It would be accurate, but somewhat uncharitable – is it not good that we have the opportunity to challenge such laughable claims - and free any lurkers or readers of any false pretences, even if the OP seems doltish?
No, it would not. First, the so-called “disproves” exist only in you mind. Second, the conversation is drifting, as usual. It is natural to have different side-issues to pop up. And third, even though it is your prerogative to jump in, don’t be surprised if your irrelevant remakes will not elicit further answers. Otherwise, have a great day…
Yeah, I guess that’s true… It’s just that we’re on the 15th page now and they’re still grasping. It’s entirly self evident that not only does the OP know nothing about theology (a point made several times now already), but more over they really don’t have any familiar with religion at all. I’d almost suspect (of course I can’t know for sure) that they may in fact be a “cradle athiest”, or at best fell away before they had any real understanding of faith at all. That’s about how outlandish the claims were.
uh, right… that makes sense in the context
lol - I suggest you think about what you just wrote. Either my pointing out why it is wrong should be quite unnecessary, since it’s so obvious, or it will be a waste of time for me to do so, since you’re so determinedly closed-minded. (Tertium datur: you are being purposely obtuse because you are a perverse individual.)
This simply isn’t true. You can state that the empirical position is the “default,” yet millions of Buddhists and Hindus disagree heartily with you. What evidence do you have that our empirical experience is in fact true? We already went over this the last time we debated. Your position cannot be established except through philosophy, and empirical philosophy is not the only philosophy possible.
There is a definite trend in your desires- “good,” “fun,” “play,” “love,” “good (again),” “beauty,” and “good (yet again).”
I find it surprising you can singlehandedly dismiss almost all of western philosophy and the whole nature of virtue in a single sentence.
In short, if their intellect is at all clouded by personal vice, then the person is responsible for their error since they are responsible for the vice.
Well, you deny the concept of virtue, which is a common atheistic response. A denial of the reality of virtue is not conducive to practicing virtue. While other philosophies encourage virtue, this is not surprising in the least- for all philosophies have some degree of truth in them, some more than others.
Not all literature? Your claim is that some literature is ALWAYS understood by everyone in the context in which they were written and hence completely bulletproof to misinterpretation? Wow. Obviously, not true. What I said is true about all literature (that sometimes the words are not understood in the context they were written, thus causing possible misinterpretation). No doubt about it.
What exactly are you talking about here?
Did I say otherwise?
I do indeed. But, dare I ask, what may be the … point … in your comment here. I was obviously talking about the criteria that Catholics use to interpret Scripture.
Nicene Creed. That’s a pretty good one.
Ten Commandments. That’s decent.
Well, I guess, with some tedium … Thomas Aquinas’ proofs. I’ve yet to see on this some give real objections to them that don’t lead to general philosophical chaos and nihilism and overall linguistic meaningless. But, we can go there again.
Origin sin doesn’t make offspring guilty insofar as they automatically merit hell. It merely prevents them from automatically inheriting grace that would allow them of fulfillment, virtue, and happiness. It’s not that the offspring is deprived of something that they deserve by their very nature. It was a privilege that they would have inherited, had not the original father messed up. However, this privileged grace can be re-acquired through the sacraments. So, original sin is unjust insofar as Adam was suppose to pass it on as God instructed. But original sin is not unjust insofar as all humans deserve it. Hence, it is not unjust for God to allow original sin.
You seem to believe that there is no free will, right? Most people believe that we can choose what to believe. We can choose to believe in a lie and know that it’s a lie, for example. Most people will admit of having done that at least once in their life. Hence, one is able to accept something they know is true or reject it and believe the lie that it isn’t true. So, belief is definitely under volitional control. But if you don’t believe that, do you even believe in volition at all?
Now, it is possible that the faith may never have been expressed to you in a way that you genuinely understood, in which case it would not be your fault. But it is also possible that you did see some of the truth of the faith but chose to ignore it, in which case it would be your fault. But judging whether someone is genuinely rejecting something or rejecting what he innocently but erroneously thinks that something is … is not a judgment that another person should make. At least, that’s what the Bible says.Not really, though I appreciate your effort.I simply do not accept the concept of “sin” (the act of disobedience to God). As such I cannot have “full knowledge of the sinful nature of any act” - does that mean that I can never commit a “mortal sin”? Before you tell me, that I am told of the “sinful nature” of an act, remember, that I do not accept such a declaration if it is only based on a supposed “authority”.
