I believe there is God, I believe Christ was God, persuade me of the benefits of renouncing this belief

[SolicitorPirate]

I believe there is a God, I believe Christ was God.

Persuade me to renounce this belief.

Benefits of renouncing your faith:

1. You get to have more sex with more people
2. You get more free time on Sundays
3. You can use your newfound Sunday free time to go have sex

 

[minkymurph]

Benefits of renouncing your faith:

1. You get to have more sex with more people
2. You get more free time on Sundays
3. You can use your newfound Sunday free time to go have sex

Not sure this would be a benefit in my case.

Finding someone I want to have sex with that would also want to have sex with me would be problematic.

I could drug them - but I would be running the risk of a custodial sentence.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Benefits of renouncing your faith:

1. You get to have more sex with more people
2. You get more free time on Sundays
3. You can use your newfound Sunday free time to go have sex

You dont have to renounce your faith to engage in staying in on Sunday and casual sex. Such people can be found in abbundance. At this point in time finding a self identified religious person that is looking for an immediate or long term sex partner is as easy as installing an app and doing some swiping. Sex also isn’t restricted to Sundays.

 

[PRmerger]

Not sure this would be a benefit in my case.

Finding someone I want to have sex with that would also want to have sex with me would be problematic.

 

[PRmerger]

Benefits of renouncing your faith:

1. You get to have more sex with more people

This sounds like the kid who thinks that when he’s an adult he’s going to be able to have all the cotton candy, fudgsicles and sody-pop that he wants. All Sugar! All The Time! will be his mantra.

Except we all know how miserable he will be with that type of lifestyle, yeah?

 

[Vonsalza]

“Supposedly”??? Just because some people declare something to be “self-evident” it does not make them so. A proposition is self-evident if EVERY rational human accepts it to be self-evident.

And God’s existence is not one of them.

I think you’re experiencing some difficulty in realizing the subjectivity of “self-evidence”.

What was “self-evident” truth in the American Declaration of Independence differs from the “self-evident” truth at the heart of the formulation of whichever Soviet you’d want to pick from mid-20th century history.

Are you just being obtuse about it?

Self-evident =/= Undeniable

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Your objection is that some folks say “I know with great certainty that X is what God wills for me”?

Really?

Ok. You are correct–there is no way, typically, for a Christian to know that their interpretation is actually an answered prayer.

How does that prove that there is no God or that Christ isn’t God?

Here is the starting point of my argument from post 15:

"I don’t think you should renounce your “belief”, but rather you should renounce any conclusions about it being certain or ‘knowledge’ unless you have evidence/logic to back it up."

Notice here that I don’t claim nor argue for God not existing. My point was to avoid dogma which is something that separates many agnostics from Christians and atheists. Dogmas usually come as a package, e.g., the Christian worldview and metaphysical naturalism. Some parts of the dogma or worldview may be proven while other parts are not. The problem here is that many atheists and Christians tend to hold on to the unproven parts as truth and use it as a starting point, and mix it into preexisting knowledge, or even use it to fill in the unknowns. A prime example of dogma being mixed in with pre-existing knowledge is seeing how both sides handle the mind/body problem.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

I think you’re experiencing some difficulty in realizing the subjectivity of “self-evidence”.

Google does not understand “self-evidence”, it will immediately suggest “self-evident” instead.

Self-evident =/= Undeniable

If you type in “synonym for self-evident” one of the results will be: “undeniable”. Some of the others: obvious, clear, plain, evident, apparent, manifest, patent, axiomatic; distinct, transparent, overt, conspicuous, palpable, unmistakable, undeniable. The definition is: “not needing to be demonstrated or explained”.

So rejoice: your ignorance-meter just went down by a miniscule amount.

 

[PRmerger]

Here is the starting point of my argument from post 15:

"I don’t think you should renounce your “belief”, but rather you should renounce any conclusions about it being certain or ‘knowledge’ unless you have evidence/logic to back it up."

Notice here that I don’t claim nor argue for God not existing.

Acknowledged.

My point was to avoid dogma which is something that separates many agnostics from Christians and atheists.

So agnostics don’t believe in dogmas?

Dogmas are nothing but facts that have been proclaimed. It’s curious to me that someone would be opposed to…facts.

 

[PRmerger]

Some parts of the dogma or worldview may be proven while other parts are not.

You also accept some things which haven’t been proven.

To wit: you accept on faith that your pilot knows how to navigate the plane you’re on.

No one has proven that to you.
You’ve never asked to see her license, her test scores, evidence that she never cheated on her Calc exam…

The problem here is that many atheists and Christians tend to hold on to the unproven parts as truth and use it as a starting point, and mix it into preexisting knowledge, or even use it to fill in the unknowns. A prime example of dogma being mixed in with pre-existing knowledge is seeing how both sides handle the mind/body problem.

How do Catholics start with a dogma on mind/body and what is it that we conclude about it that you oppose?

