Organized religion

[GracieMae]

How do you feel about it?

[kingclick]

How do you feel about it?I like organized religion because it offers a structure to people in which to find their own spirituality. It is also a wonderful place to associate with others of the same beliefs as well as gives cohesion to an array of charity and relief programs.

I dislike organized religion because much of it is divisive. It is used effectively to create tension between peoples. As well it can be used to incite hate and animosity. It can also stifle personal spiritual development. And even turn people more self centered.

[RogueAngel]

Personally, it is not for me.

I do have to say though that kinglozer has some very good points on organized religion. Alot of them do things to help others who are less fortunate.

[April]

If it works for that person, if it brings them peace and helps them stay in touch with their God (and as long as they're not hurting anyone), go for it.
It's not for me though.

[DayDreamer]

I dislike the idea of organized religion. It seems to me that it encourages people to merely follow blindly instead of think for themselves and have a belief system based on fact, rather than opinion.

[Minnie_Beebe]

I feel it's scary, and I want no part in it.

[Val]

Works for me, but I have no problem with those who worship God in their own, non-organized religion way. :)

[GracieMae]

Works for me, but I have no problem with those who worship God in their own, non-organized religion way. :)

As usual, I agree with Val :)

[Lobo]

How about some highly disorganized religion? http://heretic.g2gm.net/beliefgen/ (hit (http://heretic.g2gm.net/beliefgen/) refresh a couple times)
:D

Anyhow, religion is, and will always be a very personal thing. I'd almost go so
far as to say no two people have ever trully had the same religion. Everyone's
conception/interpretation will vary according to their outlook. For most people
though, having some kind of organization in their religious life gives them a
sense of security and tradition.

Personally, I prefer chaos. ;)


Edit: Just noticed my link was messed up.

[Sanguine]

I agree with King, DayDreamer and Lobo to a certain extent. Like anything it has both good and bad points. I think that whether the bad outweighs the good depends on the religion itself. When a group of fundamentalists get together, believing with unshakable conviction that they know the absolute truth, with no test in reality, it can only lead to trouble.

[mgri]

.

[mgri]

.

[Jory]

How do you feel about it?


I think it is great for bringing people together for a common purpose and sense of community. It just isn't my kind of purpose or community though I may visit occasionally with people within.

[kokopelli]

I like the idea of it, and I hope I can find one that works for me.

[Hawkyfan99]

Whatever works for you, frankly.

However, as I've indicated before, in my opinion, the only difference between a cult and religion is mainstream acceptance.

[mgri]

1st reply: "I like organized religion because it offers a structure to people in which to find their own spirituality."

Organised religion tends to brainwash rather than encourage individual spirituality.

[Wind Songs]

Hawkyfan, it's good to see you here. :) I'm Sunset from the "other" board.


mgri...you care to expand on how organized religion brain washes people?

[Wind Songs]

I like the idea of it, and I hope I can find one that works for me.

I'd be happy to tell you all about mine if you want. ;)

[mgri]

How about the fact that all catholics believe in transubstantiation... Any reasonable person can see that 'holy' communion is not actually the body and blood of christ... yet catholic faith brainwashes people into believing in it.

Bottom line is that I am very suspicious of people who claim to have the inside track with god.

[Jetton327]

Although I do not believe in transubstantiation, many Catholics and some others do. It's RELIGION, folks...not really subject to logical analysis, but more or less impossible to dismiss, either. It's all a matter of faith: If you have it and it serves your requirements, I will not criticize it. If it has no interest or value for you, it cannot be explained, and perhaps doesn't need to be. As transubstantiation (if it occurs) is a miracle, everyday physical law and "common sense" are not issues - to those who believe.

[Wind Songs]

Bottom line is that I am very suspicious of people who claim to have the inside track with god.

What if we DO have the inside track with God?

[Diva]

Uh-oh, hot-button alert!! :paranoid: (mine)

I like organized religion because it offers a structure to people in which to find their own spirituality. It is also a wonderful place to associate with others of the same beliefs as well as gives cohesion to an array of charity and relief programs.

I dislike organized religion because much of it is divisive. It is used effectively to create tension between peoples. As well it can be used to incite hate and animosity. It can also stifle personal spiritual development. And even turn people more self centered.


I agree with this in a "general overview" kind of way.

More specifically, my problem with organised religions is the exclusivist nature of many of them. Exclusivist religions maintain that they are the only way to God (or whatever they call the deity they subscribe to) and heaven (or whatever the afterlife of their particular religion promises). As they are mutually exclusive, obviously they can't all be right. That would not be an issue except for the persistant need over the centuries for many of these religions to gain dominance over others, to prove that they were right all along, to gain followers and (the cynic in me says) the money and power that brings. It makes me ill to think how many millions have died over the centuries fighting in wars over whose religion is right and whose is wrong, when there is no way to prove either - we don't get to know for sure until we're dead who was right and who was wrong so what's the point in fighting over it? Whatever happened to "live and let live"?
I have NO problems with people who are part of organised religions, on an individual level, but personally while I may share beliefs with many of them, I do not subscribe to the exclusivist portion of their belief systems. I believe that it is irrelevant what name we call God by - Allah, Buddha, God, whatever, IMHO we are all referring to the same deity who does not give a rat's behind WHAT we call him or her as long as we live our lives to a high moral standard and we obey the core beliefs that many exclusivist religions share - those of the "do unto others" variety etc. I believe the differences between the religions are cultural, spawned by centuries of evolution of those religions on different continents, under the direct influence of different cultures and customs.
It makes me sad that religion should be used to divide, even to conquer. I do NOT subscribe to the belief that the omnibenivolent God many of these religions tout would condone such behaviour, which is in DIRECT violation of many of the directives in the various holy texts, in his or her name.
Bottom line, I doubt I will ever convert to ANY organised religion that holds exclusivist beliefs. One that does not, though I know of only one (and its beliefs are similar to mine on many fronts), I might consider. More likely, I will forever hold to my own brand of faith, and continue to not have any problems on this count with anyone who manages to practise their own organised religion, exclusivist or not, without encroaching on my (or anyone else's) liberty to do the same with our beliefs. :)

