Questions for those who do not believe

[simplynoone]

Are you in the health care field at all? Because what you are saying doesn’t happen in reality. Yes every hospital is required to deal with the emergency cases where someone is dying or in very bad health, but what about non-emergency care. When a person that can’t pay anything comes in and the current funds for those that can’t pay are dried up many non-religious hospitals will do the minimum possible and put the people back on the street. Catholic hospitals will serve anyone that walks in off the street, regardless of the ability to pay. I know this in reality because my wife has worked both in the Catholic hospital system and non-Catholic hospital systems. She has seen it in person.

You are blinded by the faith to which you are bias. Yes, they (hospitals) MUST treat even non emergency cases (ANY PATIENT THAT IS ADMITTED VIA EMERGENCY ENTRANCE, regardless of if the case is actually an emergency or not) and they must do it properly else they could incur a lawsuit upon themselves.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

Please elaborate this statement - I find it confusing

Why is someone’s credibility under suspicion, simply because he finishes his post on a Catholic forum with a simple Catholic prayer?

Latin religious language? What does that mean? Latin is older than Christianity.

If Mark77 has finished his post with St. Mary, mother of God, pray for us sinners, would you write To close it with English religious language finishes off your credibility completely???

(sorry for my bad English)

it makes your emotive zealotry shine … that’s all?

 

[ralphinal]

Again, why is it so troublesome to any agnostic/atheist that they have to try to show me the error of my ways?

 

[humble_in_doubt]

Again, why is it so troublesome to any agnostic/atheist that they have to try to show me the error of my ways?

Again, because you guys are an obstruction to scientific progress and common sense.

We should love when we actually feel love, avoid hate only because it’s not pragmatic for our own well being, and generally serve our self-interests. These are the natural inclinations of man, and no religious person behaves any differently (albeit they fallaciously believe they do).

We all act out of our self-interest. Even altruism is self-interest when you get down to it. The difference is we just admit it while you guys create this false perception of human nature. C.S. Lewis wrote about our natural inclination to save the drowning man, but isn’t it just because we would hope that another would save us if we faced similar circumstances, or because we desire the glory of heroism? In other words are basic ideals of fairness, justice, and so on are driven by our self-interest. We imagine what if it were us; and that’s always a good thing to ask.

Animals (like dogs) also seek to avoid pain and death, however, they lack the intelligence to know that their self interests could be better served through cooperation. They act according to their immediate urges, while we posses the ability to control those urges. It’s really as simple as that … and the sooner we admit this the faster we can move on to bigger and better things.

 

[cheese_sdc]

What does it matter to you if I do?

It doesn’t matter to me. However, I would ask that Christians return the favor.

 

[geometer]

Animals (like dogs) also seek to avoid pain and death, however, they lack the intelligence to know that their self interests could be better served through cooperation.

Dogs are highly cooperative. They are pack animals. They organise to kill prey, and also to defend members of the pack.

 

[ralphinal]

Again, because you guys are an obstruction to scientific progress and common sense.

You keep saying that and yet you have not proven your point. Please show us FACTUAL information that the Catholic Church has done anything of the sort. Before you bandy about Galileo, I suggest you find out why he was in trouble with the Church first, too.

We should love when we actually feel love, avoid hate only because it’s not pragmatic for our own well being, and generally serve our self-interests. These are the natural inclinations of man, and no religious person behaves any differently (albeit they fallaciously believe they do).

We all act out of our self-interest. Even altruism is self-interest when you get down to it. The difference is we just admit it while you guys create this false perception of human nature. C.S. Lewis wrote about our natural inclination to save the drowning man, but isn’t it just because we would hope that another would save us if we faced similar circumstances, or because we desire the glory of heroism? In other words are basic ideals of fairness, justice, and so on are driven by our self-interest. We imagine what if it were us; and that’s always a good thing to ask.

Animals (like dogs) also seek to avoid pain and death, however, they lack the intelligence to know that their self interests could be better served through cooperation. They act according to their immediate urges, while we posses the ability to control those urges. It’s really as simple as that … and the sooner we admit this the faster we can move on to bigger and better things.

Gosh, what a sad world-view that is. Everyone is only out for themselves… Is that why a parent cares for a baby? Or a person for a sick or aged parent?

 

[ralphinal]

It doesn’t matter to me. However, I would ask that Christians return the favor.

Fair point.

Now, do you think that others should warn you of things that may be harmful to you or should it be “live and let live and leave each other alone?”

