|
Post by Inedifix on Feb 16, 2010 23:38:42 GMT
What about atheism, for that matter? Why should it be the only position to be right? By the nature of things, if there are several competing and contradictory positions they can't all be right. Hi Hibernicus, My apologies for butting in (haven't posted here in a long time) but I just wanted to clarify a couple of points. Atheism isn't in the same category as any of the world's competing religions. There is a distinct categorical difference between competing views over the nature and detail of something that lacks physical evidence, and the separate view that says: without physical evidence we should not be postulating a view at all. I'm going to use a comparison here to illustrate why I say this. The comparison is purely to illustrate the difference between competing interpretations of something that lacks physical evidence and that of skepticism associated with the atheist position. The example I'll use is the myth of the lost Island of Atlantis. This is not because I want to denigrate religion in anyway, and I am not drawing a direct comparison between the two. The reason for my choice is because there are many competing theories about where Atlantis is, what caused it to sink or be lost, and what kind of civilization lived there. But there is no concrete physical evidence that such a place ever actually existed. My guess is that both you and I share the view that in all likelihood, Atlantis is a myth, and nothing more. We don't need evidence of the absence of Atlantis to conclude this, we just use the lack of actual evidence, and our common sense to conclude that Atlantis probably did not exists. We disbelieve in Atlantis. That does not mean however, that we share in one of the competing views on the nature of Atlantis. Or that our opinion is in the came category. All of those who believe in competing versions of the Atlantis myth are using speculation and conjecture to arrive at their conclusions. Those of us who do not believe in Atlantis are refusing to speculate or resort to conjecture on something completely lacking in evidence. I'm sure you wouldn't consider your disbelief in the Atlantis myth (assuming you don't believe in it) to be just one of the competing theories on Atlantis. Equally, as someone who does not believe in god, I don't consider my disbelief to be just one of the competing theories on gods. If there is by definition nothing outside the universe why do physicists seem to spend so much time specualting about parallel universes, etc? I think it's science fiction writers who speculate on "parallel universes." Quantum physicists discuss various "multiple universe theories" which are all essentially interpretations of the consequences of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. Crucially, it should be noted that in all multiple universe theories, the set of universes proposed makes up the entirety of everything that physically exists: all matter, energy, governing forces and space time. None of them allows for a location, time or combination of the two "outside" of the universal set. Basically, existence is existence. There is no outside. If god exists, he, she or it is somewhere within.
|
|
|
Post by guillaume on Feb 17, 2010 1:46:58 GMT
Ok, you asshole bigoted ROMAN Catholics. Some of you have been infiltrating Atheist Ireland, so what is good for the goose is good for the gander. If you think you can persecute us Atheists, we can persecute you "Roaming Cattleticks". You are all the bloody same, "Holier Than Thou", act like robots at Mass, not interested in what is going on and so pissed off with it so you are dying for it to end. I often wonded why, in the real Mass, the Tridentine Mass the priest finished with "Ite, Missa Est" and the congregation would say "Deo Gratias" - "Thanks be to God" that crap is over for an other Sunday. Some people did not wait that long. They sat in the back pews and as soon as the priest put Jesus-in-a-piece-of-bread back in his little cell they were out the door as fast as they could go. I've seen it. My father used to call those people the "backsliders". I'm pissed off with all this, so go ahead, make my day. BAN ME. Bye, you certainly being banned
|
|
|
Post by guillaume on Feb 17, 2010 1:51:14 GMT
I suggest Hibernicus to close completely the Open Forum makes the entire Forum only for catholics.
|
|
eccles
New Member
My Old Horse Chester
Posts: 25
|
Post by eccles on Feb 17, 2010 4:10:28 GMT
I suggest Hibernicus to close completely the Open Forum makes the entire Forum only for catholics. HA, HA. Very funny. Now how do you hope to achieive that? How are you going to know who are Catholics. Demand copies of their Baptismal Certificates, or letters from their Parish Priests or their Bishops? Its show the lack of brains of Guillaume and other bloody brain dead ROMAN Catholics here. What do you want to do? Turn this Forum into something like a closed Carmelite Convent where the Penguins were not allowed much contact with the real World. At least I had the honesty to declare my Atheism. I'm not scared who knows I'm Atheist. The bloody Pope can know for all I care. He is only a bum protected by his diplomatic immunity as head of a so-called State. Actually is the Pope a Catholic? No Pope after Vatican II has been legally consecrated. No Roman Catholic has heard Mass since Vatican II banned the proper Tridentine Mass and forced the heretical Missae Ordo Novis on the "Faithfull".
