Any practising catholics here? (and do you follow the rules?)

Naikon · 27-08-2007 12:20AM

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

I don't care, as long as they keep it to themselves and don't for example sprout their extreme fundamentalist catholicism crap to me or others.

daveirl · 27-08-2007 12:25AM

This post has been deleted.

Terry · 27-08-2007 12:30AM

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

I never said it was intolerant to abhor religion.
I said his view that all religious people are idiots is intolerant.
To tar all racists with that same brush is the same. See explanation above and note the distinction in the views I put across.

2 stroke · 27-08-2007 01:01AM

I'm what I consider a cultural catholic. I was born a catholic and still hang loosely with the same crowd. I do not believe all the teachings of the catholic church and I resent having to say the creed at mass as I do not necessarly believe all of the words. If I were a God I would not want to be worshiped. and if God stood in front of me I would not worship him, but I would shake his hand. I believe in being a good person and in doing the right thing where possible. One thing I take from the bible is the concept of the good thief. I don't consider it a sin to steal food to feed a starving child. I do consider it sinful to knowingly risk concieving children you are unwilling or unable to look after. I admire anyone that follows a belief that doesn't involve killing other peoples.

JCB · 27-08-2007 01:17AM

JC 2K3 wrote:

No, there aren't. I have no reason to believe the uiniverse is infinite and thus I don't. Love is currently unquantifiable and undefined in scientific terms and therefore I have no reason to believe it is "infinite".

Firstly, the quotation from A Beautiful Mind -It didn't say that love was infinite, but that love is a leap of faith. Everything cannot be proven scientifically - you do have to believe in life, be it assurances, promises or concepts. You are never going to have all the facts.

When you wish to make a logical decision you look for evidence e.g. about religion. You said previously that I believe in something which has no evidence. I have provided evidence which you have chosen to reject - the life of Jesus (which was independently verified by Annals can't remember the details), the written version of those events i.e. the Bible, and the tradition that has been passed on through the generations.

You said that whether Jesus existed or not was not important.
IT IS THIS FACT ON WHICH CHRISTIANITY WAS FOUNDED.

Surely, a logical person who decides to become an atheist must actually have a view on this matter. Otherwise, one is coming to a decision without even viewing the evidence at all. Is the evidence subjective? Of course it is, otherwise there would be no faith, it would be proven.

It is too easy to say "I don't believe in an afterlife" when one works from that premise backwards and rejects potential earthly evidence to fit that view.

Is it your view that rational decision making can only be possible based on scientific evidence?

Is every conviction based on circumstantial evidence flaud? Sure, it must be proven beyond reasonable doubt, but it's not 100% gauranteed is it?

The concept of love? You could say that love is just using another person for personal advancement and self preservation. You think you may be in love, but there is no 100% scientific evidence to prove that to me is there?

You said that love is currently undefined in scientific terms. But I bet you believe it exists. Perhaps you believe becuase though it is yet undefined, that at a future date it will be.

Say I told you that God will be proven in 2036. Would you believe a second before I showed you the proof? Probably not.

The difference - because you have experienced love (I hope;) . Many believers have experienced God through their faith in ways that you'd readily dismiss right now to coincidence. Maybe you have never experienced God or have chosen to ignore those experiences.

You view my beliefs as 'ridiculous, deluded and insane' and based on no evidence. I hope that you do experience God so that you share in a sense of joy shared by millions. The gift of faith is so precious that it should not be ridiculed.

Dev 17 · 27-08-2007 01:48AM

I think many theists have their doubts about what they actually believe and vice versa. That said however I think it's very important to keep your beliefs to yourself.

JC 2K3 · 27-08-2007 01:51AM

JCB wrote:

When you wish to make a logical decision you look for evidence e.g. about religion. You said previously that I believe in something which has no evidence. I have provided evidence which you have chosen to reject - the life of Jesus (which was independently verified by Annals can't remember the details), the written version of those events i.e. the Bible, and the tradition that has been passed on through the generations.

You said that whether Jesus existed or not was not important.
IT IS THIS FACT ON WHICH CHRISTIANITY WAS FOUNDED.

Surely, a logical person who decides to become an atheist must actually have a view on this matter. Otherwise, one is coming to a decision without even viewing the evidence at all. Is the evidence subjective? Of course it is, otherwise there would be no faith, it would be proven.

Well, it's not important if he existed or not. What's important is whether the miracles he performed were real and if he really was the messiah and son of God.

JCB wrote:

It is too easy to say "I don't believe in an afterlife" when one works from that premise backwards and rejects potential earthly evidence to fit that view.

Which is why it was difficult for me to accept this when I was converting from Christianity to Agnosticism and then Atheism.

JCB wrote:

Is it your view that rational decision making can only be possible based on scientific evidence?

As opposed to what other sort of evidence? Made up evidence? What sort of evidence isn't scientific?

JCB wrote:

Is every conviction based on circumstantial evidence flaud? Sure, it must be proven beyond reasonable doubt, but it's not 100% gauranteed is it?

Agreed, though I'd say "every conviction based on circumstantial evidence is potentially flawed".

JCB wrote:

The concept of love? You could say that love is just using another person for personal advancement and self preservation. You think you may be in love, but there is no 100% scientific evidence to prove that to me is there?

You said that love is currently undefined in scientific terms. But I bet you believe it exists. Perhaps you believe becuase though it is yet undefined, that at a future date it will be.

Well I'm sure it will be at a future date, hell it could well be defined already(admittedly I didn't research it before posting that so I'll withdraw that statement).

Humans behave in certain ways due to the chemicals in their brains. These chemicals induce behavior towards other humans which is called "love". With use of certain drugs, humans experience feelings which replicate the feeling of being in love. Since this feeling can be artificially induced there is no reason to believe that it is necessarily profound or supernatural in any way.