[mgri]

I totally aggree with that.

"I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." ~ The Lord Jesus Christ

Isn't that just a tad exclusivist?

[Jetton327]

I totally aggree with that.

"I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." ~ The Lord Jesus Christ

Isn't that just a tad exclusivist?

Without question, it is. Actually, it's very difficult to cite any strongly-held statement of religious conviction anywhere in the Abrahamic, or Judeo-Christian-Islamic, monotheist tradition which is not at root exclusivist. It's really the nature of the beast (small "b") - Any positive statement about a singular, all-powerful deity must dismiss those who don't recognize Him as the speaker perceives His identity. More often than not, this dismissal is not malicious in intent, but simply an expression of a pervasive mindset: so pervasive that any religious statement by a polytheist or pantheistic belief system is very often dismissed thus: "Oh, Buddhism (or Hinduism, Taoism, Shintoism, etc.) isn't really a RELIGION, you know. It's more of a philosophy, point of view, or lifestyle, because it doesn't have a preexisting creator God underlying everything." I have read an article by a fervent Christian believer, fundamentalist Protestant in the particular instance, dismissing Islam because "There's no reason to believe Mohammed ever read the Bible, so he could not have known God." Yes, and there is every reason to know that Abraham never read the Bible in his lifetime, because he died many centuries before any part of the Bible was written; I have yet to hear him dismissed as a nutjob!

[Archangel]

I totally aggree with that.

"I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." ~ The Lord Jesus Christ

Isn't that just a tad exclusivist?

Actually, depending on how you look at it, this is a very inclusive promise in that it assures us that any and all who recieve Jesus will find God, the Truth, Eternal Life and Heaven.

[kingclick]

How about the fact that all catholics believe in transubstantiation... Any reasonable person can see that 'holy' communion is not actually the body and blood of christ... yet catholic faith brainwashes people into believing in it.

Bottom line is that I am very suspicious of people who claim to have the inside track with god.

Nice way to introduce yourself to a board....calling people brainwashed....I would put you on ignore but even that is wasting too much time on you.

I wonder...where are people raised to be so rude? Is it by wolves or something?

[kingclick]

I totally aggree with that.

"I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." ~ The Lord Jesus Christ

Isn't that just a tad exclusivist?

Question....There is ONE road that leads to a small town in Northern California.

Is that town exclusivist? Or is it just a fact that there is only one path to that town? How does one GET to that town? They get in their car and they CHOOSE to follow that ONE road.

To sit at the crossroads and accuse that town of being "exclisivist" is missing the big picture. You may not want to go to that town..or you may be "brainwashed" into thinking that town doesn't really exist. But either way the town is there and it's YOUR choice to go down that road or not.

[Jory]

I wonder...where are people raised to be so rude? Is it by wolves or something?

Nah. I think it may come from either a sense of rejection, anger, or some other negative experiences having to do with organized religion. I can understand that, and I have been there before. I have since realized that any problems that I have with organized religion, are MY problems. There is nothing wrong psychologically, with anyone who wishes to be a part of it. They are not stupid, brainwashed, uneducated, or any other of the things that people who think they are so enlightened think they are.

Rude? Yeah, but he/she probably thinks she is being just as "considerate" as the *only christians go to heaven* crowd.

[kingclick]

There is a huge difference between explaining your religion...and just insulting someone for the sake of insulting.

But my guess is this new person will probably never return....I think they are called seagulls. Fly in...make a ton of noise crap on everything and then fly off.

[Jory]

There is a huge difference between explaining your religion...and just insulting someone for the sake of insulting.

I agree. I am just comming up with possible solutions as to why she/he is being rude.

Like the seagull analogy. getting better and better. :D

[mgri]

Ok. Obviously I offended some people here with my opinions. I'm sorry for being so blunt. However, brainwashing and blind faith are similar things in my eyes.

"Passion, while it is an important quality to have, can never replace proper knowledge."

Doesn't organised religion often place a higher esteem in passionate beliefs rather than in real knowledge?.. eg. refusing to believe in evolution

[Neurotic1]

I don't think anyone is offended by your opinions...just the method you used to express them ;)


I can't speak for all religions, but my own organized religion places a lot of value in "real knowledge". But like many other organized religions, recognizes that not all things "real" are able to be proven to the masses...and only to the individual.

[Archangel]

Ok. Obviously I offended some people here with my opinions. I'm sorry for being so blunt. However, brainwashing and blind faith are similar things in my eyes.

"Passion, while it is an important quality to have, can never replace proper knowledge."

