Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Part 2)

jaffusmax wrote: »

You are already oppressed and don't even know it. A totalitarian god watches you when you sleep, convicts you of thought crime, tells you what you should and should not do and the fun only starts when you die, because after a life of being his slave you get to go to a North Korea in the sky and worship him for eternity!

At least in North Korea you die and escape oppression as a Christian death is just the beginning!

So now your argument has been refuted you stoop to childish name calling! I'm embarrassed for you.

Peregrinus wrote: »

I have never said that you have no right to discuss religion because you don't understand it. On the contrary, you have every right to discuss religion. But if you are going to make a claim about religion ("It's religion's job to make me believe under threat of eternal damnation") you had better be prepared to justify that claim. You are in the Christianity forum, after all; you are making this claim to people who you must know are likely to disagree with it. Do you expect them to fall over backwards at your authority, as an atheist, to tell them what religion's job is? My assumption is that you come to this forum and make such a claim because you wish to discuss it, and you're happy to discuss it in a forum where it's likely to be challenged. It turns out that you're not as happy as I had assumed, but that's hardly my fault.

I don't think any "evidence" I provide will make any difference as you will find your own alternative personal interpretation!

Salvation outside the church

Main article: Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus
The Catholic Church teaches that it is the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church founded by Jesus. Concerning non-Catholics, the Catechism of the Catholic Church has this to say:
"'Outside the Church there is no salvation'
Reformulated positively, this statement means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:
Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.
This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.
'Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men.'"[121]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_theology

MaxWig wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/two-men-convicted-of-homophobic-murders-get-married-in-prison-to-each-other-31106943.html

A much more insightful hint to where our impulses for wickedness come from

How is it insightful?

MaxWig wrote: »

Because it suggests that an individual's 'wickedness' (for want of a better term) stems from society's role in thwarting an individual's desires.

Blaming religion, in my view, misses the point.

The article said the doctors labelled them as psychopaths . on the face of it they were never going to be normal members of society. Aren't there always going to be a 1 or 2 % of the population that are liable to be dangerous due to lack of empthay or whatever way psychopaths are measured?

silverharp wrote: »

The article said the doctors labelled them as psychopaths . on the face of it they were never going to be normal members of society. Aren't there always going to be a 1 or 2 % of the population that are liable to be dangerous due to lack of empthay or whatever way psychopaths are measured?

I'm not so sure.
Psychopathy does not imply sadism.
Psychological assessments of the sort you refer to are dubious in my opinion, not in the sense that they are inaccurate per se but just that they all reflect a spectrum upon which each of us fall somewhere.

Psychopaths make up significant proportion of the normal members of society to which you refer, often doing very well in a society that encourages a drive to success regardless of those you upset along the way

silverharp wrote: »

But most people don't go around torturing people or attacking people they don't know for no reason. Somewhere along their upbringing or bad genetics, events have happened to steer them down a particular path. And sure the rest of us on a scale.
Do you remember the scene in Schindlers list where schlindler is saying that war brings out the worst in people talking about Amon. It is a correct assessment. Without the Nazis the real life Amon might have been a small time thief or a corrupt cop or something. But I doubt he would have spent his life attacking Jews
Religion is one of those structures that gives power and authority to people wouldn't otherwise have it, which is why Catholic schools are more homophobic then they would otherwise be for example. Hence the argument that religion creates accretive "evil" in society

But can't you see that religion does not give power to people.
This is where I always lose touch with the argument.
Only people can give power.
Religion is just an idea - a system of beliefs (people's beliefs). It bestows nothing, only those who subscribe to it provide power.

War does not create evil.
War is the evil that people create.

These are fine distinctions, but essential ones.

If no person ever picked up a gun, we would not have armies at war!

Suggesting that war makes people shoot people is inaccurate. War is just a big collection of people shooting at other people, often with delight.

And no one goes around attacking people for no reason. There is always a reason. This is the uncomfortable truth.

Time and again we are shown that 'normal people' are more than capable of the most horrific atrocities.

So, if 'most people don't go around torturing people or attacking people they don't know for no reason', well...there but for the grace of god etc.

jaffusmax wrote: »

Religion gives people power over people!

Think about that one Jaffus, seriously.

People must offer up their willingness to be led. They're must be something in it for them.

MaxWig wrote: »

Think about that one Jaffus, seriously.

People must offer up their willingness to be led. They're must be something in it for them.

Oh yes! you refuse to be led then also told you will be going to hell in exchange. All coming from a religion that if you do not do what god tells you to do then you are going to be punished. Either be a Slave to God or Go to Hell.

