I think I found the answer

[Spock]

…to a question which was on my mind for a long time. The question is: “Why is it so fruitless to participate in these discussions?”. The best we can achieve is a polite “let’s agree to disagree”, nothing more.

The answer is related to another problem: “accepting evidence which has negative consequences for the person involved”. Please bear with me.

Examples:

1. when some physicists thought that they found a way to “cold fusion”, they had a lot riding on the result. Professional reputation, etc. When other physicists tried to substantiate the result, and failed, the originators of the idea still asserted that they were right. I still don’t know if they admitted their failure or not.
2. when a doctor first declared that stomach ulcer is caused by bacterial infection, he was ridiculed, declared a charlatan. The long entrenched belief was threatened, and the doctors reacted pretty strongly. It took a lot of uphill battle to prove the new discovery.
3. many times parents of a deranged phychopath will adamantly deny that their “baybee” could have done such horrible things.
4. people, who find out that someone in their neighborhood was a serial killer, were skeptical about the result of the investigation. They said, it is impossible that such a nice person would do crimes like that. Remember Jerrey Dahmer.
5. I bet that most computer users would agree that Linux, or the Mac OS are far superior to Windows (especially Vista). But would Bill Gates accept the evidence? I sure doubt it. (He does not even allow his wife to have an iPod, since it is an Apple product.)

The explanation is quite obvious: when you have a lot riding on something you seriously believe, it takes a huge pile of evidence to shake that belief. Sometimes it is impossible to do it. No matter how much evidence or even proof would be presented, it would be explained away, rationalized and rejected. Nothing surprising about it. We all cherish our beliefs and have a hard time facing the fact that it is incorrect.

I am pretty sure that this is the case on these boards. Every time an atheist presents a “challenge”, it invokes resistence, sometimes even overt hostility. No matter how obvious the problem is, it is rationalized and explained away - not that it is ever admitted. See the innumerable threads on the “problem of evil”. Actually, there is nothing wrong with it. You are not cold, detached observers, it is the very foundation of your beliefs that is being “threatened”.

Now, I am pretty sure you will turn the question around, and say that atheists are in the same boat. I cannot speak for other atheists (hopefully they will chip in), but I can speak for myself. If it would turn out that I am incorrect, I would be very surprised, but that would be a pleasant surprise. After all, who wants to die (as long as we are healthy, of course)? Wouldn’t it be great to see our departed loved ones? So the idea that I might be wrong about my beliefs (or lack of them) is not threatening in the least. I would be glad to be wrong. I would be happy, if God would explain why are those horrible evils necessary. What “good” can come out of them which even he could not achieve with all his “omnipotence”?

Any idea how could this problem be resolved? I don’t see a solution.

 

[JPUSC]

Yes, discussion alone wouldn’t convince anyone about religion. Many people are more moved when they see the good fruits of faith, such as the love Mother Teresa had for the poor and the forgiveness Pope John Paul II had towards his assassin.

Whatever you end up believing, I hope that you find peace and if it ends up that when you die, you discover that God exists, I hope you can be reunited with your loved ones.

 

[Spock]

Yes, discussion alone wouldn’t convince anyone about religion. Many people are more moved when they see the good fruits of faith, such as the love Mother Teresa had for the poor and the forgiveness Pope John Paul II had towards his assassin.

I am sure you know that helping the needy and forgiveness are not limited to any subset of humans.

Whatever you end up believing, I hope that you find peace and if it ends up that when you die, you discover that God exists, I hope you can be reunited with your loved ones.

Thank you. I am at peace with my beliefs. I would not mind to be refuted by rational arguments, however. Let me ask, if one could substantiate that God is merely a figment of your imagination, how would you react? Would you be able to shrug it off? Of course, this is hypothetical, but try to think it over. I am curious.

 

[JPUSC]

I am sure you know that helping the needy and forgiveness are not limited to any subset of humans.

Yes, of course. I know many atheists and agnostics who are good, genuine people.

Thank you. I am at peace with my beliefs. I would not mind to be refuted by rational arguments, however. Let me ask, if one could substantiate that God is merely a figment of your imagination, how would you react? Would you be able to shrug it off? Of course, this is hypothetical, but try to think it over. I am curious.

Of course I wouldn’t be able to shrug it off. Religion is an inherent part of the human experience. Recent studies have shown that the brain is engineered to allow spiritual experiences (pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week510/cover.html). Since the beginning of time, man has pondered the afterlife and how he has come into existence.

Those with faith could have the peace of mind to know that upon death, there is an afterlife and a God waiting for them. Those without faith - I suppose they can try to live life as best as they can on earth as they think only dust and bones await them in the future.

When I experience love from my family, when I see how intricate the human body is with all its capabilities, when I see beauty and complexity in the world around me - I know there is a God. That’s why I love science - to see just how everything fits so perfectly; that couldn’t have happened by itself.