Repeating some of what I just said (I apologize), here are possible reasons one does not accept the faith after being told it by someone/something …
If they follow what they preach, they will die by neglecting their body’s needs. If they do not practice what they preach then they are hypocrites.
Our own survival. The proof of the pudding is that it is edible.
Why should I accept it? One man’s vice is another man’s virtue.
What is “vice”? What is “virtue”?
Of course I deny “teleology”. Of course I deny “ultimate meanings”, and such. Of course I deny “perfect goodness”, etc… These are undefined, pompous words, without meaning. One can lead a “good” life, if one practices helpfulness when possible, if one avoids hurting others. There is nothing problematic about these endeavors, even if one rejects the “ultimate” stuff.
Not exactly, I find “virtue” an undefined category, which provides no guidelines.
Read the Kama Sutra. It is literature, it is straightforward, and it cannot be misinterpreted. (It is also a lot of fun to practice it.
) Now, mystical texts are all ambiguous, for sure.Which one is false? You have two contradictory passages, and choose whichever is convenient.
Those have been refuted from Kant onwards innumerable times. Suffice it to say that they all suffer from the problem of fallacy of composition.
Whatever Adam did or did not do (is Genesis taken literally, or allegorically?) should have affected only him. Everything else is unjust.
Nope. We cannot prove or disprove the existence of “free will”, but it is a plausible assumption.
Most people are wrong.
If you know that it is lie, you may “pretend” to believe it, you may choose to follow it, but you can never believe that it is true. Can you “make” yourself to believe that putting your hand into a fire will not burn it? Can you make yourself to believe that Satan is “good”? That Santa Claus literally exists?
That is fine and dandy. But there are many acts which I do not consider “evil”, which do not hurt anyone, and yet such acts are frequently declared “mortally sinful” by the Catholic Church.
Or it would be “falling short of the mark”. Another word with many possible meanings.
Yes, I have seen it, and I vehemently reject it.
I appreciate your effort. Really, this belongs to a different thread.Repeating some of what I just said (I apologize), here are possible reasons one does not accept the faith after being told it by someone/something …
Well, that’s a summary of it. I am completely willing to draw this out in detailed, tedious, encyclopedic volumes.
- One sees that the faith doesn’t contradict what he knows to be true but sees that it’s not necessarily true … and hence does not accept it. The Catholic claim is that the truths of the faith do not contradict reason, but that they cannot be arrived at by natural reason alone either (and I’m talking about the faith-specific truths like the divinity of Jesus). The only way one actually gains real knowledge of the faith is through a divine act in your intellect. So, even when an evangelist expresses the truths of the faith to someone, it will fall on deaf ears if God does not provide the divine concepts (to that someone) that make evangelist’s words have their meaning. It is possible that God withholds the faith from people for a part of their life, in which case they would not be at fault for not having the faith. However, even though it’s possible, it is also a teaching that God is constantly guiding them toward the faith in one way or another.
- Another reason to reject the faith is by thinking that the faith, rather than being possibly true, is actually false (i.e. contradicting itself or contradicting something he thinks is true). There are different reasons why one may think this. The person may misunderstand the natural meaning of the words of the Bible (or anything that expresses the faith) in such a way that the faith appears contradictory … thus making him close his mind to it and even closed to the divine concept (because if a natural understanding of the words of the evangelist is not understood, the divine meaning of the words can be blocked as well). This misinterpretation could be innocent or could be culpable, for some the errors we have are because of the lies we tell ourselves … while other misinformation may merely because we’ve been told wrongly (possibly from an early age). Hence, we may reject the faith because it seems contradictory … because we tell ourselves lies or because we have inadvertently believed lies that were told to us that make the faith seem false.
Sorry, dude. But academics dispute over the meanings of Sanskrit words even in the Kama Sutra. Just look it up on Wikipedia. Obviously, even in the most “straight forward” of ancient documents, the meanings of words especially with the context in which they were written can get ambiguous over time … even in the most simple of sex manuals.Read the Kama Sutra. It is literature, it is straightforward, and it cannot be misinterpreted. (It is also a lot of fun to practice it.
Ambiguous perhaps … but meaningless? Or … what? What’s your point again?
