Peregrinus wrote: » Yes. You just leave. From the Catholic perspective, that's effective. There are no formalities required, and no hoops you have to jump through. If you want, you can write to your bishop (or to the man who would be your bishop, if you were a Catholic) and tell him that you have left, and that provides a documentary record of the fact that you have left, if you feel the need for a record. There used to be a more formal procedure that you could go through - indeed, that you had to go through if you wanted to be exempted from certain rules of Catholic canon law regarding marriage. But they dropped that requirement a couple of years back.
Zombrex wrote: » You do that by posting videos about a priest complaining about the arrogance of scientists? Science is important, as it accurate public understanding of science. I posted in response to this video because you linked it. I posted on Fr. Barron's YouTube page because he went to the trouble of making a video full of inaccurate and faulty logic attacking a scientist and scientific standards, and people read his YouTube page. The question "Why do atheists bother" comes up all the time on the A&A forum, and the answer is always the same, "Because religious people bother." When religious people stop attacking science and rationalism in order to making their supernatural beliefs seem more reasonable, it will not longer be necessary for atheists to respond to such attacks.
fitz0 wrote: » Does this mean that man created evil?
philologos wrote: » Zombrex (or anyone else) - 1) why do you hold the nonsensical belief that atheism is sciences handmaiden and that you are any more a defender of science than a scientist who is a Christian for example? 2) why do you expect Christians not to bother sharing their faith with others given what is in the New Testament? 3) on what reasonable grounds do you think science and Christianity are incompatible? 4) on what basis is atheism "rational"? I think these are just meaningless rhetorical terms you chuck around.
philologos wrote: » It means that no evil existed in the world prior to the fall of humanity.
GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: » You can probably anticipate the next comment. Grand, let's accept this scenario that there's no actual evil until the Fall - no-one has done anything bad yet. However, for someone to be able to do bad, that potential has to exist within reality, as created by God. So the concept of evil has to exist within God, and the capacity to do evil has to come from God - as the ultimate source of everything that is. Alternatively, it is necessary to contend that God didn't know what he was doing; he created free will and was then surprised when things got so badly out of control. Cutting to the chase, either God isn't all good, or God isn't all powerful/knowing.
JimiTime wrote: » Or God IS all knowing, but you are assuming that in his knowledge he would have changed how he did things.
GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: » I don't think I'm making such an assumption. If he is all knowing, and all powerful, then he deliberately created a universe in which evil would exist. Being all powerful, he clearly could have left the evil out.How? Alternatively, he could have known he was about to create a universe with evil, but be powerless to eliminate that evil. So he had to choose between a universe with evil, or none at all.You assume powerless. Maybe he chose, for a reason not clear to you (or I), to allow a system that could allow evil to rise. Of course, if he created everything, regardless of which option, he's the ultimate source of the evil.Thats like saying light is the source or darkness.
Zombrex wrote: » You do that by posting videos about a priest complaining about the arrogance of scientists? Science is important, as it accurate public understanding of science....When religious people stop attacking science and rationalism in order to making their supernatural beliefs seem more reasonable, it will not longer be necessary for atheists to respond to such attacks.
JimiTime wrote: » You assume powerless. Maybe he chose, for a reason not clear to you (or I), to allow a system that could allow evil to rise.
Thats like saying light is the source or darkness.
philologos wrote: » Zombrex (or anyone else) - 1) why do you hold the nonsensical belief that atheism is sciences handmaiden and that you are any more a defender of science than a scientist who is a Christian for example?
HHobo; 3) on what reasonable grounds do you think science and Christianity are incompatible? Already explained in 1. You can be Christian and scientific, just not the latter about the former and remain Christian. 4) on what basis is atheism "rational"? I think these are just meaningless rhetorical terms you chuck around.
tommy2bad wrote: » Couple of points here, first, why would you be scientific about Christianity or Judaism or Hinduism for that matter? When Chriatianity makes claims about reality, I would judge them by the same criteria I would judge any other claim. Why would I have a special way of considering the claims of Christianity? tommy2bad wrote: » Second, Ahemm I'm not sure about that one.Isn't it perfectly rational for someone to believe in God if believing in God serves a purpose for them? We are not calculating computers, we are emotional beings with a capacity for thinking. I don't really see why we can't be both emotional beings and rational. As to the person choosing to beleive in God, I am sure there are situations where for them subjectively it might actually be the most rational choice. An example might be a parent who has lost a child and only through a belief in an afterlife can they possibly go on with their lives. There choice is not going to be rational objectively in the sense of conformity to reality. Incidentally, any belief for which there is insufficent evidence or reasons to believe it, is irrational in the sense I am describing. Right now, scientists who believe in the idea of cold fusion or perpetual motion machines are not being raitonal. Most religious people are perfectly capable of rationality. They are even perfectly capable of being rational about religious beliefs, just not the ones they ascribe to themselves, generally. There are even the religious who accept that their faith is not rational. It is a matter of faith to them. If you have reasons to believe a thing, you don't need faith. If you believe something you have no reason to believe, you are not really being rational. This is not always, probably not even mostly a problem. That doesn't alter the fact that believing the claims of Christianity is still going to be irrational. It might also be the best thing you ever did.