 

[JDaniel]

…to a question which was on my mind for a long time. The question is: “Why is it so fruitless to participate in these discussions?”. The best we can achieve is a polite “let’s agree to disagree”, nothing more.

The answer is related to another problem: “accepting evidence which has negative consequences for the person involved”. Please bear with me.

Examples:

1. when some physicists thought that they found a way to “cold fusion”, they had a lot riding on the result. Professional reputation, etc. When other physicists tried to substantiate the result, and failed, the originators of the idea still asserted that they were right. I still don’t know if they admitted their failure or not.
2. when a doctor first declared that stomach ulcer is caused by bacterial infection, he was ridiculed, declared a charlatan. The long entrenched belief was threatened, and the doctors reacted pretty strongly. It took a lot of uphill battle to prove the new discovery.
3. many times parents of a deranged phychopath will adamantly deny that their “baybee” could have done such horrible things.
4. people, who find out that someone in their neighborhood was a serial killer, were skeptical about the result of the investigation. They said, it is impossible that such a nice person would do crimes like that. Remember Jerrey Dahmer.
5. I bet that most computer users would agree that Linux, or the Mac OS are far superior to Windows (especially Vista). But would Bill Gates accept the evidence? I sure doubt it. (He does not even allow his wife to have an iPod, since it is an Apple product.)

The explanation is quite obvious: when you have a lot riding on something you seriously believe, it takes a huge pile of evidence to shake that belief. Sometimes it is impossible to do it. No matter how much evidence or even proof would be presented, it would be explained away, rationalized and rejected. Nothing surprising about it. We all cherish our beliefs and have a hard time facing the fact that it is incorrect.

I am pretty sure that this is the case on these boards. Every time an atheist presents a “challenge”, it invokes resistence, sometimes even overt hostility. No matter how obvious the problem is, it is rationalized and explained away - not that it is ever admitted. See the innumerable threads on the “problem of evil”. Actually, there is nothing wrong with it. You are not cold, detached observers, it is the very foundation of your beliefs that is being “threatened”.

Now, I am pretty sure you will turn the question around, and say that atheists are in the same boat. I cannot speak for other atheists (hopefully they will chip in), but I can speak for myself. If it would turn out that I am incorrect, I would be very surprised, but that would be a pleasant surprise. After all, who wants to die (as long as we are healthy, of course)? Wouldn’t it be great to see our departed loved ones? So the idea that I might be wrong about my beliefs (or lack of them) is not threatening in the least. I would be glad to be wrong. I would be happy, if God would explain why are those horrible evils necessary. What “good” can come out of them which even he could not achieve with all his “omnipotence”?

Any idea how could this problem be resolved? I don’t see a solution.

How cleverly you try to disguise the arrogance imbedded in this OA. And, at the end of it, there’s nothing in it to comment on. Except his name was Jeffrey Dahmer.

All due respect,
jd

 

[JLongoria]

Let me ask, if one could substantiate that God is merely a figment of your imagination, how would you react? Would you be able to shrug it off? Of course, this is hypothetical, but try to think it over. I am curious.

One has to ask in the first place if such a thing is substantiable, since one cannot in fact ascertain the non-existence of something. At best, we can only have pretty good ideas about a thing’s non-existence, and not much further.

Hmm. Shrug it off? In a way, but not in the way one might think, I suppose. It all rests on belief in the divine being properly basic, which has yet to be refuted in any convincing manner.

Much as the process of scientific reasoning has developed because man has a belief - a reasonably valid one, too - that existence is intelligible at all, most believers come to believe that there is a God. A scientist will profess, even if reluctantly, a belief that existence is intelligible. From this belief, the scientist makes note of trends and describes them; from this, no scientific field can escape. The theist will likewise profess a belief that there is a God. From here, he takes note of experience and it fits quite well with his belief.

Both these assumptions are arrived at inductively, and I for one have no problem with either. One might construe an argument from evidence that the former statement (that is, “I believe existence is intelligible”) is true, but this becomes significantly silly when one considers that even with mounds of evidence, there is no certainty in anything we know. All the evidence in the world may say that all geese are white; that is, until we happen upon a black goose.

Which is contentedly fine. Minus the few stumbling blocks that humanity has happened upon, we can go on with our “irrational”, inductive thinking just fine, making fairly accurate predictions and living our lives without the worry of, “will this chair not exist when all observers vacate the room?”

God bless, friend.

 

[Detales]

I took a class once in comedy improv. The joke was that I thought I had any talent in that area. Nevertheless, I learned a few valuable things.

One was the definition of drama. It made sense once I heard it. The coach said that “Drama is when something is at stake. The more at stake, the higher the drama.”