 

[Vonsalza]

Google does not understand “self-evidence”, it will immediately suggest “self-evident” instead.

Self-evidence is the state of being self-evident.

This is getting pedantic…

If you type in “synonym for self-evident” one of the results will be: “undeniable”. Some of the others: obvious, clear, plain, evident, apparent, manifest, patent, axiomatic; distinct, transparent, overt, conspicuous, palpable, unmistakable, undeniable. The definition is: “not needing to be demonstrated or explained”.

So rejoice: your ignorance-meter just went down by a miniscule amount.

sigh

Congrats on missing the point completely. I’m not very surprised, though.

I’ll leave you with this to unravel;

“All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.” - Arthur Schopenhauer

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Self-evidence is the state of being self-evident.

A nonsensical proposition containing non-existent words.

This is getting pedantic…

Nope, it is simply precise. Self-evident is still “undeniable”. And you ignorance-meter just jumped back to it previous level, and then some. Not a surprise, of course.

 

[Samwise21]

Trying to find a good counter to this:

What is the point of Heaven? God already knows exactly who will and who will not get into heaven. He is omniscient. He knew from the start. Why not just put everyone in there now and forego the suffering that happens on Earth?

The entire concept of heaven is contradictory to all of the points Christians make about the worth of pain and free will. In Heaven we live forever and are given the free will to do whatever we want, but with the absence of pain. Heaven is a place where no pain exists, so why can’t Earth be like that too?.. Or, why can’t we skip the pain on Earth and go straight to heaven instead? What is the point of a short painful life on Earth.

Best of all, since suicide is usually considered a terrible sin, there is no way for us to skip over a life on Earth!

Why then, you might ask, did God create Earth when we could have all just been put in heaven from the start?

There seems to be no logical explanation other than that of God not having one of the three: omniscience, omnipotence or benevolence.

If God does not have one of these three, then he ceases to be God, because by definition he has all three of these things. Therefore, the Abrahamic God cannot exist based on only the fundamental characteristics by which he is defined.

As such, many people upon realising this simply cannot adhere to any abrahamic religion. Of course, this also applies to any other religion that claims to have Gods with these three conflicting characteristics.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

So agnostics don’t believe in dogmas?

Dogmas are nothing but facts that have been proclaimed. It’s curious to me that someone would be opposed to…facts.

Dogmas are not about facts, but rather they’re about opinions and beliefs. The mere fact that they are settled or held unquestionably by a group does not make them fact.

You also accept some things which haven’t been proven.

To wit: you accept on faith that your pilot knows how to navigate the plane you’re on.

No one has proven that to you.
You’ve never asked to see her license, her test scores, evidence that she never cheated on her Calc exam…

I agree with you that I’m not 100% certain that the pilot is fully qualified. I trust the airline company to verify that for me. For practical reasons, I don’t apply my standards to all areas of life. But in a purely intellectual context, like a debate, research, etc, I’m all about reason and verifiable evidence. If I engage in any beliefs, it’s only on a theoretical basis.

How do Catholics start with a dogma on mind/body and what is it that we conclude about it that you oppose?

Well Catholics already have their preestablished view that God created everything, which includes the soul. This is not something that science has proven but yet many Christians try to attach the available body of evidence on the mind to fit in with their doctrine. If a person is invested in doing this, can you ever expect them to evaluate evidence objectively…especially the evidence that may threaten their overall worldview? I think not! I have an advantage in that I have no settled worldview or dogma to protect.

By the way, I also believe that there is evidence for the mind that threatens the materialistic worldview, as well… and that’s where I part ways with atheists.

 

[PRmerger]

Dogmas are not about facts, but rather they’re about opinions and beliefs.

If that’s how you want to define “dogmas”, then so be it.

But that still means you hold and profess dogmas as well.

Not sure why you permit for yourself what you object to in religious people?

The mere fact that they are settled or held unquestionably by a group does not make them fact.

You, like so many agnostics and atheists, are arguing against a straw man.

No Catholic is to hold any beliefs “unquestionably”.

That is a heresy called Fideism, AB.

You should know that by now.

I agree with you that I’m not 100% certain that the pilot is fully qualified. I trust the airline company to verify that for me. For practical reasons, I don’t apply my standards to all areas of life. But in a purely intellectual context, like a debate, research, etc, I’m all about reason and verifiable evidence. If I engage in any beliefs, it’s only on a theoretical basis.

LOL!!!

Really?

So for things like…when your life is in someone’s hands…speeding along high in the sky with the possibility of crashing and burning….you rely on faith? But for other things, like intellectual discussions, 100% certainty, proof and evidence is required?

Doesn’t that seem a bit farcical?

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

You, like so many agnostics and atheists, are arguing against a straw man.

Actually we argue exactly and precisely against what you say, but when we rub your nose into your - ahem - inconsistences, then you turn around and deny it. But you don’t have the intellectual honesty to admit it.

No Catholic is to hold any beliefs “unquestionably”.