 

[humble_in_doubt]

Dogs are highly cooperative. They are pack animals. They organise to kill prey, and also to defend members of the pack.

good point … maybe dogs were a bad example, or maybe it goes to further prove my point? They are intelligent enough to cooperate, so then is altruism the result of anymore than self-interest? Do dogs have emotion?

We all love people right. We love our parents, parents love their children, but what is our interest in protecting our loved ones? Would we exert the same effort to save a stranger as we would to save our brother? No right … so then emotional attachment makes us more likely to protect others. Is that self-interest or is emotion something all together separate from self-interest?

Wow, too much psychology for me, but the point is I see no invisible force in any of this. Humans, like dogs, cooperate to further their self-interest (survival). Dogs, like humans, develop emotional attachments. Do dogs have souls; I think the bible would say no. So then there’s nothing spiritual about emotion, it’s purely psychological. What then is the role of our invisible soul in developing our character? It seems that intellect, mutual self-interest, emotion, life experiences and learned behavior all combine to form our character. So then where is this soul? Where’s the evidence of this invisible god?

It’s said by the ancients that the existence of god is evident through observing his creation and the natural order of things. However, that was the ancients who didn’t know about natural selection, didn’t know about the big bang, didn’t understand hard science or physics, etc. Durkheim once said that we believe in god because we are in awe of ourselves … was he right?

Voltaire was an atheist who thought it was a good idea to attend church; but why? Social acceptance, path of least resistance, who knows. But was he right … if religion is a fallacy isn’t it better to base our decisions as a society on hard facts? Wouldn’t it allow us to accomplish more?

 

[humble_in_doubt]

You keep saying that and yet you have not proven your point. Please show us FACTUAL information that the Catholic Church has done anything of the sort. Before you bandy about Galileo, I suggest you find out why he was in trouble with the Church first, too.

The idea that we form moral assessments based on a fallacy is in itself an unnatural market force (to frame it how an economist would). As far as Galileo goes … I know Catholics are in the habit of defending the churches silly mistakes made in the ancient past, however, I don’t bandy about Galileo. If it wasn’t the CC perhaps it would have been some ancient pagan cult that excited the imagination of the majority in Northern Italy during that period – who may have persecuted any man who they perceived as a threat to their theology.

Things like embryonic stem cell research are just an example. It doesn’t matter whether it would have ever produced anything or not; the point is religion closes our mind to imagining all the different things we might accomplish; because it compels us to formulate a morality based on a faulty and irrational premise (and not on a purely pragmatic and tangible set of assumptions).

The negative impact of religion cannot be quantified; but it’s as real as the computer I’m typing this post on.

 

[ralphinal]

The idea that we form moral assessments based on a fallacy is in itself an unnatural market force (to frame it how an economist would). As far as Galileo goes … I know Catholics are in the habit of defending the churches silly mistakes made in the ancient past, however, I don’t bandy about Galileo. If it wasn’t the CC perhaps it would have been some ancient pagan cult that excited the imagination of the majority in Northern Italy during that period – who may have persecuted any man who they perceived as a threat to their theology.

Just so you will know, and knowing is half the battle, Galileo got in trouble when he wanted to alter the Bible to fit science. For the record, the CHurch allowed heliocentrism before he taught it. They also wanted more proof before he started teaching it to the uneducated masses, less they get confused about science and faith. It was not that he was a threat to anything.

Things like embryonic stem cell research are just an example. It doesn’t matter whether it would have ever produced anything or not; the point is religion closes our mind to imagining all the different things we might accomplish; because it compels us to formulate a morality based on a faulty and irrational premise (and not on a purely pragmatic and tangible set of assumptions).

The Church says that nothing good will come from embryonic stem cells that justifies the death of a human life. Science has yet to produce anythign from embryonic stem cells. See, it does matter!! The fact is that the Church is right but you are too agenda driven to see it. The Church teaches that ALL human life is important. Do you disagree?

The negative impact of religion cannot be quantified; but it’s as real as the computer I’m typing this post on.

Interesting. SO if I say that there is a God but he cannot be quantified, but he as as real as my computer, I am a illogical, supersticious fool. Why the double standard?

Has nothing good ever come from religion?

 

[Marauder]

You are blinded by the faith to which you are bias. Yes, they (hospitals) MUST treat even non emergency cases (ANY PATIENT THAT IS ADMITTED VIA EMERGENCY ENTRANCE, regardless of if the case is actually an emergency or not) and they must do it properly else they could incur a lawsuit upon themselves.