When we are debating here, we are doing so by the nature of folks believing or not believing about ultimate things, eg God, the soul, salvation, etc. We are engaged in the highest stakes drama possible from the point of view of personal experience. That is because what is at stake is the sense of self and all that goes with that.

I agree with the poster who pointed out that the brain is wired for religion. I would not put it into those terms, but for the sake of presentation, that can stand for the moment. In any case, the human, having the unique ability of self reflection, naturaly wonders as to its own source of existance. Over time and space, many explanations have been provided. The chief characteristic of all of these, even before the contents of the beliefs, is that they claim to be right. There may be questions, but similar to what Spock posted about people feeling right about things, the overall prevailing explanaton in any culture obtains. This is necessary as a method of local survival, and has worked until recently, when we have experienced clashes of local assumptions, from economic to political to religious, on a global scale.

It is important to understand how pervasive this need to be right is. Another study, for instance, showed that it was the perpatrators of horendeous crimes who overall had the highest self esteem. They had the most adamantine and entrenched conviction of being right of all population groups tested. I would imagine it is because that part of them that could be a conscience, ie the ability to put yourself in the shoes of the other person and feel the consequences of an action, was either missing or traumatised into uselessness. I vote for the latter, given the histories of some of these people. In any case, it seems that early training bears on the formation and retention of one’s world view, as well as language, etc.

But ultimately, what is at stake for them, and for anyone of us invested in a belief, is the sense that we are our beliefs. This conviction bypasses the actual ground in which a sacred way, or indeed a deep individual maturity beyond belief, might grow. And thus also we have on here the likes of some folks who would make St Augustine reiterate in bold type his original admonition that people not versed in a field not go up against people who are solely on the grounds of faith. It ultimately only does harm to the perception of faith on the part of those who allegedly might need it.

So we have a situation where the contents is mistaken for the container. All these different explanations came into being in many parts of the world according to the needs of those peoples. It is similar to a large group of computers working on the same basic operating system going incompatible because they are loaded with different software, even if the functions of that software are overlapping and similar. The software semanics are different and render machines incompatible that are funda-mentally identical in function. But each “machine” interprets all the others from the standpoint of their own"correct" software, mistaking the software for the actual OS. That is the nature of belief. It replaces the potential of actual knowledge with a prophylactic look-alike called “my beliefs about how the world is.” Lack of self knowledge allows this.

So what is happening on here, as far as I can tell, is that it’s home for a group of people who have one version of many of a program claiming itself to be the one right religion because their particular bible and tradition tells them so, it being one of many making that claim to its adherants. They have, according to that, everything at stake as to the rightness of that particular version of software. Exceptionally few of them have had the kind of shock that sent them on a quest for the *actual *OS. Some, however, do recieve such a shock, either through effort, trauma, or sheer grace. What they find is beyond software and is at the very least a good working knowledge of the OS.

That is not to say that the church has no value. Not at all. But it is plowing the wrong field, sticking adamantly to the software comparison arena, refusing to look at where it came from and what it actulally might mean in a deeper way. All that *is *there in the symbology of the church, for sure, but few will ever get through the dogmatic superficiality of it to the core of its meaning. not unless they are shocked into a particualr kind of realization about the nature of their own awarenss. Yet in emotional terms, the offerings of whatever religon they partake of is, to them, unmistakable, clear, incontrovertible, proven and functional truth. And since much of the explanation mimics the OS, it looks “right.” It can be no other way. There is too much emotionally at stake.

So I think that folks like you who are trying to get anyone on here to change are fighting a futile battle. There is too much at stake for the average stakeholder on here, and no motivation to look deeper. As one poet said, “conversaton will not win her. She has a special gift for those who love her; she lets them watch her die.”

Any real change in this realm has to come from an internal prompting. Do not expect that anyone on here is susceptible to your intellection or to your arguments. The software is too strong. You will not prevail. One can only prevail against their own beliefs from within. Then might come undersanding and knowledge and peace beyond intellect. Not before.

But hey, Spock, in the mean time it is fun, and is good exercise.

 

[fhansen]

Any real change in this realm has to come from an internal prompting. Do not expect that anyone on here is susceptible to your intellection or to your arguments. The software is too strong. You will not prevail. One can only prevail against their own beliefs from within. Then might come undersanding and knowledge and peace beyond intellect. Not before.

But hey, Spock, in the mean time it is fun, and is good exercise.

**Detales, Spock has atheism to offer but you seem to claim you have at least some sort of gnosis of value beyond “I don’t believe” or “I don’t know”. Are you sure Spock wouldn’t have an issue with your position as well, if you defined it?

