News:

Welcome to our site!

Main Menu

I'm Catholic, let me have it!

Started by Vercingetorix, March 23, 2014, 01:59:47 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

The Skeletal Atheist

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.
Some people need to be beaten with a smart stick.

Kein Mehrheit Fur Die Mitleid!

Kein Mitlied F�r Die Mehrheit!

AllPurposeAtheist

I'll acknowledge the OPs right to remain woefully stupid. Why not?
All hail my new signature!

Admit it. You're secretly green with envy.

aitm

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
A humans desire to live is exceeded only by their willingness to die for another. Even god cannot equal this magnificent sacrifice. No god has the right to judge them.-first tenant of the Panotheust

Hijiri Byakuren

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:


An advanced alien, like Q here, would be able to claim it is a god,
even your god, and offer any proof you demanded of him.
You would never be able to prove that he is anything other than what he claims.

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, 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.
Speak when you have something to say, not when you have to say something.

Sargon The Grape - My Youtube Channel

Vercingetorix

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.     

Moralnihilist

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?
Science doesn't give a damn about religions, because "damns" are not measurable units and therefore have no place in research. As soon as it's possible to detect damns, we'll quantize perdition and number all the levels of hell. Until then, science doesn't care.

aitm

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.
A humans desire to live is exceeded only by their willingness to die for another. Even god cannot equal this magnificent sacrifice. No god has the right to judge them.-first tenant of the Panotheust

Vercingetorix

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.

Poison Tree

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.
"Observe that noses were made to wear spectacles; and so we have spectacles. Legs were visibly instituted to be breeched, and we have breeches" Voltaire�s Candide

stromboli

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.

Vercingetorix

@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.

Poison Tree

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?

"Observe that noses were made to wear spectacles; and so we have spectacles. Legs were visibly instituted to be breeched, and we have breeches" Voltaire�s Candide

Vercingetorix

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.

AllPurposeAtheist

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.
All hail my new signature!

Admit it. You're secretly green with envy.

Vercingetorix

@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.