apparent bias.

So then, Are you able to demonstrate that god exists? That your religion is true? Defend your sect's dogmas? Are you open to being dissuaded of your religion?

The factors that go into what religion a person is are the reasons I admitted that I would likely be a Muslim even now. I do not claim that I can prove God exists. I am open to being dissuaded in that I think it would be physically possible for someone to convince me that I am errant, although this would have nothing to do with what is objectively true about God (should He exist.) All this is merely why I'm Catholic, i.e. my geography, parent (not "parents" in the plural form) and my inability to find truth comparable to that which I find in Catholicism in any other religion.

My parents were Catholic, my grandparents were and so on and it was my mother who broke the chain of nonsense when my sisters twin died at birth. The church refused her a funeral then the priest had the audacity to tell my parents to live as brother and sister and sleep in separate beds or be excommunicated. Good ol mom told the bastard to get the hell out of her house.
There's your wonderful Catholic church.

@allpurposeatheist, I am genuinely sorry that your family and you were insulted in such a way. I realize that it is not my place to apologize, or even to insinuate that you require an apology. You could not be more correct that the Church on Earth is at times wildly errant. 

At times? You mean from the day the church was founded to now? It's the ALL TIME errant champion.

QuoteAll this is merely why I'm Catholic, i.e. my geography, parent (not "parents" in the plural form) and my inability to find truth comparable to that which I find in Catholicism in any other religion.

Of course you're unable to find truth comparable to that equal to Catholicism anywhere. You were taught the "truth" of Catholicism when you were a child, with a mind programmed to accept anything adults told you as true. Hell, you probably believed Santa Clause and the Easterbunny were real back then as well.
But you're looking at the other holy books through the eyes of an adult, and they don't make sense. The only thing that makes your religion different from the others is that you assessed it's truth value back when "the moon is made of cheese" would be believed without question, and you've had so much social reinforcement that you assessed it correctly that it's been grafted permanently into your brain that catholicism is true.
Lacking that early reinforcement, you can't see other religions with the same eyes, because you no longer possess that child-like brain that would accept the religion as true without thinking about it, nor do you have the social reinforcement to tell you that it's true, which means you miss the only two reasons you became catholic in the first place when assessing the value of these other religions.

Honestly, we shouldn't make fun of you (or other theists), we should pity you for being duped at such a young age and being forced to live with that for probably the rest of your life.

@allpurposeatheist, Perpetually errant by nature of it's most basic teachings? Chronically errant by it's insistence that a man walked on water, etc? If the Church is errant at all, perhaps it is because it is run by humans. We have exactly zero human administered institutions old enough to compare it to, perhaps the Church is spectacularly inerrant. Failure or disappointment in one trial of a scientific study, does not necessitate a complete abandonment of the theory one seeks to prove by such trials. From what you related about your experience with the Catholic Church, Can I surmise that you did not apply the scientific method to whether or not you should continue the Catholic tradition of your family?

Sometimes I wonder if people that believe in the Catholic Church or any religion has ever looked around in the world they live in with a fresh eye. Tell me, op. Have you ever doubted your faith? What is that like? It's been such a long time that I forgot what it's like to question an idea I was so invested in and I have forgotten.

Sent from Planet X

@plu, I believe that the Earth orbits the Sun only because it was permanently instilled in me at a young age. I am neither trained nor mathematically inclined enough to find for myself the proof that the Earth orbits the Sun. Rather I choose to believe that the proof exists.

At least you're willing to admit that you only believe it because you were indoctrinated. Now you'll only have to accept that this means all the "proof" you heard is worthless because you haven't verified it and leave us alone, and everyone will be happier.

Also, I took 5 minutes a while ago to look into the story about the earth rotating around the sun and learned that it's actually not the case. But since you don't care about learning things apparently, I'm not going to explain further.

Quote from: PickelledEggs on March 24, 2014, 04:04:44 AM
Sometimes I wonder if people that believe in the Catholic Church or any religion has ever looked around in the world they live in with a fresh eye. Tell me, op. Have you ever doubted your faith? What is that like? It's been such a long time that I forgot what it's like to question an idea I was so invested in and I have forgotten.

Sent from Planet X

I'm a member (however briefly is yet to be determined) of an atheist forum! I have doubted my faith much more than I am brave enough to admit. I must admit that it is scary, what I am most afraid of is missing my faith, should I lose it.

Quote from: Vercingetorix on March 24, 2014, 04:14:09 AM


I'm a member (however briefly is yet to be determined) of an atheist forum! I have doubted my faith much more than I am brave enough to admit. I must admit that it is scary, what I am most afraid of is missing my faith, should I lose it.

It's it really that hard to not doubt your faith?  I was born and raised in NJ, so there really isn't many people that are hard core believers like in other parts of the country. What makes you doubt your beliefs?

Sent from Planet X

Quote from: Plu on March 24, 2014, 04:11:25 AM
At least you're willing to admit that you only believe it because you were indoctrinated. Now you'll only have to accept that this means all the "proof" you heard is worthless because you haven't verified it and leave us alone, and everyone will be happier.

Also, I took 5 minutes a while ago to look into the story about the earth rotating around the sun and learned that it's actually not the case. But since you don't care about learning things apparently, I'm not going to explain further.

...What is not the case? The planets do orbit, or revolve around the Sun do they not? I don't think I was mistaken, please do elaborate.

Object revolve around a common center of gravity, and any notions of "X orbits Y" are man-made, objects simply rotate around each other. Due to the massive size of the sun compared to tiny little earth, the common center of gravity is somewhere inside of the sun, so it's almost like the earth rotates the sun, but that kind of explanation wouldn't work when you're dealing with two objects of almost the same size rotating each other. (Like binary stars)

Also the whole idea that the earth rotates around the sun is just because the solar system is easier to understand and draw if you put the sun at the center of it. There's also a model where the earth is back at the center, designed in the 16th century:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tychonic_system

For observations of the solar system, it works as well as the one we use today. Only when you get to really distant stars does it start breaking down, but they didn't know about those back then.