By the way, the need to be right is universal and you’re correct about it, IMO; the greater its strength in us, the greater the potential for us to commit evil because people generally must justify their behavior before acting on their impulses-regardless of where those impulses actually come from. This is one reason Catholicism appeals to me because the doctrine of original sin postulates that mans self-righteousness-as opposed to a righteousness coming from an external authority of some type- is the problem. And the fact that this objective, external righteousness exists is the only reason we can define what constitutes “horrendous crimes”, BTW

IMO, religions are much like theories for any field. You go with the one that fits the evidence best. If none do that, you throw them all out and keep looking-or not.**

 

[Detales]

All of the previous in post seven above is to say only this: The greatest human gift, and the least properly used, is the ability to look at oneself as a phenomenon and know oneSelf. “Gnothi Seauton.” Unfortunately, the ways to do this are not commonly known and even discouraged by popular or necessary coping culture. That is why such things are usually the province of mysitcs, the aged, or the traumatized. But it is why it is said “Be still, and know that I am God.”

Therein is a secret. In the West, we have a very limited notion of what constitutes “I.” We equate it with what psychologists term “ego.” The ego is a mask on the face of Soul. Inquiry into the nature of “I” yields results that are the end of drama. For one thing, it reveals the reason for the minimally three tiered structure of parables. For another, it gives an entirely different and far more meaningful reading to many Identitiy statementes found in scriptures. Overall, it simplifies everything and provides a way to experience the underlying Unity of all the different softwares. The doorway of inquiry into the nature of "I’ (as a “What” not a “who”) gives access to Significance, Meaning, Truth, Beauty, Etc. It is an experiential journey into the Substrate of Being. There, all content is seen for what it is: the necessary multiplicity of appearance for the constitution of the world of experience in these dimentions called human existance.

The quesion might be put, “To whom or to what does all this appearance come?” And “Is this real?” If it changes, it isn’t. Or… but there are many ways of inquiry that yield a subsidance of the dramatic portion of the mind and take one to an experience of Meaning. Doing so destroys nothing, nor does it build anything up. It only clarifies what’s what. That is why it has been called, among other things, the Path of Discrimination. So you can be a Catholic or a Pocomaniac, or a whatever, but you might find that it is possible to do that in a remarkabley significant way, if there is the courage to make the leap. It is worth it. You will not be decieved.

 

[Swan]

This is all too true. And it carries over to all closely held, valued beliefs. It’s not just atheist/Theist, it’s strict Catholic/cafeteria Catholic, Catholic/Protestant, etc., and it carries over to politics (not surprising ). These types of beliefs are what I call integral to a person’s sense of identity; therefore, challenging them is viewed, subconsciously or consciously, as an attack on who they are at the deepest level. That is why the reaction is so strong. And I’m sure we all do it on one belief or another because we all have beliefs that we hold dear.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

…to a question which was on my mind for a long time. The question is: “Why is it so fruitless to participate in these discussions?”. The best we can achieve is a polite “let’s agree to disagree”, nothing more.

The answer is related to another problem: “accepting evidence which has negative consequences for the person involved”. Please bear with me.

Examples:

1. when some physicists thought that they found a way to “cold fusion”, they had a lot riding on the result. Professional reputation, etc. When other physicists tried to substantiate the result, and failed, the originators of the idea still asserted that they were right. I still don’t know if they admitted their failure or not.
2. when a doctor first declared that stomach ulcer is caused by bacterial infection, he was ridiculed, declared a charlatan. The long entrenched belief was threatened, and the doctors reacted pretty strongly. It took a lot of uphill battle to prove the new discovery.
3. many times parents of a deranged phychopath will adamantly deny that their “baybee” could have done such horrible things.
4. people, who find out that someone in their neighborhood was a serial killer, were skeptical about the result of the investigation. They said, it is impossible that such a nice person would do crimes like that. Remember Jerrey Dahmer.
5. I bet that most computer users would agree that Linux, or the Mac OS are far superior to Windows (especially Vista). But would Bill Gates accept the evidence? I sure doubt it. (He does not even allow his wife to have an iPod, since it is an Apple product.)

The explanation is quite obvious: when you have a lot riding on something you seriously believe, it takes a huge pile of evidence to shake that belief. Sometimes it is impossible to do it. No matter how much evidence or even proof would be presented, it would be explained away, rationalized and rejected. Nothing surprising about it. We all cherish our beliefs and have a hard time facing the fact that it is incorrect.

I am pretty sure that this is the case on these boards. Every time an atheist presents a “challenge”, it invokes resistence, sometimes even overt hostility. No matter how obvious the problem is, it is rationalized and explained away - not that it is ever admitted. See the innumerable threads on the “problem of evil”. Actually, there is nothing wrong with it. You are not cold, detached observers, it is the very foundation of your beliefs that is being “threatened”.

