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

[AgnosticBoy]

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?

I linked to the meaning of dogma that I was referring to. I also agreed with you already when I said that I have beliefs, and I made a distinction between beliefs on personal matters (like my relationships) and beliefs concerning intellectual matters (on various philosophical and scientific topics). In the case of the latter, I have no firm beliefs and I’m also prone to go back-and-forth between different beliefs (undecided?), which is why I don’t see myself a good fit for labels (religious or otherwise) that involve beliefs that are more settled, like Christianity and atheism.

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.

Holding beliefs that are unquestionable is one issue, and I do believe that is part of Christianity to a degree when it comes to papal infallibility and the Bible. The other issue is accepting beliefs as being true without any empirical evidence nor logic to back it up. This is a more obvious problem when it comes to claims that deal only with metaphysics - I tend to stay away from all of these areas that are completely unproven/unevidenced. The hard-to-spot problem is when metaphysical dogma is mixed in with knowledge. A good agnostic or thinker would be good at untangling the two by spotting the dogma, spotting the assumptions/speculations, and weeding them out. And of course, I’ve already touched on some of the motivations for mixing in dogma with knowledge - it’s simply that many people (scientists/atheists included) tend to WANT certain things to be true.

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?

No, not to me. I can’t conduct my entire life the same way that I would on an internet forum or in a debate. With that said, I don’t just limit myself to scientific evidence. I’m also open to accepting experience as being evidence.

 

[PRmerger]

I linked to the meaning of dogma that I was referring to. I also agreed with you already when I said that I have beliefs, and I made a distinction between beliefs on personal matters (like my relationships) and beliefs concerning intellectual matters (on various philosophical and scientific topics). In the case of the latter, I have no firm beliefs and I’m also prone to go back-and-forth between different beliefs (undecided?), which is why I don’t see myself a good fit for labels (religious or otherwise) that involve beliefs that are more settled, like Christianity and atheism.

Sorry–but I am 100% certain that the statement that regarding scientific topics “I have no firm beliefs” is FALSE.

Do you waver back and forth on whether Manila is the capital of the Philippines?

Do you go back and forth between deciding whether the way you find the circumference of a circle is pi times the diameter?

Are you uncertain as how to spell ATHEIST (in English, ok?) Do you sometimes feel it’s right to spell it ATHIEST?

No?

That’s what I thought.

 

[PRmerger]

Holding beliefs that are unquestionable is one issue, and I do believe that is part of Christianity to a degree when it comes to papal infallibility and the Bible.

Nope.

That is a heresy, AB. You should know that by now.

No one should accept any belief in Catholicism “unquestionably”.

The other issue is accepting beliefs as being true without any empirical evidence nor logic to back it up.

No Catholic should accept any belief that contradicts logic, AB.

You should know that by now, too.

 

[PRmerger]

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?

No, not to me. I can’t conduct my entire life the same way that I would on an internet forum or in a debate. With that said, I don’t just limit myself to scientific evidence. I’m also open to accepting experience as being evidence.

Well, QED.

You can see why all of us Believers here read some posts here by Agnostics/Atheists and remark about the great cognitive dissonance that must be embraced by the A/A.

Any atheist/agnostic who professes that things which involve LIFEand DEATH and the possibility of exploding in flames, “I go by faith on this!” and things such as academic discussions on a forum “I require 100% empirical data” should expect this reaction:

http://wp.patheos.com.s3.amazonaws....s/2014/05/doesnt_make_any_sense_anchorman.gif

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Claims of self-evident axiom CAN be rejected, then.

Of course… by those who are ignorant or irrational.

I already suggested that you check out your references for the synonyms of “self-evident”. All of them will include “undeniable”. Of course, they do not explicitly add: “by rational people”… because that is self-evident.

 

[Vonsalza]

Vera_Ljuba;14734013:

Self-evident is still “undeniable”.

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.

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

Of course… by those who are ignorant or irrational.

Wait. Would the “irrational and ignorant” camp include these people? Logically Fallacious: Appeal to Self-evident Truth

And for your future reference: merriam-webster.com/dictionary/self-evidence

 

[Bradski]

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.

But the statement is never set out like that. First and foremost it is always the fact that life appears to be short and brutal that is given, coupled with a need for meaning, that results in the conclusion that there must be a heaven (and all that that entails), otherwise…

Well, lots of people want there to be a reason. They don’t want there to be just a short and brutal life (or meaningless for a lot of lucky people who don’t suffer greatly). Heaven is a great idea for those people. An afterlife has always been the hope for almost everyone who has ever lived.

Why does the process seem to reach it’s conclusion on the emergence of humans?

There is no end point. There is no aim. We are not the conclusion.

 

[inocente]

Heaven is not a place as such. It is called the dwelling place of God, but ultimately it is a state of the soul.

Until 400 years ago everyone believed in Aristotle’s cosmology, in which God is in heaven and heaven is beyond the stars. A very comforting image, God surrounding and cradling creation, but it relied on geocentrism and that was disproved.

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.

No heaven, and life having no preordained purpose are not contrary to the rules of logic. They may not be comforting but you threw out the comforting idea of heaven as a place. I’m just remarking that seems inconsistent.

 

[tonyrey]

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.

The key words are " Evolution cannot explain why we are". Scientific explanation is regressive in its assumption that causes are more significant than effects. That is why some scientists regard life as pointless as if the past explains the present and the future instead of having a panoramic view of reality. They are literally more old-fashioned than religious people in their obsession with “how?” rather than “why?” Science is the opium of atheists and sceptics!