That's about as much as I can share without having to look things up myself. It was more to point out that just because you're told something when you're young doesn't mean it's correct or that you can't learn more about those very subjects if you look at them with adult eyes than useful knowledge.

Quote from: PickelledEggs on March 24, 2014, 04:17:55 AM
It's it really that hard to not doubt your faith?  I was born and raised in NJ, so there really isn't many people that are hard core believers like in other parts of the country. What makes you doubt your beliefs?

Sent from Planet X

I don't know that it is hard to not doubt faith... I just know that I have doubted, and on occasion do doubt. Maybe a better formed faith is harder to doubt? I did not come of age in the pious middle ages, I have only grown up in the last 25 years, if I was brainwashed into believing that God exists then I have been many times over brainwashed that the existence of God is unnecessary. I was raised without religion in schools, and in a liberal democracy that insists if God exists he must at least be ignored most of the time. That is why I doubt.

So what are your feelings on your god? Is he necessary? Why? Or why not? (depending on your answer)

Sent from Planet X

Quote from: Plu on March 24, 2014, 04:32:46 AM
Object revolve around a common center of gravity, and any notions of "X orbits Y" are man-made, objects simply rotate around each other. Due to the massive size of the sun compared to tiny little earth, the common center of gravity is somewhere inside of the sun, so it's almost like the earth rotates the sun, but that kind of explanation wouldn't work when you're dealing with two objects of almost the same size rotating each other. (Like binary stars)

Also the whole idea that the earth rotates around the sun is just because the solar system is easier to understand and draw if you put the sun at the center of it. There's also a model where the earth is back at the center, designed in the 16th century:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tychonic_system

For observations of the solar system, it works as well as the one we use today. Only when you get to really distant stars does it start breaking down, but they didn't know about those back then.

That's about as much as I can share without having to look things up myself. It was more to point out that just because you're told something when you're young doesn't mean it's correct or that you can't learn more about those very subjects if you look at them with adult eyes than useful knowledge.

Ok, we are on the same page. I did apply the words "orbit," and "rotate" to an idea much more complicated. Does the common center of gravity two objects share approach an equidistant point as the objects become closer in size? I think that's what you were alluding to when you mentioned a binary system.

Quote from: PickelledEggs on March 24, 2014, 04:38:11 AM
So what are your feelings on your god? Is he necessary? Why? Or why not? (depending on your answer)

Sent from Planet X

Aye there's the rub. I believe that God is necessary based on tradition, and testimony that I believe is inspired by evidence. 

It's based on mass, not size, but otherwise yes.

Well, you already understand the idea that what people tell you at a young age is usually a simplification of the truth or an outright lie, the intelligence to look for new answers. Now if you also understand that people who tell you where the rabbit hole ends are people who have a vested interest in keeping you from digging deeper, you'll have all the tools needed to dig into the way the world works and figure out for yourself what the added value of your faith to your life is.

If you're afraid of losing your faith, there's probably something wrong somewhere that your faith is trying to keep at bay. You can either rely on your faith to keep that thing away from you, or you can let it free, fight it, and maybe defeat it and come out better for it, but that's up to you I guess.

QuoteI believe that God is necessary based on tradition

Tradition is never an argument. Either there's a reason underlying the tradition that is the actual argument, or you're perpetuating nonsense for the sake of perpetuating nonsense.

Who is telling me where the rabbit whole ends? Couldn't it be the government, or those of the secular mind just as easily as it could be the Catholic Church? I really think we have much more value as constituents/ratings/web traffic, than we do as members of a particular church.

The government and the church most definately tell you where the rabbit hole ends. Like you say; they think you have more value as many things other than a questioning individual. Those of secular mind can also easily tell you where it ends.

That's why you should always look for people who don't tell you where it ends. They exist, and they are the real teachers. All of the others are to be distrusted at best. They do not have your best interests at heart.

 :popcorn:

Quote from: Vercingetorix on March 23, 2014, 10:22:12 PM
I do not intend to "convert" anyone, believe it or not I'm not THAT naive. I do not believe that I am in possession of any knowledge that isn't readily available to anyone. I do see how, if we have anything to discuss at all that it may be the institution or history of the Church rather than whether or not God exists.

Well you couldn't be more right. You're not going to convince any of us of anything nor are you going to convert us. Therefore the institution and history of the church is about the only thing we could probably discuss. I'm not sure why a person in your position would want to discuss such things but since you brought it up, I'll go ahead and start.

Pedophiles. Your move.

Something you perhaps overlooked about 'your god' and 'your church'.. If it is true that the Catholic Church is the one true church and its god the one true god no other thought would have ever been needed. No other church would have been needed and no books need be written. All knowledge would have been automatically installed in our brains at birth. As it turns out the bible,  the original first handwritten edition kept under lock and key and guarded by rabid dogs would have nevrr been reproduced, but it was and your church tried its damnedest to keep it out of the hands of anyone, but the high priests to the extent of torture and murder and now it's such a pile of rubbish and the church full of corruption and... Oh never mind. It's all the one true word of god so never question the church run by pedophiles.

Vercingetorix, I'm more than a little bemused by your hand waving about the church's problem's being a result of humans in the church and would like to jump on it before it can become your go-to defense. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't once of the central tenants of your church that the pope, when speaking in  ex cathedra mode, is an infallible conduit to god? This is, we're told to believe, a god who had no problem coming down to earth and talking to Abraham face to face, appearing to heathen kings, violating the free will of Jonah and Saul, killing two people who lied about how much they sold land for or any number of other involvements in the human world. Yet he can't be bothered to tell the Pope, "hey, better get on that whole pedophile thing." or "Oh, by the way, that limbo doesn't actually exist so you may want to stop people from teaching that". An interventionist god would be more than able to prevent or correct any errors in his church with nothing more than his voice from on high--pope or no pope.