|
|
|
Post by guillaume on Feb 17, 2010 9:29:47 GMT
I suggest Hibernicus to close completely the Open Forum makes the entire Forum only for catholics. HA, HA. Very funny. Now how do you hope to achieive that? How are you going to know who are Catholics. Demand copies of their Baptismal Certificates, or letters from their Parish Priests or their Bishops? Its show the lack of brains of Guillaume and other bloody brain dead ROMAN Catholics here. What do you want to do? Turn this Forum into something like a closed Carmelite Convent where the Penguins were not allowed much contact with the real World. At least I had the honesty to declare my Atheism. I'm not scared who knows I'm Atheist. The bloody Pope can know for all I care. He is only a bum protected by his diplomatic immunity as head of a so-called State. Actually is the Pope a Catholic? No Pope after Vatican II has been legally consecrated. No Roman Catholic has heard Mass since Vatican II banned the proper Tridentine Mass and forced the heretical Missae Ordo Novis on the "Faithfull". An athesit who defends the Tridentine Mass, interesting ! Pity you use such words and provocative attitude and disrespect.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Feb 17, 2010 12:08:51 GMT
OK eccles. You were provoked by Monkeyman, but we do have a ban on abusive and insulting language on this board, and you have already been warned twice - albeit for different offences. So now you are banned, as you requested.
Let me say as a farewell gesture I appreciate your honesty in declaring that you are an atheist, though your posing as a SSPX supporter does take from it. You seem to have mixed up the SSPX position with that of Hutton Gibson and Co, by the way.
I also appreciate the fact that you did intermittently engage in reasoned argument, or at least attempts thereat, whereas Ezigbotutu was simply insulting and hazelireland would ask for reasoned criticism and then airily respond "that's not evidence" without ever explaining WHY it was not evidence.
I will respond to Guillaume and Monkeyman in a separate post.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Feb 17, 2010 12:20:01 GMT
Monkeyman: I appreciate that it is frustrating to have atheists on the board, especially when they engage in mockery or when they assume their presuppositions are self-evident.
I tolerate them because they were let on by the previous moderator, and because I'm not afraid of them. Indeed, they can provide a bracing intellectual workout. I don't know enough to answer all their points, but then I never supposed that being a Catholic makes you omniscient, whereas some of them seem to believe that adherence to atheism does confer that ability.
I know they are trying to convert us, and we are unlikely to convert them, but you never know. Maybe one of them might experience something like Newman's "monophysite moment" (when he read Wiseman's argument that the position of Rome to Canterbury was like that of Rome towards the heresies of the early Church, and "I looked at my face in the mirror, and it was the face of a Monophysite").
Besides this, atheists are becoming more common and it is IMHO useful to familiarise oneself with their mindset.
I would quite like to have an Evangelical Protestant or two on the board for the same reason. If we ever get any, they will be kept in the Open Forum while the other sections are reserved for intra-Catholic debate and discussion.
I may say one thing, Monkeyman - I am not altogether happy about the way you addressed Eccles. The rules of politeness in debate apply to everyone. This is not a formal warning, but watch your step.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Feb 17, 2010 12:47:22 GMT
|
|
|
Post by monkeyman on Feb 17, 2010 19:25:20 GMT
Hibernicus, look, I'm in agreement with you and yes I do apologise to Eccles and the other lad as I realise I could be an obsticle to their embracing the truth and that due to my intemperate use of language I've done the Church a disservice.It's my view atheists exist in reaction to Catholicism mainly and that it is a male dominated phenomenon. However I refuse to yield on this particular point and that is they have no place here, on a Catholic apologist forum yes, but here, no. The very fact that they are on this site is an occasion of sin for some of us (as it is a tempatation against the cardinal virtue of faith), most of us are not equipped to answer them as the majority are well read. What about the Catholics of simple faith (which is to be prized) who are distressed far more than I with some of the swill that has been thrown on the Churchs' teaching and practises since this sites inception? That is why I maintain they should be talking to apologists for the faith-qualified ones.
|
|
|
Post by monkeyman on Feb 17, 2010 20:19:39 GMT
Ok, you asshole bigoted ROMAN Catholics. Some of you have been infiltrating Atheist Ireland, so what is good for the goose is good for the gander. If you think you can persecute us Atheists, we can persecute you "Roaming Cattleticks". You are all the bloody same, "Holier Than Thou", act like robots at Mass, not interested in what is going on and so pissed off with it so you are dying for it to end. I often wonded why, in the real Mass, the Tridentine Mass the priest finished with "Ite, Missa Est" and the congregation would say "Deo Gratias" - "Thanks be to God" that crap is over for an other Sunday. Some people did not wait that long. They sat in the back pews and as soon as the priest put Jesus-in-a-piece-of-bread back in his little cell they were out the door as fast as they could go. I've seen it. My father used to call those people the "backsliders". I'm pissed off with all this
, so go ahead, make my day. BAN ME. [/quote] Eccles, you may not be banned from this forum for deriding the faith of the Church of Rome, but you will be banned for bad "Dirty Harry" impersonations.