Doesn't organised religion often place a higher esteem in passionate beliefs rather than in real knowledge?.. eg. refusing to believe in evolution

So what your saying is anyone who believes in Jesus as their Savior is lacking proper knowledge, and being led by passion, right ? Let me just respond to that by saying, one of us is in for a shock of Eternal proportions one day. And for your sake, i hope your right, because if you are, my faith will have cost me nothing, but if your wrong, your beliefs could cost you everything. So please remember this mgri, just because you haven't grasped His Truth, doesn't mean He isn't the TRUTH.

[mgri]

Yeah right pal. I dont think you can argue that a truley benevolent god would condemn me for what I believe in my heart. Nor can you argue that someone who is not born into a christian faith will be condemned for not following Jesus.

You cant make a conscious decision to just believe something... you actually have to believe it.

"i hope your right, because if you are, my faith will have cost me nothing, but if your wrong, your beliefs could cost you everything"

Dont hedge your bets with your faith. Just follow what you actually believe. This exclusionist attitude has caused so much suffering throughout history.

Oh, and by the way you never actually responded to the point of my last post, just condemned me to hell.

I am not saying that followers of Jesus (or any religion) are lacking proper knowledge. IMO we are all lacking proper knowledge about the really big questions. The difference is that organised religion sees fit to create unshakable beliefs from shaky evidence. Whatsmore, they seek to discredit proven facts with those beliefs.

[Neurotic1]

Yeah right pal. I dont think you can argue that a truley benevolent god would condemn me for what I believe in my heart. Nor can you argue that someone who is not born into a christian faith will be condemned for not following Jesus.
Of course, he can argue it. It just wouldn't be that convincing to you :)


The difference is that organised religion sees fit to create unshakable beliefs from shaky evidence. Whatsmore, they seek to discredit proven facts with those beliefs.
I have to disagree here...unless you want to say that some religions do. In my opinion, religion helps to fill in the answers that cannot (yet?) be answered by science. Science and faith are opposite sides of a huge circle of knowledge. Truth is truth regardless of how it is aquired. The two are not in opposition to each other. IMO, one would benefit from accepting the basics of both and then figuring out how they work together.

Whatsmore, they seek to discredit proven facts with those beliefs.
Other than some fundamentalist Christian groups and evolution, can you give an example of this?

[Jetton327]

Cristoph Schonborn, a Cardinal and the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Vienna, publicly stated on July 11 that Darwinian evolution in the form of natural selection unguided by an interested and participatory divine hand is inconsistent with Roman Catholic doctrine. Some other Roman Catholic theologians, all lower ranking than the Cardinal, as far as I can tell, have since stated that neither Cardinal Schonborn nor anyone else at his level of the hierarchy or below has the authority or credibility to speak for the church as a whole: Nonetheless, a personage of such rank speaking on the compatibility of faith and science can be expected to have, and to intend to have, a chilling effect on scientific belief among the faithful.

I believe this instance qualifies as "other than some fundamentalist Christian group."

The Cardinal is entirely free to believe as he will, but he does exist, and does serve a rather large, highly respected church which is not a fringe group, so he serves very well as the example which Neurotic1 requested.

The initial tone of this string was unnecessarily confrontational, granted, but it would be dishonest to pretend that several fervent devotees of Christianity have not been similarly confrontational, complacent and dismissive of opposing opinion in many strings over an extended period.

[mgri]

Galileo's theory on the earth rotating around the sun was panned because it contradicted the bible. People were jailed and killed.

Catholics refuse to admit that communion is not ACTUALLY Jesus's flesh. The best they can do is say that the explanation for their certainty on the issue lies outside the realm of human comprehension... yeah right.

If the doctrine of a specific religion is unable to handle, or contradicts scientific fact, then that fact is false in the eyes of that religion.

An admitidly a less concrete example of scientific contradiction is visible in the refusal of many organised religions to accept women as equals in the church. The Quran is hilarious in its treatment of women. The christians have Opus Dei's sexist exploitation. Ok some religions have begun to fix this issue, but why put so much faith in teachings that have been shown to be less than infallable (and often wrong to the point of ridicule).

[Jetton327]

Many religions believe in miracles of one variety or another. The very nature of miracles, should they occur, puts them outside the realm of science - so, just as religious thought is a notoriously bad judge of scientific truth, so is scientific law irrelevent to miracles and other religious experience. If it is true, it is transcendent and unconnected to mundane reality. One believes or one does not, but neither choice is indefensible or stupid.

[kingclick]

Cristoph Schonborn, a Cardinal and the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Vienna, publicly stated on July 11 that Darwinian evolution in the form of natural selection unguided by an interested and participatory divine hand is inconsistent with Roman Catholic doctrine.
Hmmmm. It seems you may have missed the meaning.

Evolution WITHOUT a God is inconsistent with Catholic doctrine. So conversely evolution WITH guidance from God is within Catholic doctrine.

Some other Roman Catholic theologians, all lower ranking than the Cardinal, as far as I can tell, have since stated that neither Cardinal Schonborn nor anyone else at his level of the hierarchy or below has the authority or credibility to speak for the church as a whole: Nonetheless, a personage of such rank speaking on the compatibility of faith and science can be expected to have, and to intend to have, a chilling effect on scientific belief among the faithful.

I believe this instance qualifies as "other than some fundamentalist Christian group."