If I didn't know better I'd assume "our father aka god" is a deadbeat dad, knocked up Mary and skipped town aka the universe aka all of creation. Hardly worthy of worship.

What all of us here have come to understand is that religions are created by men. There have been thousands of them, most now extinct or inactive. Catholicism is a worldwide religion due to no small amount of genocide and violent conquest. There is nothing benign about it. That it denounces birth control in this day and age is directly the cause of much disease and over population in 3rd world countries. It is not a "forward looking, enlightened" organization but a relic of the late Roman Empire.

Think also of what your god has actually accomplished. didn't stop a church in Haiti from collapsing on true Catholic believers, hasn't cured a single disease, turned a river from its course, has not demonstrably healed masses of people or risen the dead. All that man has accomplished was achieved by man. The only thing god has done is demand obedience through a body of men who do, in reality, little real good in the world and continually demand money. They want lots of money.

I really regret having to sleep lol. Yes it takes money to run the Church, if that is what we want to discuss then so be it. All I know is that I can stop going to Mass, and never go back. People go to Mass for the last time everyday, people leave mega churches everyday, and it is almost certain that no church official ever knows about it, even though the money, your contributions have stopped. If I went "off the grid" so to speak, and left the secular would, cancelled my cable, power, stopped paying my mortgage and taxes, I would be an FBI top priority. There would be drones looking for me, G-men, debt collectors, etc. The Pope has spoken ex cathredra (infallibly) a total of seven times between 449, and 1950. Nothing any Pope has ever said about condoms, etc. has ever been claimed to be infallible. The existence of pedophile priests is a terrible reason to not go to Mass. The California public school system has a vastly more horrifying sex abuse track record just in it's state than the entire world wide Church has at all, but no one thinks the entire institution should just be scrapped like some do the Church. I don't bemoan the work done to reveal the sex abuse scandal, I just insist on knowing the truth about it. 

I don't know which one of us that reply was directed at as it seems to have missed the thrust of every comment here.

Quote from: Vercingetorix on March 24, 2014, 01:08:34 PM
The Pope has spoken ex cathredra (infallibly) a total of seven times between 449, and 1950.

Accepting your claim for the sake of argument (and ignoring historical disputes over the range of papal [and more generally catholic] infallibility), why should god only intervene in the running of his church so infrequently? Can you not think of any other times when an infallible ruling from god would have come in handy?

So, what's a god, then?

Thanks for answering my question's, V.   :smiley:

@poisontree, I think everyone believes now and again, that given omnipotence they could do a better job than God. The problem is that we remain confined to our inferior logic even if we imagine that we are hypothetically omnipotent. Catholics are typically "both, and" minded instead of "either, or" I believe that God is omnipotent, AND that we are fallible humans living in an imperfect world. I believe BOTH of those things are true at the same time.

@pickelledeggs, Happy to do it. Sorry if I was as tedious as you thought I would be lol. I just have this "A Catholic priest theorized the Big Bang, for crying out loud!" chip on my shoulder, if I'm brainwashed then it is up to me to earnestly seek the truth, but I'm not stupid.

The Catholic church has really had it hard since the Reformation and people found out that the Bible didn't say all the things they said it did.

Quote from: Vercingetorix on March 24, 2014, 03:30:32 PM
@pickelledeggs, Happy to do it. Sorry if I was as tedious as you thought I would be lol. I just have this "A Catholic priest theorized the Big Bang, for crying out loud!" chip on my shoulder, if I'm brainwashed then it is up to me to earnestly seek the truth, but I'm not stupid.

You weren't tedious. I was trying to learn the thought process of how people get to the last answer you gave me. So thank you [emoji2]

Sent from the land of pizza and whisky.

Quote from: Vercingetorix on March 24, 2014, 03:17:32 PM
@poisontree, I think everyone believes now and again, that given omnipotence they could do a better job than God. The problem is that we remain confined to our inferior logic even if we imagine that we are hypothetically omnipotent. Catholics are typically "both, and" minded instead of "either, or" I believe that God is omnipotent, AND that we are fallible humans living in an imperfect world. I believe BOTH of those things are true at the same time.

So, was that a "yes" or a "no"?

Out of curiosity, do you only follow those teachings that were giving during papal infallibility? Also, why do you accept a fallible declaration of when a pope can be infallible?

Yes, I believe there are things that have happened that I wish hadn't, and things that haven't happened, that I wish had. I can only understand these things (natural dissaters, terrorism, etc.) within the context of my human logic, and scientific knowledge, and have no idea whether God did intervene, did not intervene, should have intervened, or should not have intervened. Absolutely, the instances when Papal infallibility have been invoked are; as copied and pasted from Wikipedia,

1. "Tome to Flavian", Pope Leo I, 449, on the two natures in Christ, received by the Council of Chalcedon;
2. Letter of Pope Agatho, 680, on the two wills of Christ, received by the Third Council of Constantinople;
3. Benedictus Deus, Pope Benedict XII, 1336, on the beatific vision of the just after death rather than only just prior to final judgment;
4. Cum occasione, Pope Innocent X, 1653, condemning five propositions of Jansen as heretical;
5. Auctorem fidei, Pope Pius VI, 1794, condemning seven Jansenist propositions of the Synod of Pistoia as heretical;
6. Ineffabilis Deus, Pope Pius IX, 1854, defining the Immaculate Conception;
7. Munificentissimus Deus, Pope Pius XII, 1950, defining the Assumption of Mary.

as you can see, these things are rather specific, and do not have much to do with everyday Catholic life. The rest of our faith comes from the fact that our church was instituted by Christ to be a force for good, and that because of that, even things that may be fallible are nonetheless good for us to believe until there is sufficient evidence that they are absolutely flawed.

Quote from: Vercingetorix on March 24, 2014, 01:08:34 PM
The existence of pedophile priests is a terrible reason to not go to Mass. The California public school system has a vastly more horrifying sex abuse track record just in it's state than the entire world wide Church has at all, but no one thinks the entire institution should just be scrapped like some do the Church.

