Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
My Catholic faith is one of ascent toward Dogma. You’d have to cite the documents and the statements you are referring to for me to evaluate whether they constitute something I am required to believe. More on this later, cheers!
Ummm no thanks...if you are going to be that obtuse.
I’m explicit in my faith. I choose to be. Much of the Catholic faith is subject to interpretation. The Church doesn’t and couldn’t possibly dogmatize everything. Much teaching is merely guidance. Language is also a barrier especially in translation. So yes there is a need to be careful in learning. If I’m obtuse in that position then so be it. I choose to approach learning carefully.
catholicray: "So yes there is a need to be careful in learning."
The first cogent you have said yet. An example, I can spend months and years learning one simple fact working at Yellowstone and monitoring its behavior. Just for my last dissertation, I spent nine months traveling the world gathering data, returned home and spent another ten months crunching that data into a geodatabase, another six months producing data layers for analysis, another six months analyzing the data, then another six months writing the paper. Damn, how long was that? Let's do the math …, add the …, carry the … Three years! Just to learn one piece of data. It that ain't being careful in learning, then please tell me.
The only problem is that you believe and support in an institution that has become the largest, most powerful, and wealthy beyond filth, criminal and evil organization on the whole planet Earth. The Catholic Church does not deserve the right of existence any longer.
Remember, the largest, most powerful, and wealthiest criminal organization on Earth.
Yet you expect us to just bend over and except the bullshit and horse hoowhee you are spewing as brain diarrhea?
Fuck you and go to hell. I no longer give in without a fight any longer.
rmfr
Maybe I am missing the point here, but it all seems far simpler to me than is made out in these posts.
1) If cause and effect exist (which it would be hard to argue that they don't) then rationality must be objective when applied to those causes and effects.
2) If you are arguing that rationality is not objective then you surely believe your argument to be rational and therefore subjective. I therefore reject your argument as it is not objective. The only argument one can post in favor of rationality being subjective is a subjective one such as "Rationality is not objective because I know it is not.......so wah!" i.e. do not use rationality in your argument.
3) The same argument as in 2 above is the only "Valid" argument for theism.
My argument is rather that nature is rational as everything in nature happens for a reason i.e. cause and effect apply. It is only in the realm of human thought that we see irrationality and subjectivity. therefore I argue that irrationality and subjectivity are human constructs but rationality and objectivity are natural. Whether the universe is infinite or not has no pertinence to the argument whatsoever. One could perhaps argue that cause and effect do not hold at the moment of creation but I am hard pressed to see that it does not hold for the rest of all time.
@ DEADLOK
I am taking some text out and reversing the order you posted it. It is to make my point.
"My argument is rather that nature is rational …"
"If cause and effect exist …"
This much is true, for the most part. There are things that occur in nature that are as irrational as us primates.
On the quantum level, we have observed, in nature, where there are effects without causes, and causes without effects. We are still buffoons when trying to figure this mess out. I am by far no expert in Quantum Mechanics, but I keep up with it enough to know there are some really baffling crap happening as delve deeper into it.
Just saying...
rmfr
I agree my argument is subjective but your argument to establish objectivity is also subjective. My argument doesn’t matter at all. Neither does yours until you establish the objectivity of rationality.
Can we reason or not are we reasoning or not? Status unknown.
It is better to establish the object of rationality. The objective of rationality is always more knowledge. The object looked at must have some even faintly defined perimeters.
catholicray: This "I agree my argument is subjective"
should be worded as "I agree my argument is irrational"
rmfr
Are you denying that objective truth exists or that we can know these? If so then I'm puzzled why anyone believing that would bother coming to a debate forum.
Do you deny that there is objective evidence that adhering to the principles of validation contained in logic increase the likelihood that your assertions will be true, whereas using irrational or fallacious reasoning increases the chances your assertions will be false?
Which has been shown to be better at objectively explaining reality, religion or science?
Come on now, enough semantics, you're trying to paint these as having parity as if they are equally subjective, and that's simply not true.
Your beliefs have you calming to believe a deity exists, and simultaneously asserting the claim a deity exists is untrue and irrational. So I think you decrying logic and science is more than a little ironic after presenting a gem like that.
@Sheldon
"Your beliefs have you claiming to believe a deity exists, and simultaneously asserting the claim a deity exists is untrue and irrational."
Wrong again Sheldon. If you're not going to be objective I will continue to burn you.
Review my answer to this. I am NOT simultaneously asserting the claim a deity exists is untrue. That would be irrational.
I am NOT asserting the claim a deity exists is true. That would be irrational.
The claim is thus far verified as: status unknown.
Are you dense or are you uncomfortable that my position on that claim is I don't know?
