R
RedSoxFan
Guest
Whatever I’m glad you put down the crayon for that post! Still I was hoping for a better arguement.
Mirdath, that’s what I was expecting for you to believe. Good Luck!
- Status
Mirdath, that’s what I was expecting for you to believe. Good Luck!
W
whatever
Guest
R
RedSoxFan
Guest
Your certainly the first person on here I have met with schtick.
My question then becomes this “do you see any harm on an individual such as yourself being religious?”
For example if you believe that there is not God, any kind of worship should theoretically have no kind of enternal damnation for practicing it.
If that’s the case, then what harm is there for practicing a faith? Let alone, even to sit inside an empty church?
W
whatever
Guest
I’ll take that as a compliment, particularly if it wasn’t meant as such.
Pascal’s Wager in disguise.
I don’t care if you practice your faith, as long as you don’t expect anybody who doesn’t share it to adhere to its rules.
P
porkscratchings
Guest
There are no proven miracles.Wot is proven becomes the norm, or the fact. Miracles r not fact.
There are also no such thing as miracles. Miracles are just wot pple call stuff they don’t understand, or stuff that they don’t understand yet.
C
Clovis
Guest
For a Miracle to appear to an individual, it must defy logic. If it is in a dream, than maybe the vividness of it was just to much for mere fiction. Or if someone starts telling you things about yourself in the future, you might dismiss it, at least until these things start happening, and than your cursed to its fulfillment, it is a very helpless feeling, I’ve met several prophets. If you ever meet one you would realize even they speak in haste, or actually deign to believe it is God behind them, when in the end, it is the set up of those false times. Even if it is God who wishes me misery, I would simply recall Job and say -
‘Cay Serra Serra,
What ever will be will,
‘My future stinks of burnt rubber you see?’,
Cay Serra Serra!’
‘Cay Serra Serra,
What ever will be will,
‘My future stinks of burnt rubber you see?’,
Cay Serra Serra!’
R
RedSoxFan
Guest
- I meant it as a compliment.
- I had to look in Wikipedia to learn about Pascal’s Wager! It’s exactly what I was thinking of. Thanks for the reference.
- Awww, so does that mean I can’t toss you into a river and baptize you? Dang it! Seriously living in the modern era in the western world (guessing), have you ever had anyone force you to believe in a faith? If so I guess we can begin to understand such hostility to even an openess to the possiblity.
W
whatever
Guest
Bummer.
You’re welcome. You might as well read up on the criticism of this argument (using the term advisedly) while you’re at it. I’ll bet that even on this forum, you’ll find Catholics who consider Pascal’s Wager as the weakest argument in support of their faith.
If you’re strong enough or bring a couple of buddies, sure you can. I’m reasonably sure that I was baptized as a newborn, though – not that it matters to me.
My hostility towards organized religion is not a secret and I’ve already been unkind enough in this thread to keep my opinions about specific religious beliefs to myself.
R
RedSoxFan
Guest
LOL! Sorry that I didn’t get angry for you! Anyways, pascal’s wager just seems like a way to get into a cyclical debate that doesn’t seem to end. It’s not the best argument that I would want to use, but with an aethiest that’s the one I can use right now.
As for tossing you into a river and dunking you a few times well I can’t say I’ll likely do it. But to be safe you better watch out at water parks.
As for your reasons against religion, in which there appears to be anger, I wish you good luck. I hope it doesn’t become all consuming. I just have one question. Why get your jollies by comming to and then arguing at a Catholic website then?
M
Mirdath
Guest
Might I point you to my critique of the Wager (or, as I called it later in that thread, ‘the plastic cocktail saber in the arsenal of apologetics’)? Trust me, using it just makes you look bad.
E
Everstruggling
Guest
What is a “proven miracle?”
Is it something that I can’t explain?
Well, there billions of things that that applies to.
Is it something that runs contrary to the laws of physics, as we understand them?
Well, we don’t have perfect knowledge of those rules, and we don’t always know what forces are in effect in any given situation.
Is it something that could only be done by God?
Well, depending on which agnostic or atheist you ask, the answer will be: “How do you prove that?” or “You can’t prove that.” or “The thing you talk about doesn’t prove that.” or “There must be some other explanation.”
Consider this:
I had a friend who had an inoperable tumor. It was malignant, and my friend was in really rough shape. My friend went to a psychic surgeon and had it “removed”, and is now tumor free. I’ve actually talked to his oncologist. He is completely befuddled. It should not have happened. A real tumor just disappeared. It didn’t go into remission, it just disappeared within a week.
Should I believe in psychic surgery now? Well, I don’t. I think that the “surgeon” was a quack, and my friend got lucky… somehow. I can’t explain it. I don’t think anyone can explain it. Perhaps it was mind over matter. Perhaps his oncologist and he were playing a sick and very, very exspensive joke. I don’t know.