Unless and until you can provide verifiable numbers for both the California public school system and the entire Catholic Church I call bullshit on this claim. Beyond that, it is not the fact that the church has a history of members who are pedophiles that I have a problem with. It is the fact that the church has a well established history of protecting known pedophiles from prosecution that I have a problem with. And let me be clear, I have a really really big problem with that and you should to. Not a reason to avoid mass? Go fuck yourself. That is an entirely valid reason to avoid everything to do with the entire organization IMO.

If you want to know whether the church is a force for good like you claim and have an hour, watch this debate on the topic.
It's worth your time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUR4OH7_0PE

Quote from: Plu on March 24, 2014, 04:55:36 PM
If you want to know whether the church is a force for good like you claim and have an hour, watch this debate on the topic.
It's worth your time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUR4OH7_0PE

Hitchslap! Boosh!

I've seen this Hitchslap! Theatrics, celebrity parade, not that impressed. I like Hitchens in general... as an orator, and debater, but I didn't care for this debate. I'm working on those numbers johan... I know they're here somewhere...

Quoteour inferior logic

QuoteI believe that God is omnipotent,

and by our inferior logic, and given this god is omnipotent, how the fuck could he not best a little army with their iron wheels?
And If this god is omnipotent tell me by what crazy ass logic does one condone the butchering of children and raping of little girls?
And with this great and grand omnipotence god of yours how does one condemn the mentally ill, handi-capped and sick and diseased to be shunned?
You got a piece of shit god and its embarrassing to you, so you have to over compensate by arguing with the dreaded non-believers.

Quote from: Vercingetorix on March 24, 2014, 06:33:56 PM
I'm working on those numbers johan... I know they're here somewhere...

Don't forget to show where the California school system made it a policy to systematically protect known pedophiles from criminal prosecution and or bribe victims with hush money. Apples to apples and all that.

This is the "competent, intellectual way of thinking about" god? I could get this 'god's ways are beyond us and a mystery, yet I still somehow follow his ways' double talk from the average bible-thumper who has surpassed his seventh birthday.

@johan, Okay, these are the numbers for the US; the Annual Catholic Abuse Audit has reported in 2010, 2011, and 2012 that the number of credible claims of sexual abuse among over 40,000 priests were 8.0, 7.0, and 6.0 respectively. According to the Centers for Disease Control, and Prevention more than 500,000 cases of child abuse are reported every year in California. According to the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing, thousands of cases of sexual abuse in the public schools are reviewed annually; action is taken in approximately 800 of those cases. So far, that's 7 to 800. At Miramonte Elementary in south L.A. 128 staff members, including 90 teachers were temporarily relocated to other schools while officials investigated the atrocious sexual misconduct that happened there. Teacher Mark Berndt was arrested and charged with 23 counts of lewd conduct with his third graders. When Mr. Berndt appealed his termination, the school district payed him $40,000 to keep quiet. All of this readily available, public information. It's just not reported on in the media.

Quote from: Vercingetorix on March 24, 2014, 06:33:56 PM
I've seen this Hitchslap! Theatrics, celebrity parade, not that impressed. I like Hitchens in general... as an orator, and debater, but I didn't care for this debate. I'm working on those numbers johan... I know they're here somewhere...

I don't think you were paying attention to this debate. Christopher hitchens owned the catholic church BIG TIME.

I said I wanted verifiable numbers. That generally means numbers supplied by a non-bias credible source. The Annual Catholic Abuse Audit is a report put out by the church itself. Sorry charlie, that ain't gonna get it. Better luck next time.

All the numbers have completely credible sources. Give me a source for your claim that there is a "Well established history of protecting known pedophiles." Otherwise I will continue to site the John Jay report that states less than 5% of accused priests fit a diagnosis of pedophilia, and to quote the report; “it is inaccurate to refer to abusers as ‘pedophile priests.’” A pedophile is an adult that is sexually attracted to prepubescent children, that means under age 11. Over 95% of abuser priests targeted adolescent boys, not prepubescent girls, so "pedophile" is an incorrect definition in the first place.

Oh for fuck sake. Seriously? Priests only rape teen aged boys therefore they're not really pedophiles. Well color me corrected then.

Quote from: Vercingetorix on March 24, 2014, 08:45:20 PM
A pedophile is an adult that is sexually attracted to prepubescent children, that means under age 11. Over 95% of abuser priests targeted adolescent boys, not prepubescent girls, so "pedophile" is an incorrect definition in the first place.

Oh, well in that case, party on!

Man, I really don't give a shit about catholicism. I think arguing finer. points of dogma to be a pointless waste of time.

Stop wasting our time and tell us what this fucking god thing you're talking about is.

The John Jay report has issues with methodology, not the least of which was arbitrarily setting the age of puberty at 11, while the generally accepted age is 13 for boys and 12-13 for girls. If we use the John Jay reports data, 47.2% of victims were age 12 or under, with an additional 12.8% at age 13. Even looking at only those age 10 or younger gets 22.6% of victims. So, unless the 5% who were "pedophile priests" were far more active than the other 95%, the numbers still don't add up--for what it is worth I've seen two versions of this claim (one saying 5% of priests fit the pedophile definition, the other saying 5% of victims were 10 or under) a lot on the internet, but can't find the claim in the John Jay report itself; maybe it is in some versions and not others?

Not that abusing 14 year-olds is suddenly ok because it is not "pedophilia"

The Catholic Church is centuries old. It has been doing things the same way for that long. You can find abuses in any country, from the separation of children from unwed mothers involuntarily in Ireland, to mass extinctions and slavery of Native Americans in the New World, to forced relocation and reeducation of thousands of Indian children in Canada. In the case of Canada, other churches were involved as well. It was a systematic destruction of a native culture.

http://voices.yahoo.com/not-just-another-forced-relocation-canadian-holocaust-6891020.html

Quote from: Vercingetorix on March 24, 2014, 06:33:56 PM
I've seen this Hitchslap! Theatrics, celebrity parade, not that impressed. I like Hitchens in general... as an orator, and debater, but I didn't care for this debate. I'm working on those numbers johan... I know they're here somewhere...