Next
Edit: Grammar
catholicray "I am NOT simultaneously asserting the claim a deity exists is untrue. "
You claimed you believed the claim was untrue and irrational?
Mon, 03/18/2019 - 19:58
catholicray "I do not believe the claim is true."
http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/rationality-human-cont...
NB You did not say that you didn't know whether the claim was true above , you said you did not believe the claim is true. learn to write clearly and stop insulting me for your execrable grasp of language.
catholicray Mon, 03/18/2019 - 18:43 "I have not claimed that a diety exists. That would be irrational. "
http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/rationality-human-cont...
NB You quite clearly state there the claim is irrational, QED.
catholicray "Are you dense or are you uncomfortable that my position on that claim is I don't know?"
It was your error you arrogant little prick, and if it's an exchange of ad hominem you want then trust me, I am your man.
I suggest you re-read what you wrote a little more carefully before resorting to petty ad hominem attacks.
"You claimed you believed the claim was untrue and irrational?" <---- What you continue to say I said
I do not believe the claim is true. <---- What I actually said
Examine those very closely. Your strawman is the first one. Anyone on here with half a brain who enjoys their atheism will recognize the mistake you have made.
Your strawman is that you insist on my affirmative belief. That is an error on your behalf, not mine.
If you say you don't believe a god exists are you affirming the belief that God does not exist or are you refraining to consent to belief?
The answer is you are refraining to consent to believe otherwise your position is verifiably irrational.
Still with the mental masturbation, eh Raynman. Dishonest because you claim the KCA as your own...dishonest because you disguise it with replacement of words that skirt meaning.( logic for rationality)...Dishonest because you withhold information of your belief until it suits you. Dishonest because you can't admit that, belief in something not proven to exist, is irrational.
Your view and our view are not equivalent.
You need to prove that a god exists before claiming it is the reason for anything...let alone logic. As WLC found out so dramatically in 1980.
You came on here not with intent to discuss reasons for god, But to try and deceive by modifying a common argument.
Again, you have been uncovered by multiple atheists...why are you still arguing?
@doG
ERROR
“Dishonest because you can't admit that, belief in something not proven to exist, is irrational.”
If you’re correct then you are not allowed to think.
For example if you believe a particular book will help you grasp knowledge but you do not know it will then by your logic you should not read the book. Since your belief is not verified before you read the book you should not believe the book contains the knowledge you seek.
LOL...keep up with the mental masturbation ray. No matter how hard you try, you will never be able to assign logic to something that does not exist. Failure of reason almost seems synonymous with the religious.
The book is evidence, it can be validated or it cannot, same as religion. No one can objectively validate the existence of a deity or anything supernatural. Though theists love to make the claim for evidence of course.
"You claimed you believed the claim was untrue and irrational?" <---- What you continue to say I said
I do not believe the claim is true. <---- What I actually said"
A claim is either true or false, theism is a belief that it is true, atheism is the lack of that belief, not a contrary belief that it is false, the error here is and always was yours. Though I hold little hope you'll now have the integrity to admit it. Your position correctly and accurately stated would be:
"You do not know whether a deity exists or not, but choose to believe it does."
Simple enough really, but you have invested so much effort and hubris into your duplicitous semantics you are simply embarrassed to admit of your error. It would also mean you would have to admit the truth that your belief requires sufficient evidence, and you don't have it. Hence this risible verbiage to try and pretend your belief is exempt from philosophical epistemology because you've added the words the claim to the sentence *I believe (the claim) a deity exists" as if this represents any cogent difference. You don't know if the claim is true, but you believe it is. QED
Your position is as absurd as it is dishonest. What couldn't we believe if we remove the necessity of sufficient expedience and therefore knowledge. The dishonesty here is you pretending knowledge means absolute certainty, a position we see all the time debunked on here. You might have read through some of the threads and spared us, but hey ho.
"Your strawman is that you insist on my affirmative belief."
It's not a straw man, as all beliefs are affirmations of a claim we believe to be true, no matter how often you try to deny this simple epistemological fact.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
catholicray "If you say you don't believe a god exists are you affirming the belief that God does not exist or are you refraining to consent to belief?"
The latter, lack or absence of belief is quite demonstrably not a contrary belief. That does not mean one cannot go beyond atheism and make that assertion. This would however carry a burden of proof, as does your assertion you believe a deity exists.
A belief requires evidence, non-belief does not.
What would the evidence for the non-existence of something look like exactly?
@Sheldon
This post has been reported. I suggest you maintain proper behavior and watch your language, otherwise i will have no choice but to keep on reporting.
"Brave, brave, brave sir robin."