Now, I am pretty sure you will turn the question around, and say that atheists are in the same boat. I cannot speak for other atheists (hopefully they will chip in), but I can speak for myself. If it would turn out that I am incorrect, I would be very surprised, but that would be a pleasant surprise. After all, who wants to die (as long as we are healthy, of course)? Wouldn’t it be great to see our departed loved ones? So the idea that I might be wrong about my beliefs (or lack of them) is not threatening in the least. I would be glad to be wrong. I would be happy, if God would explain why are those horrible evils necessary. What “good” can come out of them which even he could not achieve with all his “omnipotence”?

Any idea how could this problem be resolved? I don’t see a solution.

sure, you dont know what G-d knows. you cant know good from evil, and the attempt was the cause of the fall, your talking about the very first sin. trying to assert the ability to know right from wrong.

its very simple.

you dont know how to judge right and wrong, so when you start talking about evil. you really dont know what that is. none of us really do.

that said, we noticed that you failed to defend yourself on some previous threads, now a few days later you complain that we cant be convinced, the pattern from our view goes something like this

1. atheist appears, full of confidence that we are misled.
2. atheists, runs into rational, defenses of theism. didn’t expect that. repeats arguments as though we didn’t hear them from the previous atheist that read the same books, saw the same videos, etc.
3. realizes that the arguments already have stadard refutations, that books or videos failed to mention. but we must be wrong, repeats arguments yet again.
4. becomes frustrated as normal series of arguments are shredded, as we have a lot of practice from previous atheists.
5. either, cuts and runs or fights.
6. generally they run to the supposed refuge of empirical evidence. find no shelter there.
7. runs in increasingly smaller circles as the arguments they came with are whittled away.
8. jumps threads to avoid losing positions, claims we are unreasonable, etc. still we must be wrong, G-d doesnt make any sense.
9. the problem of evil-- or, why doesnt G-d behave in the manner i wish?
10. arguments exposed as trying to say G-d cant exist because one doesn’t understand His actions, tries to agree to disagree.

you arent the first atheist just this week with those arguments, we understand them because we hear them continually.

we just hink your wrong, if you werent than you should be able to make a rational defense. not jump threads and complain about how unreasonable we are.

 

[JLongoria]

you dont know how to judge right and wrong, so when you start talking about evil. you really dont know what that is. none of us really do.

I love everything you said, but if I may, I’d like to clarify this one part

In a sense, you’re right; if evil is not a thing that exists, but rather the absence of that which exists (goodness, as God has made it), we can’t really comprehend it. We cannot comprehend non-existence.

In the beginning, both Adam and Eve were perfectly good, but committed original sin; that is, they wanted knowledge of good and evil without God. I think we can see that God has been ultimately giving in that He has revealed to us the fullness of the moral law; He sent His Son to be the Redeemer of our hearts and minds and the embodiment of human perfection, and His Spirit to be our guide. He has revealed to us things as they really are, so that we should not go on in darkness.

In a way, He has given us knowledge of good and evil; but this isn’t the same as eating that fruit from the tree. It is the acknowledgement that one needs God to be able to comprehend right from wrong.

Again, I’m not arguing against your post. I thought this was just something fairly important to clarify.

God bless.

 

[Spock]

we just hink your wrong, if you werent than you should be able to make a rational defense. not jump threads and complain about how unreasonable we are.

Don’t you realize that I am not interested in talking to you? Obviously not, since you are trying to use the same old “taunting” technique, following me from thread to thread. It does not work. (And I would suggest to learn the difference between “your” and “you’re”.)

 

[Spock]

One has to ask in the first place if such a thing is substantiable, since one cannot in fact ascertain the non-existence of something.

Not true in every case, though it is true in most cases.

We can say that there are no positive integers (“p” and “q”) where their ratio precisely equals the square root of two. We can say that there is no “invisible, pink unicorn”, because the two attributes (invisible and pink) are mutually exclusive.

In a sense, you’re right; if evil is not a thing that exists, but rather the absence of that which exists (goodness, as God has made it), we can’t really comprehend it.

Except “evil” is not defined as the “lack” of something.

 

[JDaniel]

So what is happening on here, as far as I can tell, is that it’s home for a group of people who have one version of many of a program claiming itself to be the one right religion because their particular bible and tradition tells them so, it being one of many making that claim to its adherants. They have, according to that, everything at stake as to the rightness of that particular version of software. Exceptionally few of them have had the kind of shock that sent them on a quest for the *actual *OS. Some, however, do recieve such a shock, either through effort, trauma, or sheer grace. What they find is beyond software and is at the very least a good working knowledge of the OS.