Which two passages are you referring to?
The apparent refutations have been refuted innumerable times. Kant in general, too, has been refuted innumerable times. There is hardly anyone who exists that agrees with Kant. I had a professor who had a Ph.D is Kant, and he was even a fan of him, but still disagreed with him on fundamental issues. If you want to read real fallacies, read Kant. He’s a joke.
Why? I see mere assertions here. And you didn’t address my arguments with any detail at all.
That works.
About everything? About the possibility of one believing something one knows is false? Why? The burden of proof is on you, since you are in the minority.
Absolutely. You can train yourself to believe in false things, but you can never KNOW false things (i.e. you can never “know” something to be true when it is in fact false). You can brainwash yourself. Eventually, you will start believing it. You can start making up apparent facts to justify your self-lies. Come on, people do that all the time. It’s called, more or less, rationalizing.
If you truly believe they are not evil, then they are not mortal sins to you if you commit them. The Church nonetheless calls them “mortal sins” because they are grave matter and would technically be mortal sins if the other two requirements are also met. If those requirements are not met, then they are grave sins, and not mortal.That is fine and dandy. But there are many acts which I do not consider “evil”, which do not hurt anyone, and yet such acts are frequently declared “mortally sinful” by the Catholic Church.
Um … not sure what you point is. I may agree with you … if I knew what you were saying. But you speaketh in riddles.
Perhaps, although you have constantly demonstrated that you hold erroneous opinions about what the Church exactly teaches, so maybe, by some chance, you possess a key bit of innocent ignorance. Who know? I don’t. I’m not judging. I’m just some guy.
I grant you that the precise meaning of individual words might be argued about. But the message itself is crystal clear. Not so with the Bible. The message conveyed by the OT is diametrically different from the NT.
Ok, lets take an example. OT says: “eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth”. NT says: “do not resist evil” and “turn the other cheeck”. If you would say that the NT overrides the OT, then consider Jesus’s words: “I did not come to abolish the law, rather to uphold it”. And both of those “commands” are presented in unequivocal fashion, without ambiguity. Which one should be followed? Can’t follow both - at the same time.
Nonsense. To my best knowledge not even Catholic philosophers contend that the 5 “proofs” of Aquinas are convincing. And even if they were, they would not be a “proof” of the Christian God - but of course they are not valid.
If a finite deed is met with an infinite sentence, and that is called “just”, then we have nothing to talk about. If an innocent person is doomed for the act of someone else, and that is called “just”, then there is no common ground for a conversation. Maybe you call that a “mere assertion”. If so, then our concepts of justice cannot be reconciled - and I have no idea what your usage of “just” sentence means.
Try to “rationalize” yourself into believing that the Tooth Fairy is real. It is true that people can “rationalize” themselves into believing many things, but not into believing something utterly against their deepest convictions. But, don’t believe me. Try to rationalize yourself into believing that Lucifer is the good guy, it is he that must be worshipped. (After all Lucifer is the “lightbringer”.) See, if you succeed and tell me about the result.
That is excellent news. What it means is that only my conscience is what counts - and nothing else. By the way, we might talk about the idea of “grave matter” - possibly in another thread. It is very probable that our ideas about what constitues “grave matter” is different.
The point was that unless one accepts God’s existence, it is meaningless to assert that some actions are good and others are evil. Using other words, it was asserted that without “ultimate good”, one is not “entitled” to speak of good and evil. Maybe this is what the Church teaches, and if that is case, then the Church teaches nonsense.
What is “death?” Merely another example of our illusory sensory experiences? You can’t prove the validity of our empirical experiences by appealing to further empirical experiences.
Is it?
Virtue is those habits which lead us to act in such a way that we act in accordance with our end, which is also our own self-interest and the interest of others as well who are in communion with us. Vice is the opposite.
Well, I think your “good life” is a bit “pompous.”
That’s because you reject all teleology. There are no guidelines under atheism. What can you deduce from billions of scientific particles? Nothing beyond the particles themselves and their arrangements. Particles are not good, do not have virtue, and cannot lead a “good life.” Under atheism, there is nothing but countless particles in various combinations, and the deluded human thought that we can make goodness real by fiat. It doesn’t work.