Inexplicable stuff happens, it’s nice when it turns out to benefit people.
P.S. About that image in the cave, how many samples were taken, and how big were the samples? It really doesn’t look like the image has a whole bunch of holes in it. And somebody added a crown later?!?! It takes a rather huge set of cajones to say to God, “Wow, great image, but you should have added a crown to it. There, that’s better.”
W
whatever
Guest
Anger is not among the reasons why I’m not receptive towards religious belief. Not passing the laugh test is. Feel free to believe what you want, just don’t expect me to respect your beliefs.
My sentiments towards organized religion are a different matter.
If organized religion doesn’t get in my face, I won’t waste a second thought on it.
A combination of “know your enemy” and snarking when I feel like it. I don’t waste a lot of time actually arguing around here.
By the way, Pascal’s Wager… Feel free to use it, but it’ll only work on atheists we’ll gladly send packing.
P
porkscratchings
Guest
I don’t think u’d be able to send me packing…
As for the Pascal’s Wager…it’s like argument in favour of buying insurance. Better to buy insurance in case something happens, in which case u r protected. Better to believe than not, in case there is a God. That way, if there’s no God, u haven’t lost anything. And if there’s a God, u r ‘insured’ against ending up in hell.
The problem is insurance cost money. U r paying for something that might not happen, and if it does the insurance might not pay out. Then u r worse than not buying it in the first place. The theological version of this is believing in one religion to find that another religion is the truth and u end up in hell anyway. And wasted the time/money etc. u invested in ur choice of faith.
To convince me that insurance against ending up in hell is worth my time and money, I need to be convinced of 3 things:
*]That there is a hell.
*]That following one religion (buying a particular insurance) will actually protect me.
*]That the insurance will actually pay out.
Since i have no evidence that the 3 above things are likely to happen, I don’t think I will risk my time/money in this Pascal policy.
W
whatever
Guest
I doubt I could even make you spell right.
R
RedSoxFan
Guest
Here’s a copy and paste for everyone to see. My response will be in ( ) marks.
First, it assumes that the postulated deity has any interest in humanity. ( For sake of this conversation why would said deity create something that he has no interest in, let alone perpetually never have any interest in humanity?)
Second, it assumes that the deity will damn anyone who does not believe in it to eternal punishment and denies the Catholic belief of baptism of desire, whereby those who do not know God may still be saved. (One I was using my own argument, which coincidently has many elements of Pascal’s Wager. I was unaware of anyone called Blaise Pascal or his theory. It would seem that I had been influenced by this thoery during the course of my life, but without having it ever put forth to me as being “Pascal’s Wager”. As for denying the Baptism of Desire, it seems to me to merely ignore it rather than to deny it. Pascal doesn’t seem to make it an issue or even bring it up in his formular.)
Third, it ignores the fact that there are thousands upon thousands of ways to believe, each different, many mutually exclusive, and leaves the gambler to play religious roulette. (So the problem with Pascal’s Wager is that it was created by a man with faith in his own relgion and is therefore invalid? No it is clear that Pascal is talking about strictly about Christianity.)
Fourth, of that myriad of possible religions, it ignores the fact that many don’t even believe in a hell. If Zoroaster or the Unitarian Universalists are right, I don’t even have to bother to profess belief. (A good reason not to profess faith in those for they will not damn you. Christianity will.)
Fifth, it again contradicts Catholic teaching by stating that mere belief assures salvation. (That isn’t exactly true about Catholic teaching. If you have a mortal sin on your soul when you die the belief is that your going to hell.)
Sixth, as MerryAtheist noted and I forgot, a true deity will see one who takes the gamble and merely lip-synchs the prayers for what he or she really is. It offers no proof of God, merely an encouragement to say one believes. (That also assumes that God doesn’t reward those who actively seek him out through Catholicism. IE that there is no consideration for honest sincere effort in learning about God.)
The Wager is illogical, un-Catholic, vague, and altogether a hopeless wreck of philosophy. For some reason I always see it brought up in a ‘well, why not take it? What do you have to lose?’ way, managing to ineffectively impugn my philosophical stance and make an utter fool out of the questioner at the same time. It’s worthless. Stop pretending it isn’t. (Tell you what, if I’m wrong about the whole argument and there no after life I’ll buy you a Coke. And if there is…)
M
Mirdath
Guest
An impersonal Creator may not even be sentient; one with a personality may find us boring or so far beneath it that we are of no consequence. Or the Deists could have it right.
Yes, and that’s a problem: Catholic belief specifically states that those who don’t believe can still be saved, where Pascal does not take this into account.