That is not to say that the church has no value. Not at all. But it is plowing the wrong field, sticking adamantly to the software comparison arena, refusing to look at where it came from and what it actulally might mean in a deeper way. All that *is *there in the symbology of the church, for sure, but few will ever get through the dogmatic superficiality of it to the core of its meaning. not unless they are shocked into a particualr kind of realization about the nature of their own awarenss. Yet in emotional terms, the offerings of whatever religon they partake of is, to them, unmistakable, clear, incontrovertible, proven and functional truth. And since much of the explanation mimics the OS, it looks “right.” It can be no other way. There is too much emotionally at stake.

All of this is, at best, arrogant pseudo-intellectualism and at worst, pure error. To presume that the church has its head stuck in the sand of ancient thought, and that, therefore, it is adhering to oldish and outdated traditions and thinking, due predominantly to the fear of the “loss of what is at stake,” is to completely misunderstand Catholicism. The Church is as nouveau as any current science. It is as nouveau as any discipline can be. Its teachings and dogma are under attack more than any other body of knowledge known to man - from within and without. The constant and aggressive pressure from this ceaseless barrage of attacks causes the Church to continuously “look” at its teachings and dogma.

For the everyday Catholic individual, the study of Catholic thought has progressed through many years, and into many decades. So much of its thought - not just passages from the Bible - have been assimilated and often long since forgotten by the Catholic man or woman. For the Catholic, these forums are a good review of what we have forgotten. They bring those concepts back to the forefront of our inspective awareness.

So, you come along, with your pearls of wisdom, and fully - however overly anticipated - expect the Church to simply begin a process of “rolling-over”. You have not understood that all of your presumptions have already been extensively reviewed. You have not accepted that the reviewers have been people of far greater intellectual capacity than perhaps anyone on this forum. Do not confuse us with non-Catholic Christianity. They are most often but one book, while we are the entire encyclopedia set.

So I think that folks like you who are trying to get anyone on here to change are fighting a futile battle. There is too much at stake for the average stakeholder on here, and no motivation to look deeper. As one poet said, “conversaton will not win her. She has a special gift for those who love her; she lets them watch her die.”

Going into this thing under this presupposition will effectively kill the progress you seem to pretend to desire. Rid yourself of this presupposition. Ask questions. If the answers don’t seem to give you that warm feeling that an answer might be sufficiently explanatory, ask it again. You have come here, to CAF. We are not on a site of your inclination.

Any real change in this realm has to come from an internal prompting. Do not expect that anyone on here is susceptible to your intellection or to your arguments. The software is too strong. You will not prevail. One can only prevail against their own beliefs from within. Then might come undersanding and knowledge and peace beyond intellect. Not before.

But hey, Spock, in the mean time it is fun, and is good exercise.

If you are here just to have “fun”, you will find this forum very unfulfilling.

jd

 

[Detales]

JD,

Wow. Thanks for the many compliments!

I do not think that the Church has it’s head stuck in the sand, save that is appears *to me *to be, despite being a religion, exoteric and secular. I simply contend that it is plowing a different field than one that is fundamentally accurate in terms of its purported intent. And I certainly acknowledge that the Church has done some wonderful things as an organizaton, as well as having been the force behind some pretty horrific ones. In this respect it is no different than any other exoteric organization. Because it mimics some of the dynamics Natural functions in its structure, it certainly appears to do good on other levels. But that is not because it is “Catholic” per se. Everybody in in this area gets a “monkey score.” This includes insights and miracles.

Those are attributable to a more primary dynamic than the Church’s teaching or guidance as the Catholic Church as such. The constant pressure and rebellion against it are the natural forces of people noticing the misallignment, yet having nowhere else to go due to lack of complete data, or lack of accurate alignment within themselves of new knowledge. The Church is expert at it’s own *internal *logic in refuting these movements in awarenes, as any organism either grows or dies. Having read much of its documentation, I think it is brilliant in this regard, being perhaps beyond the level of other world class illusionists. Re-read the section above on self esteem and self justification. Better yet, do your own homework.

I am on these forums for exactly the reason you mention. To root out forgotten assimilated dynamics. Being a baptized Catholic, these forums are useful for clarification. Also, there are those few whom I can converse with, and that is actually pleasant and informative. Keeping consistent to the extent I am able to is good exercise.

If you had read my post correctly, I expect noparticular individual, not even beginning to consider the monu-mental momentum of the Church, to roll over, aside, or anywhere. I similarly have little or no hope of other exoteric or secular organizations “rolling over.” It mostly appears that I am speaking about the Church in my comments because of where we are and the general subject matter. But these dynamics are applicable elsewere as easily. Don’t feel special or selected. No one goes anywhere save from within. Thoughts come before things. (That is a clue.) But as you say, all I have said has been reviewed–from a standpoint I understand to be incomplete. You are a sterling example of that, especially by your proof of misreading and not understanding my meaning or intent. Nevertheless, I do enjoy your postings more than many on here. Thank you for them.

 

[JLongoria]

Not true in every case, though it is true in most cases.