Shame. It seemed many in the audience were swayed by it. A lot of people changed their minds after that debate, apparently.

Also there's 300,000 teachers in California of which about half are elementary, so you'd need to compensate the number a bit more.

Also I wouldn't exactly trust the numbers brought out by the same people who stand accused of protecting pedophiles. That seems a little suspicious.

Quote from: Vercingetorix on March 24, 2014, 08:45:20 PM
Over 95% of abuser priests targeted adolescent boys, not prepubescent girls, so "pedophile" is an incorrect definition in the first place.

They shouldn't be targeting anybody!

catholic church apologist? are you and EVIL apologist to ???

Man, cut the shit and stop making excuses for accepting bullshit in your life. If you want to buy the bull that's fine,  I'm pretty sure nobody really gives a rats ass. If you're truly interested in learning about the real world then fine. Learn it, but knock off the "but I'm brainwashed" innocent act.

Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on March 25, 2014, 11:06:53 AM
Man, cut the shit and stop making excuses for accepting bullshit in your life. If you want to buy the bull that's fine,  I'm pretty sure nobody really gives a rats ass. If you're truly interested in learning about the real world then fine. Learn it, but knock off the "but I'm brainwashed" innocent act.

He should convert to toothfairysm the true religion.

Leo, Leo, Leo...if I told you once I told you a thousand times, it's Toothfairianism and it's the ONE true religion.  lol

Welcome aboard Vercingetorix! You wear your religion like a band of honor, and ask what's wrong with it, and want us to tell you. It's based on primitive superstitious nonsense by men who never had a clue about what reality is and magical Neanderthal thinking, which takes away free thought, that's what wrong with it. I'm married to a Catholic. Solitary

For those that don't know: Vercingetorix was the best known, and perhaps the most able, leader of the Gallic opposition to Caesar during the Gallic War of 58-51 B.C. He came to prominence at the start of the Great Gallic Revolt in 52 B.C., when he was given the supreme command of the Gallic army, and for most of the year he managed to hold together a powerful alliance of Gallic tribes.

Vercingetorix was the son of Celtillus, an Arvernian nobleman who according to Caesar had once 'held the supremacy of entire Gaul', but had been killed by his fellow Gauls when they discovered that he wanted to become king of a united Gaul. At the start of the revolt Vercingetorix attempted to raise the Arverni, but he was expelled from Gergorvia, their capital, by a group of noblemen led by his uncle Gobanitio. This was only a temporary setback, for Vercingetorix was able to gather together a large force of his own followers. The nobles were overthrown and Vercingetorix was acclaimed as king of the Arverni.

His first move was to sent ambassadors out to neighbouring tribe, and he soon had the Senones, Parisii, Pictones, Cadurci, Turones, Anlerei, Lemovice and the tribes of the northern and north-western coasts attached to his cause, in addition to the Carnutes, who had started the revolt. Vercingetorix was appointed the supreme commander of the newly united Gallic army.
At the start of the revolt Vercingetorix was in a strong position. Caesar was in Cisalpine Gaul (northern Italy), while his army was in northern Gaul. The previous two revolts had taken place in the north west and north east of Gaul, while the south and centre had remained quiet. As a result the Roman Province of Transalpine Gaul was poorly defended. Vercingetorix sent part of his army south to attack the Ruteni, on the border of the Roman Province, in the hope that this would prevent Caesar from moving north. At the same time he led the rest of his army north to attack the Bituriges. They called on the Aedui for assistance, but when the Audean army turned back at the Loire the Bituriges joined the revolt.

Caesar soon disrupted Vercingetorix's plans. After organising the defences of the Province he led a small force across the Cevennes Mountains, into Vercingetorix's homeland. Vercingetorix was forced to move south to counter Caesar, who then slipped away to the east, collected more troops and then crossed Aeduan territory to reach his legions in the north.
Vercingetorix's next move was an attack on the Boii town of Gorgobina, apparently in the hope that this would force Caesar to pull their legions out of their winter quarters. Gorgobina had been settled by the Boii in 58 B.C. and was effectively under Caesar's protection, so the plan worked, but perhaps not with the eventual results that Vercingetorix had hoped for. The Romans advanced south towards Gorgobina, capturing Vellaunodunum and Cenabum (Orleans) on the way, before attacking Noviodunum. Vercingetorix abandoned the siege of Gorgobina and moved towards the Romans in an attempt to prevent the fall of the town, but by the time his advance guard came within sight of the place it had already surrendered to the Romans. The sight of the Gallic cavalry convinced some of the townspeople to renew their resistance, but the Romans won a cavalry engagement outside the town, and the surrender was completed.

Caesar now took the initiative, moving to attack the important Bituriges town of Avaricum. Vercingetorix wanted to adopt a scorched earth policy and attempt to prevent the Romans from gaining supplies or winning victories. The Bituriges agreed to destroy most of their towns but eventually persuaded Vercingetorix to let then defend Avaricum. Vercingetorix camped fifteen miles from the town, and attempted to destroy any Roman foraging parties that strayed too far from the town. When the Romans had nearly completed their siege works he moved his camp closer to the town, but an attempt to ambush a Roman foraging party failed after the Romans learnt of the plan.

While Vercingetorix was away from the army Caesar led his legions out of the siege works and offered battle, but the Gauls were leaderless and the two armies were separated by a swamp that discouraged attack. Eventually Caesar returned to his camp to continue the siege. On his return to the Gallic camp Vercingetorix was accused of treason, on the grounds that he had deliberately moved the Gauls into a vulnerable position and then left them without a leader. Vercingetorix demonstrated his unusual ability to maintain a coalition of different Gallic tribes, making a speech that completely restored his authority.
The almost inevitable fall of Avaricum and the massacre that followed further enhanced his reputation as the only leader who had predicted this outcome to the siege. It was soon be even further enhanced when he became the only Gallic leader to actually defeat Caesar, or at least prevent him from achieving one of his objectives. The end of the siege of Avaricum came at the start of the spring of 52 B.C. Caesar decided to split his army in two. Four legions were sent north while he led six to attack Gergovia. Once again Vercingetorix agreed to take part in the defence of a town, and placed his camps on the hills that surrounded the place.