Illustration of that principle:
[RD’s rationalization, in case anyone missed it: “if it’s my ‘deepest conviction,’ then it can’t be a rationalization.”]
The message of the Kama Sutra is clear, eh? Tell me, then, what is the message? Don’t worry, be as shameless as you want. In theory, since you believe that the Kama Sutra is immune to misinterpretation, that all other interpretations will agree with yours. So tell me. What is the overall “message” of the Kama Sutra.
This, my friend, is a thing deserving of a long answer. I am not qualified to give it in any kind of worthy summary … you might even dip into the Scripture Forum on this one
I personally know dozens of Catholic philosophers, and they all agree with Aquinas’ proofs.
The knowledge that the God in Aquinas’ proofs are the same as the God in Christianity is only known through supernatural faith, so, yes, there would be no proof of that from natural reason.
Please re-read my posts, because I clearly said that merely having original sin doesn’t make someone “doomed” (i.e. necessarily going to hell … if that’s what you mean). Here is the link to my previous post:
Well, you have to explain what you mean by the “same scale” and explain why not using the same scale for God is a fallacy.
Well, I’m glad you agree (or seem to agree?) that people CAN make themselves believe things that are against at least some of their convictions. Thus, I hope we can agree that … “You can make yourself believe some things that you know are false.”
I’m not going to do that because I believe that’s a sin. But I know people who DO believe that. It’s called the Church of Satan … you know, Satanists? Come on, you’ve heard of them, right?
Yeah, we could open another thread on this. It’s an important issue. But I’m not sure what you mean by “only my conscience is what counts.”
Not … entirely sure what you mean. I will say, though, that even if one denies the existence of an “ultimate good” and yet believes in good and evil, that they actually do believe in an ultimate good … but deny they do either because they misunderstand the term or … well … something. There are many reasons why people can think illogical thoughts.
I remember producing a variation of this argument several years ago. I can’t remember where. However, I did not produce it as an argument in favour of abortion. I dislike any sort of killing. So bear in mind that I am not encouraging Catholics to kill their children but just pointing out what seems to be an inherent logical inconsistency when you take some Catholic beliefs and put them side by side, the conclusions are unpalatable. First I will put forward the argument and at the end some possible solutions that catholics could counter with.
I stand by my bishop on this one: Take my life instead of the poor child’s. I’ve been baptized and have gone to confession; I’m ready. Give the child a chance.
It is most definitely true that you have to put your own good ahead of others on the question of salvation. You can call this selfish, if you mean that is looking out for your own ultimate good before others (I would merely call this self-love).
This is not a bad idea … something I’m open to. For all we know, the baby could have some amount of reason enough to be capable of mortal sin. Obviously, the age of reason comes at different times for different people. Genius kids might have it really early on … even in the womb, though? Who knows. There is definitely not enough certainty to … say for certain … especially when questioning whether to kill the child or not.
Are you just pulling my leg here? Sensory experiences are not illusory. Death is real.
Actually, that is exactly what has to be done, to defend against a possible “misinterpretation” of the real raw data provided by the senses. To say that our senses might be “deceiving” is incorrect. The data is there, though we might interpret them incorrectly.
Usually correct, but there have been exceptions. It did happen a “dried up” marital relationship became invigorated by the “straying” of one or both of the spouses. And there are open marriages, where both parties, openly accept and engage in outside relationships, and these endeavors strengthen the marriage. I wonder what was your reason to bring up that example.
I would call that reason. “Virtue” is a loaded term.
Not really. I am looking out the window right now and see a nice quiet rain. Rain is good for the vegetation, but too much rain is not good at all. “Natural” good objective, without human interpretation. “Moral” good is, however, a human invention. It is still not arbitrary. Also, just what is the “ultimate, real meaning behind everything”? Can you define it?
True, it gives no certainty. But to wish to have certainty is a pie in the sky. Most certainly I lead my life exactly as I want to, and I call it a “good” life. However, my actions will be measured by the cold, hard forces of the unforgiving nature and they will be measured by the reciprocal actions of other humans. This feedback loop will validate or invalidate my idea about the quality (or goodness) of my life. And that is the only validation process I want, and need.
What is this “objective reality of virtue”? Presumably it has something to with God…
Ouch, this hurts. I never thought that you (of all people) will bring up this nonsense of “reductionism”. I hope it was just a momentary lapse on your part.