We can say that there are no positive integers (“p” and “q”) where their ratio precisely equals the square root of two. We can say that there is no “invisible, pink unicorn”, because the two attributes (invisible and pink) are mutually exclusive.

Saying something about an object’s non-existence and apprehension of that object’s non-existence are two different things. Logically, yes, you can say, “an invisible, pink unicorn does not exist”. Yet you can’t even imagine an “invisible, pink unicorn” existing; how, then, you can ascertain it’s non-existence from experience is entirely beyond reason.

Except “evil” is not defined as the “lack” of something.

Which goes to show how little an irreligious person can speak on the subject adequately; you don’t know evil because you do not know that which is good to begin with. Such is the problem with much of modern ethics: it is willing to settle what is bad without first knowing what it is good. It is willing to say that murder is bad, but not that life is good. It has no direction, it has no goal, and because of that, it becomes the most unreasonable thing of all.

The Catholic Church has had quite some time to mull over these subjects, with the aid of the Holy Spirit, and has done so with a great deal of effort.

Evil is a perversion of goodness, so it is not a thing that exists independent of anything; the old adage “without evil there can be no good” is false, for it is entirely the other way around. Even Satan bows to God, who is truth and love.

In considering the theological side, let us say a few things in good faith; assume, for the sake of argument, that Orthodox Christianity has had it right all along. God created all things, and it was good. All of creation bears the image, in some way or form, of the Creator; since the Creator is the source of all goodness and perfection, creation derives any amount of goodness in it from God.

God is the fullness of what it is to exist; “before Abraham was, I AM”. We share in His existence as a gift, and since evil is not in Him, evil is not something that exists. It is a “lack” in those attributes which would otherwise result in perfection; it is a perversion of goodness - of that which really exists - and nothing more.

The reason we can say that this or that is evil is because we have an image of perfection, an image in which there is no evil. And this image, who is not a something but Someone, has willingly revealed Himself to us so that what might share in the fullness of life.

If the Catholic definition of evil is true, then all of existence becomes reasonable; it becomes a shining beacon to the intellect of man, which can only acheive its greatest heights with the aid of God.

This is the most reasonable thing of all, to believe in a God and thus be able to distinguish right from wrong; to arbitrarily change our definitions at will - which is something the Catholic Church has never done, and the secular world is utterly at fault for - is to spit on the entirety of the Western philosophical tradition, and is to be entirely unreasonable.

 

[Spock]

Saying something about an object’s non-existence and apprehension of that object’s non-existence are two different things. Logically, yes, you can say, “an invisible, pink unicorn does not exist”. Yet you can’t even imagine an “invisible, pink unicorn” existing; how, then, you can ascertain it’s non-existence from experience is entirely beyond reason.

Of course one cannot experience it. What is your point?

Which goes to show how little an irreligious person can speak on the subject adequately; you don’t know evil because you do not know that which is good to begin with.

Wow. What a sweeping assertion. But your saying so does not make it so.

Without life there is no “good”, nor “bad”. Without consciousness there is no “evil”.

Good: something that is conducive to life, or increases the quality of life.
Bad: something that is detrimental to life, or decreases the quality of life.
Neutral: Something that is indifferent to life.

Evil: intentionally and knowingly causing or allowing “bad” to happen.
Natural evil: meaningless oxymoron.

The definition you presented (evil is the lack of good) is deficient for several reasons. One, it does not acknowledge the existence of neutral events. Two, it does not distinguish between intentional and unintentional causation of “bad” things. The rest of your post is theology, which I do not intend to talk about.

 

[JLongoria]

Of course one cannot experience it. What is your point?

That you cannot comprehend non-existence (evil) on your own, which was the point to begin with. Saying something and internalizing it are not the same thing.

Wow. What a sweeping assertion. But your saying so does not make it so.

Without life there is no “good”, nor “bad”. Without consciousness there is no “evil”.

Good: something that is conducive to life, or increases the quality of life.
Bad: something that is detrimental to life, or decreases the quality of life.
Neutral: Something that is indifferent to life.

Evil: intentionally and knowingly causing or allowing “bad” to happen.
Natural evil: meaningless oxymoron.

The definition you presented (evil is the lack of good) is deficient for several reasons. One, it does not acknowledge the existence of neutral events. Two, it does not distinguish between intentional and unintentional causation of “bad” things. The rest of your post is theology, which I do not intend to talk about.

The fact that you believe in “neutral” events says nothing about truth, and more about a very sad way of looking at life. “Quality of life” is an arbitrary definition at best, and it changes on the moods of the man to suit his taste and desires; essentially, it is prefering Thursday to Wednesday simply because it is Thursday.