The successful defence of Gergovia wasn't actually due to any particular action on Vercingetorix's part. The Aedui, Rome's most loyal allies in Gaul, were finally on the brink of joining the revolt. Caesar managed to foil a plot to subvert an Aeduan army that was heading towards Gergovia, but realised that he would have to abandon the siege and move north to reunite his army before he was overwhelmed. After an attempt to save face by attacking the Gallic camp ended in an embarrassing defeat on the town walls Caesar moved away to the north, foiled for the first time.

Soon after this the Aedui came out in open revolt. Despite being complete newcomers they immediately claimed the leadership of the revolt, but at a council held at Bibracte everyone voted in favour of retaining Vercingetorix as commander.
Having been confirmed in his authority Vercingetorix decided to renew the attack on the Roman Province. Caesar was forced to react to this, leading his newly reunited army east through the territory of the Lingones towards that of the Sequani, from where he could easily have moved into the province. Vercingetorix decided to attack the Romans while they were on the march, in an attempt to inflict a defeat on them that would prevent Caesar from simply returning north with more troops once he had restored the situation in the south.

The resulting battle of the Vingeanne ended as a clear Roman victory. The Gauls were forced to retreat west with the Romans following close behind, until they reached the fortified town of Alesia, where Vercingetorix took shelter. This was a dramatic change from his policy at every earlier stage of the war, when he had made sure that he was never trapped inside a besieged town. Vercingetorix's last move before the Roman siege lines were completed was to send his cavalry away from Alesia with orders to gather a relief army.

The siege of Alesia turned into the decisive battle of the war. A massive Gallic relief army was eventually gathered, forcing Caesar to build a double line of defences â€" one looking in towards the town and one looking out towards the relief force. With Vercingetorix trapped inside the city the relief effort was poorly organised. Caesar was able to defeat the first two attempts to break the siege with some ease.

The final attack was more serious. The Gauls outside the town attacked a camp on the northern side of the town, where the Romans lines were disrupted by a steep hill. Vercingetorix was able to see that this attack was underway and ordered a sally from within the walls. The Romans found themselves attacked from both sides at once, but Caesar was able to cope with the situation and eventually both attacks failed.

The relief army suffered heavy casualties in this third attack, and on the day after the battle it scattered. When this became known inside the town Vercingetorix realised that the last chance of victory had gone, and he decided to surrender to Caesar instead of prolonging the siege. According to Plutarch Vercingetorix put on his best armour, rode around Caesar, then got off his horse, took off his armour and sat at Caesar's feet until he was led away.

Caesar's own account of the surrender is less dramatic, and has Vercingetorix turned over by the other Gallic chiefs in Alesia.

After his surrender Vercingetorix was taken to Rome where he was kept prisoner until Caesar was able to celebrate his triumph for the Gallic War. The civil war delayed this until 45 B.C., and so Vercingetorix survived for seven years after his surrender at Alesia, before being executed after the triumph.

While other Gallic leaders, most notably Ambiorix, who was never captured, or Commius of the Atrebates, who eventually established a kingdom in southern Britain, played an equally major part in the Gallic resistance, it was Vercingetorix who was remembered, as the leader of the most powerful alliance of Gallic tribes that Caesar ever faced.

The Gallic War , Julius Caesar. One of the great works of western civilisation. Caesar was an almost unique example of a great general who was also a great writer. The Gallic War is a first hand account of Caesar's conquest of Gaul, written at the time to explain and justify his actions.

I can't believe I read that whole wall of text. Interesting though.

Quote from: Poison Tree on March 24, 2014, 09:51:10 PM
The John Jay report has issues with methodology, not the least of which was arbitrarily setting the age of puberty at 11, while the generally accepted age is 13 for boys and 12-13 for girls. If we use the John Jay reports data, 47.2% of victims were age 12 or under, with an additional 12.8% at age 13. Even looking at only those age 10 or younger gets 22.6% of victims. So, unless the 5% who were "pedophile priests" were far more active than the other 95%, the numbers still don't add up--for what it is worth I've seen two versions of this claim (one saying 5% of priests fit the pedophile definition, the other saying 5% of victims were 10 or under) a lot on the internet, but can't find the claim in the John Jay report itself; maybe it is in some versions and not others?

Not that abusing 14 year-olds is suddenly ok because it is not "pedophilia"

as to your paragraph... okay, at least we have a little less to disagree about. On your summary statement; obviously... I don't think anyone could agree more.

Quote from: Plu on March 25, 2014, 04:33:52 AM
Shame. It seemed many in the audience were swayed by it. A lot of people changed their minds after that debate, apparently.

Also there's 300,000 teachers in California of which about half are elementary, so you'd need to compensate the number a bit more.

Also I wouldn't exactly trust the numbers brought out by the same people who stand accused of protecting pedophiles. That seems a little suspicious.

They were swayed... by shouting, and by celebrity. I didn't mention the number of teachers... I never insinuated that there was one accusation per teacher, the point is that legal action is taken in about 800 of the thousands of cases that are brought to the attention of the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing each year. Again, all the numbers, including from the CCTC, and the CDCP are completely credible.

Quote from: Jason78 on March 25, 2014, 06:07:28 AM
They shouldn't be targeting anybody!

Absolutely agree.

Quote from: wavecollapse on March 25, 2014, 10:34:30 AM
catholic church apologist? are you and EVIL apologist to ???

No

Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on March 25, 2014, 11:06:53 AM
Man, cut the shit and stop making excuses for accepting bullshit in your life. If you want to buy the bull that's fine,  I'm pretty sure nobody really gives a rats ass. If you're truly interested in learning about the real world then fine. Learn it, but knock off the "but I'm brainwashed" innocent act.