You are living in a world totally different from reality. As I said before, if a person comes in without insurance to a non-Catholic hospital and they aren’t a real emergency and the hospital has used its fund up for dealing with such patients, they do the minimum possible and push them back on the streets. My wife has seen it done. All you would have to do is talk to people that are without insurance and you will find out what it is like. Of course some of them know how to play the system and fake things that are wrong to get longer treatment (i.e. oh my chest hurts.) But if someone has no ability to pay, non-Catholic hospitals will due the minimum they can legally.

Your posts show the difference between someone who actually has cared for the sick and someone who just hears about it in the news. When was the last time you dealt with the extreme poor in a hospital, for me it was two weeks ago.

 

[cheese_sdc]

Fair point.

Now, do you think that others should warn you of things that may be harmful to you or should it be “live and let live and leave each other alone?”

Define “harmful” and give an example of what you think is harmful.

 

[ralphinal]

Define “harmful” and give an example of what you think is harmful.

How about prolonged exposure to the sun. Should I warn people about that?

Excessive use of alcohol?

The dangers of drugs?

SHould I warn people about these things? DO I have a duty to inform people about the dangers that they may represent to themselves?

 

[Le_Cracquere]

Again, because you guys are an obstruction to scientific progress and common sense.

We should love when we actually feel love, avoid hate only because it’s not pragmatic for our own well being, and generally serve our self-interests. These are the natural inclinations of man, and no religious person behaves any differently (albeit they fallaciously believe they do).

We all act out of our self-interest. Even altruism is self-interest when you get down to it. The difference is we just admit it while you guys create this false perception of human nature. C.S. Lewis wrote about our natural inclination to save the drowning man, but isn’t it just because we would hope that another would save us if we faced similar circumstances, or because we desire the glory of heroism? In other words are basic ideals of fairness, justice, and so on are driven by our self-interest. We imagine what if it were us; and that’s always a good thing to ask.

Animals (like dogs) also seek to avoid pain and death, however, they lack the intelligence to know that their self interests could be better served through cooperation. They act according to their immediate urges, while we posses the ability to control those urges. It’s really as simple as that … and the sooner we admit this the faster we can move on to bigger and better things.

Okay, I’ll bite. You sound like a fellow who thinks he knows what to do about “obstructions to scientific progress and common sense.” Let’s suppose that, in the end, the world’s theists decide that your call to the afore-quoted s.p. and c.s. is unpersuasive [we’ll phrase it charitably here]. Let’s say that we continue to pose a crucial obstruction to your idea of “bigger and better” things. What ought to be done about us?

As you’ve asserted before, you’re a pragmatist, and sentimentality isn’t your bag, much less the anti-practical, anti-market, anti-getting-things-done cant of Christian morality. So how should a more commonsensical and rational order of things address, mitigate, or dispense with the problem that we represent? Shoot! … Okay, poor choice of words: please hold forth.

And if your response seems to involve an irrational, quasi-Christian forbearance, or a footling elevation of individual human liberty & lives over the progress you say humanity could be making, I’d be interested in knowing your justification.

 

[cheese_sdc]

How about prolonged exposure to the sun. Should I warn people about that?

Excessive use of alcohol?

The dangers of drugs?

SHould I warn people about these things? DO I have a duty to inform people about the dangers that they may represent to themselves?

Those I don’t have a problem with. I do have a problem with the idea of “you don’t believe like I do, therefore you are worshipping a demon”. Or “you don’t believe like I do, therefore you are going to Hell.”

 

[ralphinal]

Those I don’t have a problem with. I do have a problem with the idea of “you don’t believe like I do, therefore you are worshipping a demon”. Or “you don’t believe like I do, therefore you are going to Hell.”

I will not argue those. I will say that it is the same for me to say that you should consider what i believe just like you should consider the possible dangers of artificail sweeteners

 

[humble_in_doubt]

Okay, I’ll bite. You sound like a fellow who thinks he knows what to do about “obstructions to scientific progress and common sense.” Let’s suppose that, in the end, the world’s theists decide that your call to the afore-quoted s.p. and c.s. is unpersuasive [we’ll phrase it charitably here]. Let’s say that we continue to pose a crucial obstruction to your idea of “bigger and better” things. What ought to be done about us?

As you’ve asserted before, you’re a pragmatist, and sentimentality isn’t your bag, much less the anti-practical, anti-market, anti-getting-things-done cant of Christian morality. So how should a more commonsensical and rational order of things address, mitigate, or dispense with the problem that we represent? Shoot! … Okay, poor choice of words: please hold forth.