Not even that Jesus is the third party of the trinity? But, of course you probably have a ready-made “answer” to that: “if someone does not accept the divinity of Jesus unquestioningly, then she is not a Catholic”… thereby invoking the “not True Scotsman” fallacy. You are all required to accept the “dawg-mah”-s unquestioningly.

So for things like…when your life is in someone’s hands…speeding along high in the sky with the possibility of crashing and burning… you rely on faith? But for other things, like intellectual discussions, 100% certainty, proof and evidence is required?

Doesn’t that seem a bit farcical?

Not at all. 100% certainty only exists in axiomatic, deductive systems, but not in real life. Here we are happy with a satisfactory level of certainty. And you use the word “faith” exactly as incorrectly as Vonsalza uses “self-evident” - without knowing its correct meaning. “Faith” does not mean a “less than 100% certainty”.

 

[minkymurph]

Trying to find a good counter to this:

This is not a particularly good counter - but it’s the best I can come up with.

Life is a mystery. Catholics are often criticised for use of the term ‘mystery.’ I concede the term is somewhat archaic and implies superstition, but it is a fact we do not know everything there is to know about life.

Heaven is not a place as such. It is called the dwelling place of God, but ultimately it is a state of the soul. The Fall as it is termed resulted in a change to the state of the soul. Restoration of the soul to its original state involves a process. To become God-like involves a process.

If there is no heaven, it can equally be argued what is the point of a short painful life on earth. Evolution cannot explain why we are. It explains how we can to be here, but not why. Why did evolution not stop at non-living things? Why does the process seem to reach it’s conclusion on the emergence of humans?

God is not human. We describe God in human terms and through use of human language, but God is not human. Thus, cannot be described in human terms physically, psychologically or any other way. God’s attributes are known to Christians through the person of Jesus Christ.

Throughout history humans have believed they have encountered a superior power or being called ‘God.’ Ancient civilizations were not ignorant and uneducated, they were highly advanced. It was not the case they had no means of explaining things other than God. In contemporary society this phenomenon - humans who believe they have encountered God, continues to prevail and not only among ignorant, uneducated persons or the delusional.

In conclusion, the Western world is no better of without God. People today are more self absorbed, self interested, and disinterested in their fellow man than I have never known them to be. We cannot blame lack of belief in God entirely for this sorry state of affairs, but neither can we say it has not been a contributing factor. Belief in God gives us conscience and sense of morality on a higher level than that which can be achieved in the absence of belief in God. It cannot be said all who profess to believe in God achieve this, but neither can it be said belief in God does not gives us conscience and sense of morality on a higher level than that which can be achieved in the absence of belief in God.

 

[Vonsalza]

A nonsensical proposition containing non-existent words.

So then how would one describe the state of being self-evident? Self-evidentness? :doh2:

As given by my desk dictionary: “the quality or state of being self-evident”.

I’ll chalk to up to English being a secondary language for you.

Nope, it is simply precise. Self-evident is still “undeniable”. And you ignorance-meter just jumped back to it previous level, and then some. Not a surprise, of course.

Again, you betray a lack of any real knowledge on the subject and a lack of willingness to learn.

There are many philosophers that doubt self-evident truth even exists; particularly as it pertains to the metaphysical. Baudrillard is the first example off the top of my head.

As another concern for you, the appeal to self-evident truth in an argument is considered logically fallacious.

Self evident truth can absolutely be denied, particularly as it pertains to the metaphysical.

“…it is self-evident that the abolition of the present system of production must bring with it the abolition of the community of women springing from that system” -Marx

Turns out the prostitution produced by capitalism didn’t disappear under communism. I guess it wasn’t actually “self-evident” like Marx claimed…

---

But then again, you seem to be quite unteachable, a la your “understanding” of materialism.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

So then how would one describe the state of being self-evident? Self-evidentness? :doh2:

“Self-evident” is an adjective, which pertains to propositions. Elementary grammar, my dear Watson.

There are many philosophers that doubt self-evident truth even exists; particularly as it pertains to the metaphysical.

There are not many self-evidently true propositions. The proposition: “I exist” is one of them. Or “one plus one makes two”. “God exists” is NOT one of them.

I guess it wasn’t actually “self-evident” like Marx claimed…

Exactly. He was wrong. Just like you.

 

[Vonsalza]

“Self-evident” is an adjective, which pertains to propositions. Elementary grammar, my dear Watson.

My desk reference is a Merriam-Websters. I’ll promptly inform them that an internet poster disputes their reference.

Vonsalza;14734792:

Turns out the prostitution produced by capitalism didn’t disappear under communism. I guess it wasn’t actually “self-evident” like Marx claimed…

Exactly. He was wrong. Just like you.

Ah. Then my point stands. Claims of self-evident axiom CAN be rejected, then.

That pretty well finishes this up in QED fashion. :tiphat:

The last word is yours, should you (likely) choose…