One of my foremost joys is learning about the world... we could talk about that...

@solitary, I was very glad to read your "wall of text," very interesting. I've learned more about Vercingetorix's campaign from you than from anywhere else so far. I think the train of thought we're moving to is "free thought," I believe I have it, and I believe I do no injury to the Church at all by having it...

In the midst of all this, let me propose a question. What is the opinion of either this community or these individuals on the objectivity of morality? I ask this because of a debate I saw between William Lane Craig, and Sam Harris. First of all let us get on the same page, let us speak in terms of modern day Catholicism (because it's MY question lol.) This is to avoid the mention of the westboro baptist church, and the ancient Church whose supposed evils are so often espoused here, and the modern day individual failings of a far too large number of priests. I wish to avoid these specific items because they are not part of the teaching of the Catholic Church even if they are directly related to Christianity or more specifically, Catholicism in some way. Does anyone here think that the teachings of the Church and the potential objectivity of atheistic morality will/can converge at some point? Even though their ideas on God won't.

There is no atheistic morality or Christian/Catholic/Muslim/etc morality. Only morality.

The teachings of the Catholic church will converge with morality when it (like other religions) stops telling people how to live their lives. It kind of defeats the purpose of religion, but that is the problem with religion in the first place. People as a whole know what is right and what's wrong. When a religion of any kind, even the catholic church, tells people what is good and what is bad especially when it forces people to try to be anything other than human, that is where you have problems and it's not moral to do that. Catholic morality... isn't.

Objective morals will never exist. Atheists don't get their morals from atheism, so that part of the question doesn't even make sense. If you want to compare catholic "morals" with other non-religious moral systems, that's fine but you'll have to decide which ones you want to discuss and then we'll have to see whether anyone here even ascribes to that moral system.

Ultimately though, the catholic church will slowly hop after the changes of morals in society as they have always done, but they'll fight it tooth and nail until they realise they've lost, and then they'll 180 on it and pretend it was part of their dogma all along.

Quote from: Vercingetorix on March 26, 2014, 02:33:54 AM
In the midst of all this, let me propose a question. What is the opinion of either this community or these individuals on the objectivity of morality? I ask this because of a debate I saw between William Lane Craig, and Sam Harris. First of all let us get on the same page, let us speak in terms of modern day Catholicism (because it's MY question lol.) This is to avoid the mention of the westboro baptist church, and the ancient Church whose supposed evils are so often espoused here, and the modern day individual failings of a far too large number of priests. I wish to avoid these specific items because they are not part of the teaching of the Catholic Church even if they are directly related to Christianity or more specifically, Catholicism in some way. Does anyone here think that the teachings of the Church and the potential objectivity of atheistic morality will/can converge at some point? Even though their ideas on God won't.

Morality is a human construct. In many ways, it is nothing but the rules we agree upon to live in a society. In some way, it's like playing chess: you want to play it, you abide by the rules. It also means that the rules of morality are not written in stone: centuries ago slavery was moral - those who practiced it did not consider themselves immoral, neither their contemporaries. Today, there aren't too many places where it is still morally right to own slaves. How do we decide what is morally wrong? Often, it has to do with actions that harm others, or actions that impact negatively society as a whole. We have to remember we are both individuals and members of a society, so we need to regulate both aspects of ourselves. Now religion has basically highjacked morality to control the lives of people, making sure that its adherents don't stray away from its doctrine. So often that comes in conflict with those who don't adhere with that religion: think abortion and gay rights for which the RC church is at odds with secular society. All in all, morality is no more objective than the rules of chess: they only exist as ideas as long as that are humans who exist and hold these ideas in their mind.

(http://i1160.photobucket.com/albums/q490/atheola/10374-1.jpeg)

Quote from: Vercingetorix on March 26, 2014, 02:33:54 AMWhat is the opinion of either this community or these individuals on the objectivity of morality?

Morality is a product of evolution and therefore subjective.

You'd first have to tell us what you mean by "the objectivity of morality"--I suspect that you, like most Christians, actually (if unknowingly) mean "subjective and dependent on/to god".

as for your last question

Quote from: Vercingetorix on March 26, 2014, 02:33:54 AM
Does anyone here think that the teachings of the Church and the potential objectivity of atheistic morality will/can converge at some point?

No. The only atheistic objective morality I'm aware of is the attempt by Harris. Since his morality is built on human suffering and Catholic/christian morality is built on the Nuremberg Defense (I was just following [god's] orders), I don't see how they could converge.

Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on March 26, 2014, 09:13:33 AM
(http://i1160.photobucket.com/albums/q490/atheola/10374-1.jpeg)

That is hilarious! Solitary

Welcome Vercingetorix. Good luck. Christianity's main problem is that the God it worships probably doesn't exist, which would mean it's entire foundation rests on what fallible humans thought thousands of years ago.

Quote from: Vercingetorix on March 23, 2014, 09:54:04 PM
My goodness... I didn't come here to troll. I take it you are all trolled very often, or are completely uninterested in entertaining any conversations like this. Perhaps there are many topics of this type on this site that I should have known about before starting this one. I am obviously sorry for having irritated anyone here. I would like to acknowledge (albeit with unfair brevity) the posts here that were intended to be welcoming, informational and friendly. Thanks all.     

You seem to have a good attitude.

It's certainly possible for Catholicism to reach a point where it shares enough premises with humanism to be largely in agreement (objectively) about what follows from those premises. I think humans should be as safe and free as possible. If we can agree on that, we should have some areas of agreement on what logically follows from that premise.

QuoteHello everyone, I am a cradle Catholic who fancies himself an apologist.

Hello V-X, I am a former Christian who fancies himself an uneducated hick.

QuoteI believe there IS a competent, intellectual way of thinking about/understanding the existence of a deity (especially the Christian one.)

I used to believe that as well. Try to start by defining “God”, or “deity” in a meaningful way, and go from there.