Knock yourself out, no one likes a hypocrite or a crybaby. If you show some respect then I will reciprocate, if you use ad hominem as you did then it's pathetic to start crying when you get it back.
No trolling. Respect all the Atheist Republic guidelines. You don't get to make the rules anymore.
This post has been reported
Attachments
Attach Image/Video?:
So only theists are allowed to use ad hominem with impunity, again I shan't even feign surprise at the hypocrisy of that.
Show respect, and you will get it back, use ad hominem and you will get that back.
Sheldon
Are you really that perfect? Do you not notice your own behavior is out of line sometimes?
I at least have admitted mine in a few threads.
We all have our own Karma. Karma is not about punishment or reward. It makes a person responsible for their own life, and how they treat other people. You don't even need to admit to me or publicly. Acknowledge it to yourself and move on from their.
Start to address my post content and move on please, these personal attacks are unwarranted. Someone made an ad hominem attack on me, and I reciprocated once. I have no idea why you're involving yourself as if you are a moderator on here?
I don't believe in the vile immoral nonsense of Karma.
"You don't even need to admit to me or publicly. Acknowledge it to yourself and move on from their."
Admit what? I have no idea what you're talking about. It's from there as well, not from their, their is a possessive pronoun, whereas there donates a place or position.
@In Spirit: "Karma makes a person responsible for their own life." A more ignorant statement has never been uttered. Karma holds a population responsible for the condition of their birth. It is the philosophy directly responsible for the cast systems of the world.
Until very recently, a woman in Asia who had a female child was being punished for her bad Karma. (Yes the entirety of Asia had no idea that the male determined the sex of the baby. ) Tradition dies slowly. A popular movie came out about this issue about 10 years ago and among Educated Asians, it has caught on. While many still want boys, they seem to be just as happy with girls these days.
The teaching of Karma Taoism, Buddhism, Shinto, and Hinduism have led people to all manner of atrocity.
You are born into a cast and you deserve what you get from life. You deserve it because you are being punished or rewarded for deeds in a past life. Your wife dies in a horrible accident because she deserves it and you deserve it as well. Your child dies of a horrible childhood disease because that is your karma. That is the child's karma.
In Asia, couples who have children with deformities or mental problems still hide their children away by shipping them off to islands to pick fruit. Governments are trying to crack down on this but it still happens. Having a child that is deformed or mentally handicapped is a social embarrassment. It is BAD KARMA. The family deserved a handicapped child for the evils of their past.
You have no understanding of Karma. When these ideas came to the West, they were whitewashed with mysticism. There is NOTHING socially redeeming or even moral about the teaching of Karma. NOTHING.
Cognostic
I actually got that definition from the Great Google , you know, that know it all guy (sometimes more likely not )
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karma
Thanks for the clarification. I can actually see the teacher in you now which definitely is a part of your life and to think that you have actually taken so much time and patience to try to educate this poor mind of mind well.... it's enough to .....even make the Tin-Man and I cry over a cup of hot cocoa.
Much appreciated...No more Karma
"And is the cup half empty or half full?" If I warn you ahead of time, can you get the answer. The question sets up a false dichotomy.
Sheldon
Are you really that perfect? Do you not notice your own behavior is out of line sometimes?
I at least I have admitted mine in a few threads.
We all have our own Karma. Karma is not about punishment or reward. It makes a person responsible for their own life, and how they treat other people. You don't even need to admit to me or publicly. Acknowledge it to yourself and move on from their.
This was your reply to this.
Yet I see no reason for reporting this post for it violates nothing. Prove it or shut the fuck up.
And the two replies to your first reply above.
Then you replied with this Lie.
And the reply…
Your reply…
And that is enough.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
@ In Spirit
Wow! Just wow.
You going after Sheldon proves you ain't read a damn thing I posted.
Read this post.
Now tell me you did read it. And I shall call you a liar to your "proverbial" face.
Evidence: If you had read that post, you would have been replying with a post telling me you have reported me for bullying and belittling your beliefs.
What was it Bugs Bunny always said? "What a maroon."
Of course, everyone knows that Bugs Bunny actually meant "moron", but due to the Religious Absolutists back in those long gone days, saying "moron" was not allowed on TV. Now if you want talk about morons, …
In Spirit, I feel disconsolate and distressed at your pathetic need to act like a spoiled, whiney-ass, childish brat.
I am truly sorry about your behaviour.
However, NEVER, expect me to have any empathy for your behaviour.
As I said in the post linked above (paraphrased), "Act like spoiled, whiney-ass, childish brat, and you shall get treated as such."
As for that $100 bet, I would have lost since you never even read it. Phooey.
rmfr
EDIT: now to make sure I got all the tags correct...
Pages