|
|
|
Post by Inedifix on Feb 17, 2010 20:36:54 GMT
I know they are trying to convert us, and we are unlikely to convert them, but you never know. Sorry to disappoint you Hibernicus, but I don't think conversion is the reason for atheist posters posting here. Similarly, I don't think Christian posters who post on atheist sites are there for conversion either. At least, that's not my experience of those who do so. There are over 1,800 members of the Atheist.ie forum and only a handful ever post here. I won't speculate on the motives for each, but I think you've all seen enough recently to tell the difference between those who harbour deepset grudges of a personal nature against the Catholic church, and those who drop in for genuine debate. I think you were remarkably tolerant of Eccles. Besides this, atheists are becoming more common and it is IMHO useful to familiarise oneself with their mindset. I'm not sure that atheists are becoming more common. I think it's more the case that people who have not believed for a long time now have the courage to self-identify as atheists. Atheist.ie is full of such personal stories (though mine is quite different) of self-discovery. It's very hard for people brought up in a country that is dominated by a single faith - people who have family, friends, neighbours and colleagues who all believe - to "come out of the atheist closet." I grew up in the UK, so there was never any pressure on me of that kind. But I can recall many occasions since moving to Ireland when religion might crop up in conversation and I would mention that I'm an atheist. Most people stare at me as though I'm either mad, or the devil himself. One person told me I had no right to be included in a conversation about god/religion at all, because I didn't believe in god. For an Irish (Catholic raised) atheist, we can add family and community expectations, tradition, peer pressure, and the desire to be seen to conform to this mix. The result, on a national level, is a large group of closet atheists, just bursting to get out. And what you're witnessing now could be thought of as the coming out phase. The recent popular rise in atheism that has been driven by writers like Dawkins and Hitchens has given these people the courage to do so. And in many cases the arguments to explain to others why. A handful of these people want to take their many years of repressed disbelief out on the source of their frustration. And anonymous posters on Christian websites are a much more likely target than people they actually know, live and mix with in the flesh. However, the overwhelming majority do not do this. I should also point out that Monkeyman is off the mark when he says: "It's my view atheists only exist in reaction to Catholicism manily and that it is a male dominated phenomenon."The only reason atheists exist is because they don't believe in god. It may feel like this is "in reaction" to Catholicism, but you have to bear in mind that 90% or so of the Irish public is Catholic. Consequently, most Irish atheists, were once Irish Catholics. As for male dominance, I think that has more to do with the gender bias of web fora. Quite possibly this one too. In the real world, I've met and know just as many female atheists as male ones. Personally, I can never ever remember a time when I believed in god. I was brought up in the UK without any overt religious influences, so my atheism is not in reaction to anything, and I don't feel the need to attack any particular faith. I just don't believe in god, and never have. hibernicus: I applaud your stance in encouraging open debate. And your professed lack of fear. monkeyman: if the mere presence of atheist posters on this site presents you with an "occasion for sin" I can only assume it is a much lesser temptation against your faith than those you would encounter in everyday life, assuming you're not a member of a religious order that is. Surely faith that is untested is less strong than that which is? P.S. I'm not here to convert. Or be converted.
|
|
|
Post by monkeyman on Feb 17, 2010 21:01:27 GMT
Point taken Inedfix regarding my own belief vis a vis atheists. I was not tlking about fora but among the general poulation and all societies-there is a predominance of atheism amongst men. Again stats-I must track these ones down but it may take some time. I don't feel I'm too wide from the mark with regard to my views on atheists existed only in reaction to Catholicism. I believe if a true atheist existed he would not be on this forum as the whole notion of God would be alien and beyond his understanding.Most of what you say is correct Inedfix but what gets many atheists in the end is that life ceases to have a sense of meaning for them-this is perhaps another topic for discussion. Yes there is a certain ring to the "faith tested" is better than one untested. However the Catholic Church is very clear on this as it does not treat its teaching as being one amongst other competing creeds. It describes itself as "the faith". Loosing ones faith and withdrawing belief are "sins". Different people are called to give witness to the faith or as you say, have their faith tested, sometimes to the shedding of their blood. Now I for one do not have the time to invest in learning all about my faith and how to defend it in the public sphere. I have a little knowledge but not a great knowledge. It would be wrong for me to contest with you the finer points of atheism and theology. I would loose. It comes down to this. "Faith is caught, not taught".