It is unreasonable precisely because it is arbitrary; if reason is the unchanging thing, then any truthful conclusion approached by it is something that never changes. The thing that changes is not of reason, but of unreason. It is self-defeating to say, “I uphold the light of intellect and reason”, and then turn and make every definition arbitrary.

A reasonable person does not see such a thing as neutral events. To you, drinking a beer and conversing with good friends may be a neutral event; to the reasonable person, it is conducive of life and is the ancient health of the world. To the reasonable person, such events draw them to the goodness of creation, and are more than neutral: they are morally obligatory.

The real deficiency is saying that there is such a thing as neutral events.

 

[JDaniel]

JD,

Wow. Thanks for the many compliments!

You are quite welcome.

I do not think that the Church has it’s head stuck in the sand, save that is appears *to me *to be, despite being a religion, exoteric and secular. I simply contend that it is plowing a different field than one that is fundamentally accurate in terms of its purported intent.

Understanding that from your POV is expected. Thank you for being honest up front.

And I certainly acknowledge that the Church has done some wonderful things as an organizaton, as well as having been the force behind some pretty horrific ones.

I must call you on this statement: what “horrific ones?”

In this respect it is no different than any other exoteric organization. Because it mimics some of the dynamics Natural functions in its structure, it certainly appears to do good on other levels. But that is not because it is “Catholic” per se. Everybody in in this area gets a “monkey score.” This includes insights and miracles.

Of course.

Those are attributable to a more primary dynamic than the Church’s teaching or guidance as the Catholic Church as such.

Perhaps. I’m not so sure.

The constant pressure and rebellion against it are the natural forces of people noticing the misallignment, yet having nowhere else to go due to lack of complete data, or lack of accurate alignment within themselves of new knowledge.

I believe that this constant pressure comes from a source more direct than natural forces. As you know, when a person believes in God, he also believes in Satan. Given that for us God and Satan are true, wouldn’t you suspect that the ultimate deceiver and tempter might be behind most, if not all, of it? What do you think of the way the media has stripped nearly all of the truth out of the pedophilia allegations? Would a fair and unprejudiced “world” do that? Now, I am not disparaging the media, in general. It may well be that this sort of thing is a “natural” dynamic of an organization that lives on selling news, and that the more controversial the news, the more money is collected.

The Church is expert at it’s own *internal *logic in refuting these movements in awareness, as any organism either grows or dies. Having read much of its documentation, I think it is brilliant in this regard, being perhaps beyond the level of other world class illusionists. Re-read the section above on self esteem and self justification. Better yet, do your own homework.

I, and some 1.1 billion other Catholics do not believe the church to be “illusionist.”

I am on these forums for exactly the reason you mention. To root out forgotten assimilated dynamics. Being a baptized Catholic, these forums are useful for clarification. Also, there are those few whom I can converse with, and that is actually pleasant and informative. Keeping consistent to the extent I am able to is good exercise.

Well, thank you for the compliment.

If you had read my post correctly, I expect noparticular individual, not even beginning to consider the monu-mental momentum of the Church, to roll over, aside, or anywhere. I similarly have little or no hope of other exoteric or secular organizations “rolling over.” It mostly appears that I am speaking about the Church in my comments because of where we are and the general subject matter. But these dynamics are applicable elsewere as easily. Don’t feel special or selected.

I’ll try to remember that - but, don’t feel bad if you have to remind me.

No one goes anywhere save from within. Thoughts come before things. (That is a clue.)

I don’t know about that. One time I punched the wall in my sleep!

But as you say, all I have said has been reviewed–from a standpoint I understand to be incomplete. You are a sterling example of that, especially by your proof of misreading and not understanding my meaning or intent. Nevertheless, I do enjoy your postings more than many on here. Thank you for them.

Again, you are quite welcome.

I believe in the one, holy, Catholic and apostolic church. I have read the bible. I have received education in numerous fields - even Scientology. It is extraordinarily hard to pin point a specific thing that was the impetus of my conversion. It was many things, including a great deal of written ideas on “self-esteem” and “self-justification.” I know that it “sounds” like we (hopefully I may speak for all Catholics in this regard) are defending both of those things when we strive so adamantly to convey our beliefs. But, I really think it’s something else. We have become convinced by a preponderance of evidence.

For example, there are some on this forum who have recently condemned the Resurrection as “hearsay.” Not being there myself, I believe the hearsay in the same way I would believe any good history (hearsay) book. But, it’s more than that. The history of the Passion and Christ’s Resurrection are replete throughout the compilation. There exists no other compendium of cross-referential hearsay data known that covers so many years and has ended up with us at this point in time and place. We find no good reason, or reasons, to disbelieve it.

If you think about it, those who deny its historicity are asking us not to believe it on their own hearsay. But, their evidence is lacking anything even close to the full brunt of the power of the Book and the fullness of Catholic thought and tradition.

jd