As Cromwell stated "To Hell or to Connaught"

MaxWig wrote: »

But can't you see that religion does not give power to people.
This is where I always lose touch with the argument.
Only people can give power.
Religion is just an idea - a system of beliefs (people's beliefs). It bestows nothing, only those who subscribe to it provide power.

War does not create evil.
War is the evil that people create.

These are fine distinctions, but essential ones.

If no person ever picked up a gun, we would not have armies at war!

Suggesting that war makes people shoot people is inaccurate. War is just a big collection of people shooting at other people, often with delight.

And no one goes around attacking people for no reason. There is always a reason. This is the uncomfortable truth.

Time and again we are shown that 'normal people' are more than capable of the most horrific atrocities.

So, if 'most people don't go around torturing people or attacking people they don't know for no reason', well...there but for the grace of god etc.

It does give power to people. For example why was contraception illegal in ireland until the 1980's? its wasnt a political issue nor was it a medical issue to deprive people of it. It was a religious idea made law which was slow to be got rid of because a religious organisation had power

As for the rest thats why a good thing is having an open accountable society where individual rights are protected. Again its the church that tries to influence this process thereby reducing individual rights.

MaxWig wrote: »

If you really don't think that control of a woman's reproductive options is a political issue, then I'm not sure there's enough space here to explain.




Everyone tries to influence individual options. That's why it is indeed a good idea to have a transparent system of governance in which no centralised power is tolerated.

Alot of your arguments are based around other institutions being just as complicate as religions.

Ill put it to you that we elect our politicians and vote in referendums. What gives religion a right to go in the face of common sense, public opnion and decency by demanding the non use of condoms so allowing the spread of HIV through the poorest parts of the world.

hinault wrote: »

Artificial contraception only became available through the NHS in Britain since 1961.

Lambeth conference of 1930 mandated that artificial contraception was valid.

Following the election of Pope Francis in 2013, UNAIDS wrote that the Church "provides support to millions of people living with HIV around the world"

How nice, firstly advocate the non use of the means to prevent AID's then provide moral support after contracting it!

Any Catholic whom contracts AIDs do to the churches stance should get compensation!

MaxWig wrote: »

If you really don't think that control of a woman's reproductive options is a political issue, then I'm not sure there's enough space here to explain.

You have an odd way of looking at it, how can you misread the history of the church in Ireland? the law wouldnt have come in if the catholic church didnt lobby for it.

The encyclical Casti connubii (1930) followed the industrial production and widespread use of condoms that usually prevent fertilisation. It specified that – "... any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offence against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin."

Ban on sales 1935–1978[edit]
Owning and using contraceptive devices and pills was always legal, but they could not be sold or imported legally after a 1935 Act.[2] During this time a loophole was used, where a device such as a condom could not be "offered for sale", but a buyer could be "invited to treat" to buy it. Also people made donations to family planning associations to obtain contraception as a "gift". The reality for almost all of the population was that contraception was illegal, and few outlets wanted to stock a product that could bring the attention of the police or public opprobrium.

hinault wrote: »

Artificial contraception only became available through the NHS in Britain since 1961.

Lambeth conference of 1930 mandated that artificial contraception was valid.

So? were contraceptives ever banned in britain? the only point I am making is that when you make religious specific values legally applicable you add to the quantity of evil in a society which otherwise wouldnt have existed.

silverharp wrote: »

So? were contraceptives ever banned in britain? the only point I am making is that when you make religious specific values legally applicable you add to the quantity of evil in a society which otherwise wouldnt have existed.

That's such an abstract position. So you believe we can look at a society and measure the evil, then decide based on the removal of one aspect that evil would be lessened by removal of said aspect?

We get into really controversial territory here when we try to counter that argument.

It is my belief that a woman should have complete control of her contraceptive choices. Absolutely.

But I draw the line at suggesting that the removal of societal barriers/taboos around premarital sex etc. do not have consequences. They do

This is my point. Evil - if we accept some agreement on how to define it - is a constant. It does not get put in to a society by certain processes and removed by others.

It exists within every single one of us, and while certain beliefs and laws may be contrary to what I believe, there is no way of saying that what I believe represent the best chance at limiting evil in a society.

SW wrote: »

How does the availability of contraception in other countries negate the influence the RCC had in shaping the law here in Ireland?

Religions that opposed each other for centuaries now huddle together seeking mutual validation in each other actions, but only when it suits!