|
|
|
Post by Inedifix on Feb 18, 2010 0:35:51 GMT
Point taken Inedfix regarding my own belief vis a vis atheists. I was not tlking about fora but among the general poulation and all societies-there is a predominance of atheism amongst men. Again stats-I must track these ones down but it may take some time. Seems you may be right, although predominance might be too strong a word. According to the last Irish census the combined total of those who ticked Atheist, Agnostic and No religion to the "What Religion are you" question was 188,762 of which 60% are male and 40% female. So yes, there's a male bias. Not sure what conclusions or inferences anyone can draw from that though. [BTW: I ticked no religion to this loaded question, because I don't have a religion, as did most atheists I know]. I don't feel I'm too wide from the mark with regard to my views on atheists existed only in reaction to Catholicism. You may well 'feel' this way. But that doesn't make it so. A cursory glance at [url=http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html ]a list of the most atheistic countries in the world[/url] will show you that atheism is much more prevalent in non-catholic countries than catholic ones. The reason you feel atheism is a 'reaction' to catholicism is probably because you are a catholic living in a catholic country. No doubt many muslims in Turkey feel we're all just 'reacting' to islam. In truth, we're just reacting to a lack of evidence for gods and the religious baggage that comes with them. I believe if a true atheist existed he would not be on this forum as the whole notion of God would be alien and beyond his understanding. That's a bit of an odd statement. What is a true atheist? I truly do not, nor ever have believed in god, yet here I am. Why am I here? Right now, simply to point out a few errors in understanding that some of you may have about atheism. And just because I don't believe in god doesn't mean that the concept is beyond my understanding. Presumably, you understand the concept of Santa Claus, yet I doubt you believe in him. Most of what you say is correct Inedfix but what gets many atheists in the end is that life ceases to have a sense of meaning for them-this is perhaps another topic for discussion. I can't imagine what gives you such an impression. How many atheists have you met who have told you this? Please remember, that though we don't believe in god... we are still human beings. Subject to the same basic human experiences, emotions and desires as you. I'm a life long atheist... and I love life. Life means absolutely everything to me. Life is the ultimate and only true meaning for any human, in my opinion. Arguably - because I believe that this life is the only one we get - it may actually mean more to me than to someone who believes there's a better place waiting for them. Ask any atheist and I believe you'll get a similar answer. Just because you believe life would be meaningless without god, doesn't mean that it so for me or anyone else who doesn't share your beliefs.
|
|
|
Post by Inedifix on Feb 18, 2010 10:12:36 GMT
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Feb 18, 2010 12:14:41 GMT
Some different points here. Let's start with Inedifix - thanks for your courtesy. First of all, Atlantis is not a good example, since the theory that the story of Atlantis derives from distorted and fragmentary memories of the destruction of Minoan civilisation by the eruption of the volcano at Thera/Santorini is no self-evidently ridiculous and evidence can be adduced in its favour (though these cannot disprove the rival theory that Plato jsut made the whole thing up).
If you mean by the Atlantis myth the belief that Atlantis was located where Plato puts it, in the Atlantic, or that the Atlanteans had super-scientific powers, then these views can be disproved (e.g. the geology of the Atlantic does not allow for the submergence of a continent in the relevant time-period).
The problem with your application of this view to the existence of God is; You talk about physical evidence as if this was the only sort of evidence which counted - i.e. you assume a positivistic materialist view, which itself is open to dispute. Surely there are questions which are not resolvable by such means - e.g. I am not sure how the dispute between materialist and idealist philosophers, or between atheists, monotheists and pantheists, or debates about the nature of language, could be resolved by physical evidence in the sense you speak of.
Your statement that atheism is no more common than it used to be but that people are simply becoming more open about it is a good example of a question that can't be resolved by physical evidence. It is reasonable to assume that atheism, or atheist attitudes, were more widespread in former times than was publicly expressed (the late Monsignor Padraig de Brun is reputed to have said that he believed the rural population in Kerry held three simultaneous and incompatible beliefs about the afterlife - the orthodox Christian view, the view that death ends it all, and the view that the ghosts of the dead continue to hang around the living with various intentions, predominantly malicious. Note by the way that he places the three beliefs on an equal footing; none of them is more "real" to those who hold it than the others, in the way that a prisoner up before the Spanish Inquisition might pretend to believe one thing while really believing another.) It is quite another thing to say that there are no more atheists now than there have ever been, as if changes in current opinion have no impact at all. This seems to me to come suspiciously close to saying either that everyone is an atheist without knowing it (a view which is prima facie as improbable as the view - which used to be quite seriously advanced in the early modern period, that atheists don't exist and self-styled atheists actually beleive in God without admitting they do so) or that atheism is a psychological orientation like homosexuality which will always be found in a certain percentage of the population.
|
|