QuoteAll I want to do is see if I can hold my own in an open forum... (I'm a lamb in search of a slaughterhouse.)

This is a good attitude. But what if you don't hold your own? Will you see that you didn't?

QuoteWith that said, what is wrong with Christianity anyway? Is it anti-intellectual? Is it complete nonsense? Is it destructive? 

The armchair-psychologist in me has to ask if perhaps these are a list of your own complaints about Christianity? You seem to have nailed some of my top ones, when I still believed.

QuoteAre you indifferent to religion, or do you revile it?

I simply realize that it is not only unnecessary, it has been harmful to me in countless ways.

QuoteMy goodness... I didn't come here to troll.

Don't worry about name-calling. Some of these guys are pretty jaded.

QuoteI take it you are all trolled very often, or are completely uninterested in entertaining any conversations like this. Perhaps there are many topics of this type on this site that I should have known about before starting this one. I am obviously sorry for having irritated anyone here.

Your contriteness is very Christian.

QuoteI would like to acknowledge (albeit with unfair brevity) the posts here that were intended to be welcoming, informational and friendly. Thanks all.

This one is intended as such. I find there is more interesting activity on these boards when we get a Christian. Otherwise it becomes a little cozy.

Welcome. I hope you will choose to stay a while.

I apologize for the comments I made earlier. I misread your intentions.

You see religion from a Catholic point of view, we tend to see it from an overall view- religions are all false, and Catholicism is one of them. The religious see their beliefs as venerated and steeped in tradition, we see it as antiquated and outmoded. There is a concept called "God of the Gaps" created by Henry Drummond, a 19th century Evangelist, which postulated that religion existed where science failed or could provide no answers.

The problem with that concept is that the gaps keep shrinking. As science discovers more, religion becomes less true. God is an explanation for the unknown. And in the end, from a big picture standpoint, god had really provided nothing of substance to man. He has not demonstrably or reliably healed the sick, has not stopped a natural disaster, nor created the cures for diseases that ravaged the earth.

religions are creations of man that have become self serving institutions whose primary goal is maintaining their own existence. They do more harm than good in the world. Any justification for their existence is long past.

What I hate about catholicism is.
The concept of sin.
Hell.
Heaven.
Constant surveillance and thought crime.
No option to cease to exist.
God who is watching how people get sick and die and torture one another and does nothing about it.
God who made world full of shit.
Also the salvation which is based on faith and not good works.
God who refuses to show himself.

I'm not the only one that doesn't get a troll vibe from Vercingetorix, am I? He's holding a discussion without asshole-ness. I think it's refreshing to have someone that is a theist that isn't a complete douche like we get trolls of and read about in the forum every day. It reminds me that not all people that believe in god aren't complete raging idiots.

Quote from: Vercingetorix on March 26, 2014, 02:33:54 AM
Does anyone here think that the teachings of the Church and the potential objectivity of atheistic morality will/can converge at some point?

What exactly is atheistic morality?

Quote from: Johan on March 26, 2014, 09:06:37 PM
What exactly is atheistic morality?

the same as "theirs" but using "our" love and compassion as the base instead of a magical "wizards" love and compassion. Pretty much semantics, only they are more than willing to kill you for not agreeing with them while you are more than willing to let them be.

Quote from: aitm on March 26, 2014, 10:39:48 PM
the same as "theirs" but using "our" love and compassion as the base instead of a magical "wizards" love and compassion. Pretty much semantics, only they are more than willing to kill you for not agreeing with them while you are more than willing to let them be.

That doesn't really explain it for me. Or at least I'm still not understanding the difference. I guess that's because my perception has always been that ones religion, or lack of religion has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not one has morals. To me, anyone who points to their belief in god or their church attendance as the reason they have good morals is either lying or woefully misinformed.

I guess its that whole bit about if you're only moral because god will punish you otherwise, then you're not really moral, you're just well-behaved because dad's watching. Shrug.

QuoteDoes anyone here think that the teachings of the Church and the potential objectivity of atheistic morality will/can converge at some point?

As I would understand you to mean it, I think there is already a great deal of agreement. And on many subjects where there is disagreement between Christian morals, and humanistic morals, the Christians will eventually evolve, given the proper social pressures from within. Because humanistic morals aren't exclusively atheistic any more than atheists are exclusively humanists.

Probably most of my morality is based on what my parents taught me. They were both very humanistic in their values, although my mom was a Christian. I am fortunate to have had a very open-minded upbringing.

I hope that Christians will increasingly focus on the love and forgiveness. Compassion and non-judgmentalism. Peacemaking, healing, and turning the other cheek.

I fear though that they will continue to focus on obedience to scripture, which is divisive at best and oppressive in any case.

There can never be an objective morality. But there is a lot we can agree on. Freedom of religion, including the option to decline any religion, is a good place to start.

Quote from: Vercingetorix on March 23, 2014, 01:59:47 PM
Hello everyone, I am a cradle Catholic who fancies himself an apologist. I am not here because I have been sent by God to convert the heathen masses concentrated here, but because I believe there IS a competent, intellectual way of thinking about/understanding the existence of a deity (especially the Christian one.) All I want to do is see if I can hold my own in an open forum... (I'm a lamb in search of a slaughterhouse.) With that said, what is wrong with Christianity anyway? Is it anti-intellectual? Is it complete nonsense? Is it destructive? Are you indifferent to religion, or do you revile it? P.S. if this is the wrong place to post this, let me be rebuffed quickly, and I will post this elsewhere.   

Good luck, former symbolic cannibal hobbyist myself. Oh and FYI that stick monument in St Peter's with the cross on it, is called an Obelisk. Before the Vatican incorporated it into their decor, it was originally brought from Egypt by tyrant and sicko Caligula to Rome for his own self glorification. Welcome to the shark tank.

well, looks like we ran Vercingetorix off. He wasn't too bad compared to the Christians we get through here. Obtuse and squirmed away from questions--which is practically a prerequisite--but at least he wasn't an outright troll.