When Chriatianity makes claims about reality, I would judge them by the same criteria I would judge any other claim. Why would I have a special way of considering the claims of Christianity? tommy2bad wrote: » Second, Ahemm I'm not sure about that one.Isn't it perfectly rational for someone to believe in God if believing in God serves a purpose for them? We are not calculating computers, we are emotional beings with a capacity for thinking. I don't really see why we can't be both emotional beings and rational. As to the person choosing to beleive in God, I am sure there are situations where for them subjectively it might actually be the most rational choice. An example might be a parent who has lost a child and only through a belief in an afterlife can they possibly go on with their lives. There choice is not going to be rational objectively in the sense of conformity to reality. Incidentally, any belief for which there is insufficent evidence or reasons to believe it, is irrational in the sense I am describing. Right now, scientists who believe in the idea of cold fusion or perpetual motion machines are not being raitonal. Most religious people are perfectly capable of rationality. They are even perfectly capable of being rational about religious beliefs, just not the ones they ascribe to themselves, generally. There are even the religious who accept that their faith is not rational. It is a matter of faith to them. If you have reasons to believe a thing, you don't need faith. If you believe something you have no reason to believe, you are not really being rational. This is not always, probably not even mostly a problem. That doesn't alter the fact that believing the claims of Christianity is still going to be irrational. It might also be the best thing you ever did.
tommy2bad wrote: » Second, Ahemm I'm not sure about that one.Isn't it perfectly rational for someone to believe in God if believing in God serves a purpose for them? We are not calculating computers, we are emotional beings with a capacity for thinking.
Doc Farrell wrote: » Still with the false dichotomy between religion and science, that was the point of the video, the silliness of scientism, not science, hence the title.
Andrewf20 wrote: » Just in relation to the question of evil, the following biblical quote suggests God does at least in some part creates evil... Isaiah 45:7 "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."
Thus says the LORD to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have grasped, to subdue nations before him and to loose the belts of kings, to open doors before him that gates may not be closed: “I will go before you and level the exalted places, I will break in pieces the doors of bronze and cut through the bars of iron, I will give you the treasures of darkness and the hoards in secret places, that you may know that it is I, the LORD, the God of Israel, who call you by your name. For the sake of my servant Jacob, and Israel my chosen, I call you by your name, I name you, though you do not know me. I am the LORD, and there is no other, besides me there is no God; I equip you, though you do not know me, that people may know, from the rising of the sun and from the west, that there is none besides me; I am the LORD, and there is no other. I form light and create darkness, I make well-being and create calamity, I am the LORD, who does all these things. “Shower, O heavens, from above, and let the clouds rain down righteousness; let the earth open, that salvation and righteousness may bear fruit; let the earth cause them both to sprout; I the LORD have created it. “Woe to him who strives with him who formed him, a pot among earthen pots! Does the clay say to him who forms it, ‘What are you making?’ or ‘Your work has no handles’? Woe to him who says to a father, ‘What are you begetting?’ or to a woman, ‘With what are you in labor?’” Thus says the LORD, the Holy One of Israel, and the one who formed him: “Ask me of things to come; will you command me concerning my children and the work of my hands? I made the earth and created man on it; it was my hands that stretched out the heavens, and I commanded all their host. I have stirred him up in righteousness, and I will make all his ways level; he shall build my city and set my exiles free, not for price or reward,” says the LORD of hosts. (Isaiah 45:1-13 ESV)
HHobo; That doesn't alter the fact that believing the claims of Christianity is still going to be irrational
HHobo wrote: » That doesn't alter the fact that believing the claims of Christianity is still going to be irrational. It might also be the best thing you ever did.
tommy2bad wrote: » Well no one ever claimed it was rational unless you ascribe to Pascals wager. Christianity self describes as foolishness in the eyes of the world. So what?
El_Duderino 09 wrote: » Is this the argument you are making? P1. The bible self describes as foolishness. P2. The bible does appear to be foolish. C. The fact that the bible appears to be foolishness is evidence in favour of the bible's truthfulness.
HHobo wrote: » In fairness to Tommy, I don't think he intended this as an argument for the veracity of the bible. More a musing on how important rationality actually is. - Tommy, please correct me if I am misrepresenting you here.
HHobo; When the law start to reflect their particular beliefs in contravention of modern values. Blasphemy law, for example, then I consider it an imposition. I completely understand why Christians proselytise. If they take their beliefs seriously, they kind of have to.
tommy2bad wrote: » Either side using God or his nonexistence to make laws are missing the point of faith and of being human.
Zombrex wrote: » Religions that prescribe to the idea that there exists methodologies that do better than science at discerning accurate notions of reality with out using the scientific method are by definition anti-science. If you think you know better than the scientific method you are either being anti-science or you need to quickly tell the scientists so they can incorporate this better system into the scientific method.