And if your response seems to involve an irrational, quasi-Christian forbearance, or a footling elevation of individual human liberty & lives over the progress you say humanity could be making, I’d be interested in knowing your justification.

the reality is Christianity isn’t going away anytime soon (nor do I care whether it does or not … in fact I’m not even especially bothered by evangelism or charges of being a heretic or whatever).

What I do hope for (which is happening) is that religion will play an exceedingly less significant role in our public life (with regard to the decision making of our elected officials and our societal attitudes at large). The caveat is that I’ve always leaned republican (from an economic standpoint); but I am more inclined to vote for democrats because at least they by and large do not cater to Christian extremists (like evangelicals or practicing “conservative” Catholics).

I think now that many democrats are becoming economic pragmatists (and seem more apprehensive of public spending, at least some of them, and more willing to cater to affluent Americans) there’s hope for this country. With just a few generations of our kids learning our actual biological origins, not fairy tales (along with the origins of the universe as shown by empirical evidence) we will become less inclined to accept as our destiny things religion tells us we should.

Medical science is beginning to view old age as a disease rather than an eventuality we shouldn’t spend much time researching. Of course aggressive research into this area is hampered by religious folks, who charge that we’re trying to “playing god” (in other words religious folks think questions of life and death ought to be left to our invisible master who probably doesn’t exist, which I find absurd).

You know if we really focused on it we’re probably a few decades from an explosion in biotech (genetic science, nano-technology, etc.) that has the potential of extending life beyond what we’ve ever imagined, cure disease, and perhaps even make us smarter. The inherent paranoia of religion will no doubt try and obstruct our progress … but I think we’re on the right track (my hope is we continue to bravely explore what mankind can accomplish without the shackles of nonsensical ideas like we’re all unavoidably a bunch of worthless sinners who really deserve the eternal damnation of our invisible friend, who did us a favor by jumping into a human body for a suicide mission to save us).

Do we think so little of ourselves that we’re willing to hand over our sovereignty and self determination to some invisible god that conveniently refuses to provide proof of his existence?

 

[humble_in_doubt]

Just so you will know, and knowing is half the battle, Galileo got in trouble when he wanted to alter the Bible to fit science. For the record, the CHurch allowed heliocentrism before he taught it. They also wanted more proof before he started teaching it to the uneducated masses, less they get confused about science and faith. It was not that he was a threat to anything.

I’m not taking your word for it, but frankly this issue doesn’t concern me enough to do the research. Moreover, I don’t trust the CC (since they’re quite good at revisionist history). The CC is interested in self-preservation & retaining its illusion of infallibility, which it will probably do anything to preserve. Any man who truly believes an institution or collection of men can be infallible is a slave in my opinion. No other kinder way to put it … I’m sorry.

If I’m being too harsh for this forum hopefully someone will let me know (I’m really not sure if or when I overreach here). I understand it’s a Catholic forum … but if we’re allowed to speak freely (but politely) then I’m glad to give my unadulterated opinion. If not again hopefully someone can clue me in if my words are too harsh or overly offensive?

The Church says that nothing good will come from embryonic stem cells that justifies the death of a human life. Science has yet to produce anythign from embryonic stem cells. See, it does matter!! The fact is that the Church is right but you are too agenda driven to see it. The Church teaches that ALL human life is important. Do you disagree?

this is what I’ve come to expect from religious extremists. Do you disagree that all human life is important? What a straw man & shameless emotive tactic. Is this the best you can do? Didn’t Paul say girdle up your loins (inferring everyone should be an effective apologist for the Christian religion). Logic is my strong point (as an fyi); so in the future I recommend you avoid arguments filled with logical fallacy (that is if you fancy yourself an effective apologist).

Interesting. SO if I say that there is a God but he cannot be quantified, but he as as real as my computer, I am a illogical, supersticious fool. Why the double standard?

Has nothing good ever come from religion?

Ummm … OK that’s a ridiculous analogy (gee wiz … don’t you know on average atheists are smarter than religious folks, so might I advise that you should know your audience when you present an argument).

I presented a philosophical argument opining the harm caused by religion (notwithstanding the difficulty quantifying it). I think it can be shown (with in depth research); but for now I concede it’s a theory. However, no matter how much research you do you could never prove the existence of any god who is omnipresent throughout the universe. Can you see the distinction or would you like me to elaborate further?

 

[cheese_sdc]

I will not argue those. I will say that it is the same for me to say that you should consider what i believe just like you should consider the possible dangers of artificail sweeteners

And we get to it. Unless I miss my guess your setting up for something like Pascal’s Wager? I’ll pass.