So I see no chilling effect...the problem with your assertion is that it contradicts what every Catholic school teaches.

Therefore you have been mistaken.

[kingclick]

Galileo's theory on the earth being round was panned bacause it contradicted the bible. People were jailed and killed. Now THERE is a blast from the past. Enter the modern day and quit living in the past. You sound like those republicans that can't get past Clinton's indiscretions.

Catholics refuse to admit that communion is not ACTUALLY Jesus's flesh. The best they can do is say that the explanation for their certainty on the issue lies outside the realm of human comprehension... yeah right. There is not SPECIFIC TIME when the Eucharist becomes body and blood. So many will say that it happens after it is ingested. I say...if YOU don't believe it, fine, but to call people brainwashed because they have a religion just shows you have no manners or sense of decency.

If the doctrine of a specific religion is unable to handle, or contradicts scientific fact, then that fact is false in the eyes of that religion.
I guess this is where the blind (you) are attempting to lead the blind. Too bad you are going to fulfill the proverb and will fall in the ditch.

1. You are unable to speak for all religions. In fact you are UNQUALIFIED to speak for ANY religion at this time...please proffer some sort of expertise on what all religions do in the face of scientific fact contradicting doctrine. I promise I wont hold my breath for your qualifications.

An admitidly a less concrete example of scientific contradiction is visible in the refusal of many organised religions to accept women as equals in the church. The Quran is hilarious in its treatment of women. The christians have Opus Dei's sexist exploitation. Ok some religions have begun to fix this issue, but why put so much faith in teachings that have been shown to be less than infallable (and often wrong to the point of ridicule).

Ah now we get to the point....ANYTHING you can find to discredit religion...even to the point of bringing something COMPLETELY unscientific into the mix. Poor argument. Science doesn't dictate status of ANYONE in the church. If a church says 9 year olds can be Pope level leaders of a church....science has no contradiction or support or that religious stance. You expose your bias and more than likely hatred of all that is religious. Discounting your post in their entirety.

[Archangel]

Yeah right pal. I dont think you can argue that a truley benevolent god would condemn me for what I believe in my heart. Nor can you argue that someone who is not born into a christian faith will be condemned for not following Jesus.

Hold on a second, in the post above you suggested believers are saps to even believe Jesus is real ? Why the sudden acceptance of His reality ? And it isn't a matter of Him condemning you, it's all about Him knowing you.

You cant make a conscious decision to just believe something... you actually have to believe it.

Exactly right, thanks for recognizing my reality. If you have the courage to look deep within yourself and ask that small voice to guide you to the truth, all things are possible then. Just ask in Jesus name and all things are possible.

[QUOTE=AA]"i hope your right, because if you are, my faith will have cost me nothing, but if your wrong, your beliefs could cost you everything"

And remember this mgri, reality is only as real as one allows it to be for them.

Dont hedge your bets with your faith. Just follow what you actually believe. This exclusionist attitude has caused so much suffering throughout history.

Oh, and by the way you never actually responded to the point of my last post, just condemned me to hell.

I think your refering to your attack on Catholics, but i'm not catholic. I'm Born Again, and willing to admit that men have commited crimes throughout history in the name of Christ. But Christ isn't the agressor, the men who killed in His name were.

I am not saying that followers of Jesus (or any religion) are lacking proper knowledge. IMO we are all lacking proper knowledge about the really big questions. The difference is that organised religion sees fit to create unshakable beliefs from shaky evidence. Whatsmore, they seek to discredit proven facts with those beliefs.

You would be wrong to assume universal ignorance is the best that we can hope for as children of God, and children of Adam and Eve. Please check every post i've ever contributed here mgri, and point out one where i said a particular Church had the solution ? Our search is totally personal and between us and our Maker.

And just as you refer to Salvation as exclusionary, i insist on the Gospels inclusionary aspects that make a personal relationship with God available to all people.

[Jetton327]

Kingclick: I said this: "...that Darwinian evolution in the form of natural selection unguided by an interested and participatory divine hand is inconsistent..." You quoted me correctly, and then somehow took from the statement an assurance that Catholic practice is the polar opposite of the Cardinal's statement. I was careful to specify that a number of Catholic theologians distanced themselves from the Cardinal's statement. As a non-Catholic, I have no difficulty in accepting that he does not really speak for the Church in this matter: As a logical person, however, I do not find any merit in your own assurance that the Church, by rejecting Natural Selection unguided by the divine hand, is ipso facto declaring support for Natural Selection guided by the divine hand. That just doesn't work. Suppose these statements were made:

A. Black dogs wearing red collars drive Peterbilt trucks.
B. Oh, that's ridiculous! They don't.
C. By that, I must assume that black dogs not wearing red collars do drive Peterbilt trucks.
D. No, not at all. All you can determine from B. being so is that Peterbilt trucks, should you see them, are not driven by black dogs wearing red collars.

If it is true that Natural Selection unguided by the divine hand IS NOT consistent with Catholic doctrine, that cannot be evidence that Natural Selection guided by the divine hand IS consistent, but only that any claim which is consistent with Catholic doctrine MUST NOT rely on Natural Selection unguided by the divine hand.

Okay, that's the end of Logic 101. The point I was making in my post was that Cardinal Schonborn (without real authority, for all I know) did in fact put the weight of his office and prestige behind a declaration rejecting what is generally accepted as legitimate scientific knowledge. Neurotic1 had issued a challenge to produce evidence of some religious figure not from some fringe fundamentalist Christian group doing so. See Cardinal Schonborn.