 

[BrunoMaria]

I’m afraid I don’t understand this question at all.
For he who thinks he believes in God and thinks of renouncing this belief, never believed in God.
To believe in God means never to be alone, but to have God aside you.
Now - atheists hardly ever ask an believer to renounce this sureness. Thes just think they are sure there is no God - thouh they can’t prove it. They just take the risk. Russian Roulette!

 

[minkymurph]

But the statement is never set out like that. First and foremost it is always the fact that life appears to be short and brutal that is given, coupled with a need for meaning, that results in the conclusion that there must be a heaven (and all that that entails), otherwise…

Well, lots of people want there to be a reason. They don’t want there to be just a short and brutal life (or meaningless for a lot of lucky people who don’t suffer greatly). Heaven is a great idea for those people. An afterlife has always been the hope for almost everyone who has ever lived.

I catch your drift.

There is no end point. There is no aim. We are not the conclusion.

If we are not the conclusion, is it at least possible we are destined for something greater?

 

[minkymurph]

No heaven, and life having no preordained purpose are not contrary to the rules of logic. They may not be comforting but you threw out the comforting idea of heaven as a place. I’m just remarking that seems inconsistent.

I said heaven wasn’t a place.

 

[minkymurph]

I’m afraid I don’t understand this question at all.
For he who thinks he believes in God and thinks of renouncing this belief, never believed in God.
To believe in God means never to be alone, but to have God aside you.
Now - atheists hardly ever ask an believer to renounce this sureness. Thes just think they are sure there is no God - thouh they can’t prove it. They just take the risk. Russian Roulette!

The question is hypothetical the objective of which is initiate discussion.

 

[Bradski]

If we are not the conclusion, is it at least possible we are destined for something greater?

No.

If you start with the belief that we are special in some way then you might assume that.

It’s a natural tendency.

 

[Vonsalza]

No.

If you start with the belief that we are special in some way then you might assume that.

I don’t need any sort of god to make a good argument for the exceptionalism of homo sapiens relative to other species. Any squids ever flown to the moon?

But to your earlier post - we might very well be the conclusion. Isn’t one of the possible solutions to the Fermi paradox concerning aliens that intelligent species annihilate themselves?

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t need any sort of god to make a good argument for the exceptionalism of homo sapiens relative to other species. Any squids ever flown to the moon?

Indeed.

Have any yellow bellied sap suckers donated one of their wings to a complete stranger?

 

[minkymurph]

No.

If you start with the belief that we are special in some way then you might assume that.

It’s a natural tendency.

Do you think humans could potentially evolve into another species?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Do you think humans could potentially evolve into another species?

Some would say it’s happened before. But to answer your question if you could keep group of humans isolated from other populations long enough it is possibly for them to develop some traits that would limit or eliminate their ability to produce fertile offspring with other groups. If this happens speciation would be said to have occurred. I don’t think it’s likely in a world with mass transportation though.

minkymurph:

If we are not the conclusion, is it at least possible we are destined for something greater?

Referring back to this since there is a popular misconception that something that has evolved has produced “something greater” than it’s ancestors under biological evolution. I’m not sure if that is also your view, but in case it is I wanted to highlight that whether something is greater or not to be a value judgement. It’s not a part of biological evolution. Populations of organisms and their environments both change.

 

[minkymurph]

Referring back to this since there is a popular misconception that something that has evolved has produced “something greater” than it’s ancestors under biological evolution. I’m not sure if that is also your view, but in case it is I wanted to highlight that whether something is greater or not to be a value judgement. It’s not a part of biological evolution. Populations of organisms and their environments both change.

In terms of ‘something greater,’ I would say evolution has produced ‘something greater’ in that humans are superior to prokaryotic bacteria.

Though there are times I wonder.

Thus, has the human race stopped evolving, or does the potential exist for the evolution of a species with even greater intelligence and more biologically advanced/complex? One that may never succumb to disease and die?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Thus, has the human race stopped evolving

None of us have the lifespans necessary to answer this question in the sense that I think you mean it. But for as long as people continue to reproduce there’s likely to be a change in the frequency of genes within the population over time.

or does the potential exist for the evolution of a species with even greater intelligence and more biologically advanced/complex?

I can’t say it’s impossible. I do want to know that something that is more complex doesn’t necessarily have a better ability to survive. A single celled organism has less complexity than a metazoa but may be able to survive and reproduce under a broader set of circumstances.

One that may never succumb to disease and die?

Somewhere in here there is a joke to be made about universal heath care. But given the present day climate in the USA on the topic it’s probably too soon. Let’s just keep those with pre-existing conditions in our thoughts and do what we can to help their chances of getting medical attention when they need it. If we can get to that point then let’s set our sights on disease free lives.

More to the point of your question, I personally doubt it. If one has a genetic disease as long as that genetic disease doesn’t interfere with reproduction there’s a better chance of it being passed on. Also don’t forget that lifeforms don’t evolve in a static environment; as they change so do the pathogens that cause disease. I’ve heard it described as the race of the Red Queen (from either “Alice in Wonderland” or “Through the Looking Glass.”
Red Queen:

It takes all the running one can do to stay in one place. If you want to get anywhere else you need to run twice as fast as that.

The result of those that survive selection pressures isn’t necessarily that which is “better.” Rather you have the results of those that were able to survive in the population long enough to reproduce under what ever pressures occurred. Those pressures change. Just looking at temperature as things get warmer you may find that those in a species that don’t have attributes that better allow them to endure rising temperatures. If/when temperatures begin to drop attributes that were previously advantageous could become disadvantageous under a different climate.