Another problem: how does anyone else know that Pascal is right about Christianity? The Wager tells me to believe, but it does not prove that Jesus was God. Any other religion might be just as acceptable – or more – than Catholicism.
In terms of treating faith like buying insurance, indeed.
Exactly. Mere belief is not enough according to Catholicism, but it is if one takes Pascal’s argument at face value. Believe and go to heaven, don’t believe and go to hell.
Honest, sincere effort does not necessarily result in true belief – I’m a poster child for that. I can still recite the Paternoster and Ave Maria, and I still know when to stand, sit, and kneel, and I could do all that all I liked, but I do not believe. If I take the Wager, I’m just pretending. Can’t a deity see through that?
Then, hopefully, either God’s a universalist or my sincere efforts to work for the good of what I can see let me sneak in upstairs, and I’ll buy you one
C
christcnection1
Guest
Let’s say hypothetically fantastic miracles do exist. Does that mean they are from God?
My old roommate’s professor posed this question. Simply because miracles may exist does not in fact prove there is a God.
Actually I agree. In my opinion, the very fact that human life exists is more amazing than a person being raised from the dead.
I think the distinction is between the ordinary and the extraordinary. We are so use to the ordinary, we don’t realize how incredible our world around us is.
Ironically, when something supernatural happens, they claim it’s false/delusionary/a hoax, ect. However, the reality is, if nothing existed in the first place (at the beginning of time), nothing will always produce nothing.
Likewise, if you are in a room by yourself and you hear a knock at the door, and someone call your name, does that prove someone is trying to get your attention?
I would say no; it does not prove anything. (Though, I think you would be a fool to ignore it.)
I recently finished a short book on my conversion story from agnosticism, to Protestantism, to the Catholicism. There are many supernatural stories that are unexplainable apart from a higher power.
If it was not for God’s intervention, I would likely be in prison or dead. Today, I’m discerning the priesthood and currently in training to serve the poor and undereducated in Papua New Guinea.
I would be happy to send anyone a free copy if they’re interested.
At the end of the day, however, no matter or much information and/or miracles, it does come down to faith in some measure.
If Christians are wrong (and no God exists), well at least we found our peace in this life, and have lost nothing ultimately. If we are right, we have found our peace in this life, and have also attained it for life eternal.
Miracles do exist. Still, a belief in God comes down to faith.
My old roommate’s professor posed this question. Simply because miracles may exist does not in fact prove there is a God.
Actually I agree. In my opinion, the very fact that human life exists is more amazing than a person being raised from the dead.
I think the distinction is between the ordinary and the extraordinary. We are so use to the ordinary, we don’t realize how incredible our world around us is.
Ironically, when something supernatural happens, they claim it’s false/delusionary/a hoax, ect. However, the reality is, if nothing existed in the first place (at the beginning of time), nothing will always produce nothing.
Likewise, if you are in a room by yourself and you hear a knock at the door, and someone call your name, does that prove someone is trying to get your attention?
I would say no; it does not prove anything. (Though, I think you would be a fool to ignore it.)
I recently finished a short book on my conversion story from agnosticism, to Protestantism, to the Catholicism. There are many supernatural stories that are unexplainable apart from a higher power.
If it was not for God’s intervention, I would likely be in prison or dead. Today, I’m discerning the priesthood and currently in training to serve the poor and undereducated in Papua New Guinea.
I would be happy to send anyone a free copy if they’re interested.
At the end of the day, however, no matter or much information and/or miracles, it does come down to faith in some measure.
If Christians are wrong (and no God exists), well at least we found our peace in this life, and have lost nothing ultimately. If we are right, we have found our peace in this life, and have also attained it for life eternal.
Miracles do exist. Still, a belief in God comes down to faith.
M
MinHC
Guest
Richard Dawkins tried to dismiss the miracle of Fatima in his last book. The miracle of the sun, seen and experienced by tens of thousands of people is an uncomfortable subject for many. Dawkins as an atheist conveniently left out many of the facts which would have left too many questions for his audience which I’m sure has a high percentage of atheists.
C
christcnection1
Guest
This miracles still happens regularly in Medjugorje. A priest friend of mine has a relative that’s a revert to faith because they experienced this miracle.
Another individual I know, who was very successful in the military, is a devout Catholic. He also experienced the miracle, as well as a Eucharistic miracle.
I frequently hear of non-believers and Protestants who come out of that place on fire for God and the Catholic Church.
These are credible individuals, not charlatans.
It will be interesting to see when and if the Church approves the phenomena going on there.
P
porkscratchings
Guest
Damn right, u can’t.
Who decided that only folks who spell right, dress in suits, and smoke cigars deserve respect?
What about the poor, the uneducated, and the weak?
And those who can’t spell?
- Status