[mgri]

Ah now we get to the point....ANYTHING you can find to discredit religion...even to the point of bringing something COMPLETELY unscientific into the mix...

.... You expose your bias and more than likely hatred of all that is religious. Discounting your post in their entirety.

No. I'm sorry to have to repeat it, but this was my point:

Why do people put so much faith in teachings that have been shown to be less than infallable (and often wrong to the point of ridicule)?

Your right, I am unable to speak FOR any religion at this time, but I damn sure have the right to speak ABOUT them. If various religions are willing to talk about my seemingly inevitable rendezvous with hell then I can excercise my right to advance my opinions... without adding qualifications after my name.

[mgri]

Hold on a second, in the post above you suggested believers are saps to even believe Jesus is real ? Why the sudden acceptance of His reality ?

No, I haven't suddenly changed my opinion, so easy there turbo.

If you have the courage to look deep within yourself and ask that small voice to guide you to the truth, all things are possible then. Just ask in Jesus name and all things are possible.

Dont assume I dont have that courage. I have looked for Jesus and pals but they dont seem to be answering.

And remember this mgri, reality is only as real as one allows it to be for them.

What is that supposed to mean? Reality is reality. You cant just allow yourself to believe something... I thought you understood that?

Please check every post i've ever contributed here mgri, and point out one where i said a particular Church had the solution? Our search is totally personal and between us and our Maker.

Its not personal when a particular faith leads one to think that those who dont Believe are somehow condemned. That just leads to animosity.

[kingclick]

Kingclick: I said this: "...that Darwinian evolution in the form of natural selection unguided by an interested and participatory divine hand is inconsistent..." You quoted me correctly, and then somehow took from the statement an assurance that Catholic practice is the polar opposite of the Cardinal's statement. I was careful to specify that a number of Catholic theologians distanced themselves from the Cardinal's statement. As a non-Catholic, I have no difficulty in accepting that he does not really speak for the Church in this matter: As a logical person, however, I do not find any merit in your own assurance that the Church, by rejecting Natural Selection unguided by the divine hand, is ipso facto declaring support for Natural Selection guided by the divine hand. That just doesn't work. Suppose these statements were made:

A. Black dogs wearing red collars drive Peterbilt trucks.
B. Oh, that's ridiculous! They don't.
C. By that, I must assume that black dogs not wearing red collars do drive Peterbilt trucks.
D. No, not at all. All you can determine from B. being so is that Peterbilt trucks, should you see them, are not driven by black dogs wearing red collars.

If it is true that Natural Selection unguided by the divine hand IS NOT consistent with Catholic doctrine, that cannot be evidence that Natural Selection guided by the divine hand IS consistent, but only that any claim which is consistent with Catholic doctrine MUST NOT rely on Natural Selection unguided by the divine hand.

Okay, that's the end of Logic 101. The point I was making in my post was that Cardinal Schonborn (without real authority, for all I know) did in fact put the weight of his office and prestige behind a declaration rejecting what is generally accepted as legitimate scientific knowledge. Neurotic1 had issued a challenge to produce evidence of some religious figure not from some fringe fundamentalist Christian group doing so. See Cardinal Schonborn.

I still disagree. YOU are the one jumping to a conclusion.

To use a believable example...

Open heart surgery without anesthesia is against the AMA's guidelines.

Is this a rejection of Open Heart Surgery or just a rejection of OHS without anesthesia?

Evolution without God is against the doctrines of the Catholic Church.

Is this a rejection of Evolution or just a rejection of without God?

In one instance you believe that the statement is a "qualifier" but doesn't completely reject the idea of Open Heart surgery.

Yet in the second one you believe that the statement rejects evolution.

I believe that your interpretation of that statement is incorrect....you are making an assumption of rejection that is not based in the words quoted.

So now that I have used English 101 to clarify your misinterpretation of the sentence...we can now attack the logic issue.

If the AMA says that they don't support OHS without anesthesia how LOGICAL would it be to assume that they don't support OHS at all? Not very.

A couple more examples...

Sex without a condom is not something I believe in.

What can we assume from that sentence? That sex WITH a condom is something that is believed in by that person. What can we not assume from that sentence? That ALL sex is bad to that person.

Driving without a license is against state law.
What can we assume from that sentence? That driving WITH a license is allowable by state law. What can we not assume from that sentence? That all driving is against state law.

So now we reexamine the statement made by the Cardinal...

"...that Darwinian evolution in the form of natural selection unguided by an interested and participatory divine hand is inconsistent with Catholic doctrine..."

The qualifier is bolded......similar to "without a license", "without a condom" and "without anesthesia".

So again...Cardinal's statement does NOT prove your point.

The point I was making in my post was that Cardinal Schonborn (without real authority, for all I know) did in fact put the weight of his office and prestige behind a declaration rejecting what is generally accepted as legitimate scientific knowledge.

And Neurotic1's challenge still stands UNCHALLENGED.

In short you misquoted the Cardinal.

[Val]

How about the fact that all catholics believe in transubstantiation... Any reasonable person can see that 'holy' communion is not actually the body and blood of christ... yet catholic faith brainwashes people into believing in it.

Bottom line is that I am very suspicious of people who claim to have the inside track with god.