JCB wrote:

The difference - because you have experienced love (I hope;) . Many believers have experienced God through their faith in ways that you'd readily dismiss right now to coincidence. Maybe you have never experienced God or have chosen to ignore those experiences.

You view my beliefs as 'ridiculous, deluded and insane' and based on no evidence. I hope that you do experience God so that you share in a sense of joy shared by millions. The gift of faith is so precious that it should not be ridiculed.

I've taken drugs and had "profound" experiences like religious people describe they have with God. One's mind can be altered massively, but I see no reason for one to come to conclusions about supernatural involvement etc.

It's the same argument I used above to suggest that love isn't some kind of supernatural force. If a religious experience can be artificially induced by altering the chemicals in one's brain, then it's much more likely that any religious experience anyone has without drugs is due to a "delusion" of sorts - a temporary distortion of the mind for whatever reason(there is considerable evidence to suggest that intense faith or meditation can induce such experiences).

JCB · 27-08-2007 07:49PM

JC 2K3 wrote:

Well, it's not important if he existed or not. What's important is whether the miracles he performed were real and if he really was the messiah and son of God.

Point taken, but there are atheists out there i'm sure which question His very existence, hence making it important, seemingly though you believe He existed, so I won't dwell on it

Which is why it was difficult for me to accept this when I was converting from Christianity to Agnosticism and then Atheism.

Again point taken, I am relieved that at least you put thought into your decision anyway (good for you!

)

As opposed to what other sort of evidence? Made up evidence? What sort of evidence isn't scientific?

Not that I want to dwell on this but just look at the social sciences if you wish to see woolly evidence in action;)

Agreed, though I'd say "every conviction based on circumstantial evidence is potentially flawed".

Of course my belief in God may be potentially flawed, but it doesn't stop me believing in the meantime, based on what evidence already exists.
If God appeared to you in the morning* - your non-belief would be flawed.
You'd know it, but you couldn't prove it to anyone else. The point is that conclusive, scientific evidence hasn't appeared yet .

*In light of the drug fuelled visions etc... This particular morning you are not on drugs, drunk, hungover, or in any other abnormal state!;)

Well I'm sure it will be at a future date, hell it could well be defined already(admittedly I didn't research it before posting that so I'll withdraw that statement).

Well I'm sure that God will be proven at a future date too - I'm willing to believe that love and God exists until proven.

Humans behave in certain ways due to the chemicals in their brains. These chemicals induce behavior towards other humans which is called "love". With use of certain drugs, humans experience feelings which replicate the feeling of being in love. Since this feeling can be artificially induced there is no reason to believe that it is necessarily profound or supernatural in any way.

I wasn't particularly focusing on the 'profound' aspects of love, but rather you believe because you have seen/felt, not because it has been defined scientifically.

I've taken drugs and had "profound" experiences like religious people describe they have with God. One's mind can be altered massively, but I see no reason for one to come to conclusions about supernatural involvement etc.

Gee, was everyone who experienced God doped up? I've certainly missed out haven't I! :rolleyes:

But seriously, any experiences I've had have been far from profound, mundane they'd probably be labelled, but it certainly helps re-affirm my faith. i.e. I pray and something good happens - maybe it would have happened anyway? Putting it in a broader context I am willing to believe otherwise.

On a lighter note, interesting chat, sort have dragged the topic off a bit, but there you go!

Nailz · 27-08-2007 09:10PM

I'm still suprised this hasn't be moved to the Christianity forum.

Terry · 27-08-2007 09:18PM

It's gone way to far for that now.
It has AH stamped all over it.

Nailz · 27-08-2007 09:53PM

Point taken, but it should have been in the 1st place.

Dudess · 27-08-2007 11:58PM

Spyral wrote:

brother do not tell me I have a splinter in my eye when there is a plank in your own.

EXCUSE ME??!! So you're judging me without even knowing me! How christian of you! And also, I'm female. I find it most pompous when quotes purported to come from the mouth of Jesus Christ himself are used in debates like this.

Spyral wrote:

Become the Pope and then maybe you can tell me what to do.

I think the pope would tell you that you have no right to consider yourself a true member of the Roman catholic church when, as you state yourself:

I don't blindly obey.Neither do many 'modern' Catholics.

Oh right, so it's ok to be hypocritical if it's "modern".

Spyral wrote:

I follow church teachings and doctrines as best I can.

You just stated that you don't.

Spyral wrote:

God does love you but you should respect him by not using contraception and if you want to have sex practice Natural Family Planning or absain.. no one died from not having sex.

You said earlier that not having sex before marriage and not using contraception wasn't easy, implying that you've had pre-marital sex and used contraception. Or were you just speaking on behalf of a la carte catholics in general?

Sangre · 28-08-2007 12:17AM

Terry wrote:

I never said it was intolerant to abhor religion.
I said his view that all religious people are idiots is intolerant.
To tar all racists with that same brush is the same. See explanation above and note the distinction in the views I put across.

Some people feel the need to be tolerant too much in this PC world. Its over-rated. I don't believe that all views and opinions deserve equal respect or recognition. Is that intolerant? Probably. Do I care? No.

I'm utterly intolerant and dismissive of any notions of aparthied, slavery or invisible pink unicorns.I won't tolerate or respect their beliefs. I think the ideas are stupid nonsense and that anyone who confroms to their beliefs as a bit suspect and usually a bit slow.

I'd have the same views on religion. It doesn't really matter if people see me as intolerant, they're perfectly entitled to. Just like I'm entitled to view their views as the equivalent of an adult dummy.

Dudess · 28-08-2007 12:30AM

Agreed.

Any practising catholics here? (and do you follow the rules?)

Comments