Gee, how did I miss being brainwashed all these years? God knows I've been taught never to consider scientific doctrine, and that science and religion can never coexist!

Gosh, I gotta remember to flip that Pope switch off so that all this subversive indoctrination can stop troubling my brain!

Please, did no one ever talk to you about the difference between faith and fact? Belief versus scientific proof? Or must you see incontrovertible evidence/proof for everything in existence?

[Jory]

mgri sounds as if he/she needs to get over his/her superiority complex. Really, all it does is make you look insecure, bitter and angry. Nothing wrong with being bitter or angry, but just so you know that it is your problem, and not the problem of other people you wish to visit it upon.

[Jetton327]

Sex without a condom is not something I believe in.

What can we assume from that sentence? That sex WITH a condom is something that is believed in by that person. What can we not assume from that sentence? That ALL sex is bad to that person.

Kingclick, you're wrong again! Suppose I say to you, "I think it would be terrible for Emma to have sex without a condom." You would indeed be wrong to assume that I believe Emma should have sex with a condom: Emma is 11 years old, and I do not favor her having sex with or without a condom.

So now we reexamine the statement made by the Cardinal...

"...that Darwinian evolution in the form of natural selection unguided by an interested and participatory divine hand is inconsistent with Catholic doctrine..."

The qualifier is bolded......similar to "without a license", "without a condom" and "without anesthesia".

So again...Cardinal's statement does NOT prove your point.

Okay, how about this: "Baboons with striped buttocks are not qualified to speak on Church doctrine." does not imply that baboons without striped buttocks are qualified to speak on Church doctrine. Based on purely external evidence, which is quite believable, no baboons whatsoever are qualified to speak on Church doctrine. What the Cardinal said, in essence, was that unguided natural selection did not conform to Church doctrine. From this we can deduce that he believes that any legitimate Church teaching does not promulgate belief in unguided natural selection. We can not deduce that some other sort of natural selection is approved Church teaching: that would require extrinsic evidence.

And Neurotic1's challenge has received an answer.

In short you misquoted the Cardinal. At great length - I neither misquoted nor quoted accurately the Cardinal: I did not quote him. Rather, I reported on the substance of his statement without detailing his words.

[kingclick]

dup post.

[kingclick]

Originally Posted by kingclick
Sex without a condom is not something I believe in.

What can we assume from that sentence? That sex WITH a condom is something that is believed in by that person. What can we not assume from that sentence? That ALL sex is bad to that person.

Kingclick, you're wrong again! Suppose I say to you, "I think it would be terrible for Emma to have sex without a condom."
You would indeed be wrong to assume that I believe Emma should have sex with a condom: Emma is 11 years old, and I do not favor her having sex with or without a condom.

My assumptions are not what is at issue here. You CANNOT assume by the statement "I think it would be terrible for Emma to have sex without a condom." that it is terrible for Emma to have sex. And that is what you are doing here. THAT is the issue you are trying to propose, that the Cardinal is speaking against evolution IN GENERAL and you are WRONG. Period.

Now the other problem with your analogy is that we are talking about the Catholic church (a known entity) and you are talking about a non-known entity in Emma. If I had known Emma was 11 then I would be able to know more. We KNOW that the Catholic church has more open stance than fundamental Christianity. We KNOW that there are thousands of Catholic High Schools that teach evolutionary thought. We KNOW that there are Catholic Colleges that also have these lines of study. So putting the knowledge and information that we have on the Catholic Church today into practice....your assumption upon what this man says is illogical.

So now we reexamine the statement made by the Cardinal...

"...that Darwinian evolution in the form of natural selection unguided by an interested and participatory divine hand is inconsistent with Catholic doctrine..."

The qualifier is bolded......similar to "without a license", "without a condom" and "without anesthesia".

So again...Cardinal's statement does NOT prove your point.

Okay, how about this: "Baboons with striped buttocks are not qualified to speak on Church doctrine." does not imply that baboons without striped buttocks are qualified to speak on Church doctrine. Based on purely external evidence, which is quite believable, no baboons whatsoever are qualified to speak on Church doctrine. What the Cardinal said, in essence, was that unguided natural selection did not conform to Church doctrine. From this we can deduce that he believes that any legitimate Church teaching does not promulgate belief in unguided natural selection. We can not deduce that some other sort of natural selection is approved Church teaching: that would require extrinsic evidence.
We HAVE that extrinsic evidence!! We have Notre Dame, we have dozens of other Catholic Colleges worldwide, we have THOUSANDS of Catholic high schools in the US alone. There is your downfall, you ignore the basic information that is well known to the world.

And Neurotic1's challenge has received an answer.
I agree...and that answer was definitely wrong and completely valueless.

In short you misquoted the Cardinal. At great length - I neither misquoted nor quoted accurately the Cardinal: I did not quote him. Rather, I reported on the substance of his statement without detailing his words.

You reported INCORRECTLY on the substance of his statement. You have applied illogical assumptions that are unsupported to his words. You did jumped to a conclusion that is not supported and is actually contradicted in thousands of schools across the world.

[mgri]

How about you try to answer my questions instead of attack my character? I assure you I am neither insecure or bitter, just perturbed at the negative effects that blind faith can have on people.

Why do people put so much faith in teachings that have been shown to be less than infallable (and often wrong to the point of ridicule)?

[Jory]

How about you try to answer my questions instead of attack my character?

How about you get the chip off of your shoulder. I can't answer your questions because I am not a follower of organized religion, I am just addressing the way you have come in here pissing all over everyone else.

[kingclick]

No. I'm sorry to have to repeat it, but this was my point:

Why do people put so much faith in teachings that have been shown to be less than infallable (and often wrong to the point of ridicule)?

This is the question? That question can only be answered by each individual. That question isn't REALLY a question but more of a rhetorical device to import a negative picture upon people of faith.

I myself cannot answer that question because it has yet to apply to me.

Additionally being wrong "to the point of ridicule" is not any more wrong than just being wrong. Being ridiculed by someone just points out ridiculer's rudeness and stupidity.

[Meiri]

Question....There is ONE road that leads to a small town in Northern California.

Is that town exclusivist? Or is it just a fact that there is only one path to that town? How does one GET to that town? They get in their car and they CHOOSE to follow that ONE road.Or we get out of our cars, back to Nature, and walk on the path through the woods to get to town. Or perhaps we make our own path. Less pollution and a better view that way. AND we get to town.:D

An admitidly a less concrete example of scientific contradiction is visible in the refusal of many organised religions to accept women as equals in the church. The Quran is hilarious in its treatment of women. The christians have Opus Dei's sexist exploitation. Ok some religions have begun to fix this issue, but why put so much faith in teachings that have been shown to be less than infallable (and often wrong to the point of ridicule).
Have you actually read the Quran? According to online Muslim friends, it teaches that women have rights. The problem you're seeing is in fact a cultural issue, not a Quranic one. I'd even go so far from my limited knowledge to say that those who act as the Taliban and such act are going against the Quran. Muslim women in other parts of the world have much different lives than Muslim women in the Middle East.

[kingclick]

Or we get out of our cars, back to Nature, and walk on the path through the woods to get to town. Or perhaps we make our own path. Less pollution and a better view that way. AND we get to town.:D



But there is a problem with that...a car is the only way to get there...without transportation there is no surviving the trek to that town. The gulf is impassible without powered transportation.

[Meiri]

But there is a problem with that...a car is the only way to get there...without transportation there is no surviving the trek to that town. The gulf is impassible without powered transportation.Now you're adding conditions. That was not in the original situation.

Besides which, cliffs can be rapelled down or up. Bodies of water can be crossed by boat or whatever. Almost any town can be approached from the air. Tunnels can be dug.

:D

[kingclick]

Now you're adding conditions. That was not in the original situation.

Besides which, cliffs can be rapelled down or up. Bodies of water can be crossed by boat or whatever. Almost any town can be approached from the air. Tunnels can be dug.

:D

Not the town we are talking about though. The trip is treacherous and without adequate transportation the traveller would die from dehydration and starvation as well as exposure to the elements.

From the air? No adequate place to land. Tunneling? Death would happen before the tunnel was finished and the tunnel would cave in upon you because of ground conditions.

This is a very unique town.

[Neurotic1]

How about you try to answer my questions instead of attack my character? I assure you I am neither insecure or bitter, just perturbed at the negative effects that blind faith can have on people.

Why do people put so much faith in teachings that have been shown to be less than infallable (and often wrong to the point of ridicule)?

Like Kingsclick, I didn't realize that this was an actual question. I thought you were trying to make a point "Why on earth would you be stupid?" seems more like a statement than a question.

But, I'll give it a go!

People put faith in religion because of the way it makes them feel. Because of the guidance of their heart. Because of their personal upbringing. I don't know that I have ever heard anyone say that religion is "infallable" I think that most people understand religions are full of human individual.

Faith doesn't have to be "blind" And if it is ridiculed...that says far more about the finger-pointer than the believer to me.




AND...
King is right about the quote (and I am not Catholic)

Evolution without God is not in line with Catholic doctrine is NOT the same as saying evolution is not in line with Catholic doctrine.

Taking out that one phrase makes a world of difference.

[Meiri]

Not the town we are talking about though. The trip is treacherous and without adequate transportation the traveller would die from dehydration and starvation as well as exposure to the elements.

From the air? No adequate place to land. Tunneling? Death would happen before the tunnel was finished and the tunnel would cave in upon you because of ground conditions.

This is a very unique town.You've been there to know??? You run the place??? I doubt that.

Knowing very well what the analogy is, I must say that you are not the mayor of that town to know what alternative routes are available. Nor are you in any position to know that there are not other towns which are just as wonderful.:)

If that's how you want your town to be, I will happily go to another.:)

[kingclick]

You've been there to know??? You run the place??? I doubt that.
No but I have been told by a source that I believe and can trust. A source that millions have followed before. I trust maps even if I haven't been there before. I sure as heck wouldn't just start walking out on my own trying to get to that town.

Knowing very well what the analogy is, I must say that you are not the mayor of that town to know what alternative routes are available. But I do have a letter WRITTEN by the mayor and founder of the town. Nor are you in any position to know that there are not other towns which are just as wonderful.:)
And neither are you!

If that's how you want your town to be, I will happily go to another.:)

Ah going FULL circle...it's not how I want MY town to be...it's not my town, I didn't set it up that way....don't blame me. If you don't wanna go to that town that is YOUR choice but don't make it out that I somehow set it up that way.

[mgri]

Its not Jesus's town. Its our town. Jesus was not elected mayor of this town by a majority, so your letter from the mayor is void.

[mgri]

Have you actually read the Quran? According to online Muslim friends, it teaches that women have rights. The problem you're seeing is in fact a cultural issue, not a Quranic one. I'd even go so far from my limited knowledge to say that those who act as the Taliban and such act are going against the Quran. Muslim women in other parts of the world have much different lives than Muslim women in the Middle East.
OK here is where I am getting my basis for the quran being unfair in its treatment of women. I really am listening if you can discredit this stuff, but it seems to me that that book was written by the guys for the guys.

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/Quran/women/long.html

[Wind Songs]

Its not Jesus's town. Its our town. Jesus was not elected mayor of this town by a majority, so your letter from the mayor is void.

It's Jesus' universe, and within that uiverse is every town. It's ALL His. And some day, He is coming back to claim it. :)

[Jetton327]

Kingclick: You cannot define all of the arguments as you choose. The argument I made was that you had drawn from nothing more than the Cardinal's statement that unguided natural selection was not acceptable the unjustified conclusion that this demonstrated his support for some other approach to evolution. As he is well known as a very intelligent man who has previously supported the scientific method, of course it is plausible that he supports another approach to evolution - but denying the validity of one subset of a proposition is very definitively not the same as proclaiming the validity of another subset.

Here is an example completely removed from volatile issues:
If A, then not B.
A does not equal C.
If B, then C.
This is completely invalid. Plugging in real world propositions, such a statement could look like this:
Dogs are not cold blooded animals.
Dogs are not cats.
If an animal is cold blooded, it is a cat.
Here is another:
Unguided natural selection is not acceptable Catholic doctrine.
Evolution guided by God's hand is not unguided natural selection.
Acceptable Catholic doctrine is that Evolution guided by God's hand is the truth.

Using my own examples:
Emma should not have sex without a condom.
Using a condom is not the same thing as not using a condom.
Emma should have sex using a condom.
This result is foolish.

The valid assumptions are these:
If A, then not B.
A does not equal C.
If B, then not A; C is possible but not established as true by the evidence given.
or:
Emma should not have sex without a condom.
Using a condom is not the same thing as not using a condom.
If Emma is to have sex, she should not do so without using a condom, but whether she should have sex even under that proviso is not proven.
or:
The Cardinal rejects unguided natural selection as a valid means of evolution.
Guided evolution is not the same thing as unguided natural selection.
If the Cardinal finds a means of evolution to be valid, it must not consist of unguided natural selection. Guided evolution, a different concept, is not ipso facto declared invalid; neither is its validity established by this line of argument.

[mgri]

It's Jesus' universe, and within that uiverse is every town. It's ALL His. And some day, He is coming back to claim it. :)

Have a look at some stats:

http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html

Its not his universe. Thats exclusionist .

[Wind Songs]

Have a look at some stats:

http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html

Its not his universe. Thats exclusionist .



Uh....it doesn't matter whether you believe it or not. Your disbelief doesn't make Him unreal.

[Jory]

I am always surprised at how few Jews there are. You would think you would never come across one by that table. Or is it a matter of people say they are, but they don't practice?

Sorry, off topic.

Thats exclusionist .

Even though I agree with you, what is wrong with being an exclusionist? It is her belief. You may not like it or agree with it, but how does it affect you? Other than it being annoying when people are in your face about it, but in this case, that is what this forum is kind of about.

[Wind Songs]

Jory, you have to remember that over 6 million Jews were exterminated in the Holocaust. :( And then you have to think of all of the ones who survived who lost their faith in God because of it.

I'm actually reading Night right now, and I'd forgotten how much it dealt with the author and his faith in God being completely shattered because of what he experienced.

[Jory]

Jory, you have to remember that over 6 million Jews were exterminated in the Holocaust. :( And then you have to think of all of the ones who survived who lost their faith in God because of it.

.


True. Six million is a lot, but it would still be a shocking minority in comparison.

[mgri]

Ok so I'd really like to join in about the cardinal's statment. As much as I wish it was, I dont think it is in fact a valid example to satisfy Neurotic1 request.

As far as I can see:

He is saying that he does not accept unguided evolution.
He implies he does accept guided evolution.

I welcome the cardinals implied acceptance of the scientific facts on evolution. As for whether or not evolution is in fact guided, boils down to the god Vs no god debate. In other words the guided evolution hypothesis cant be rationally tested and so I'm not attempting to argue it.

So admitidly Neurotic1 did ask for instances of where organised religion attempts to discredit proven facts with those beliefs.

Basically my point and gripe with organised religion is this:

I think that organised religions pre-(ill)-conceived ideas about humanity unreasonably affect scientific fact (and some social issues). If the cardinal is accepting the facts about evolution, yet adding that it may be all guided by an unseen hand, then goodbye Adam and Eve. Or am I to believe that the old testament is something which should be interpreted only very loosley?

If the bible can be shown to be wrong about something so major as how humanity was created, why not cast a more skeptical eye over the entire book before commiting to absolute faith in it?

What a blunder for a book that is supposed to dictate our moral code.

[Wind Songs]

True. Six million is a lot, but it would still be a shocking minority in comparison.

Being a Jew is not easy. Have you seen all of the Laws they have to follow? I'm willing to bet there aren't many people who would choose that if they weren't born into it. I think that is why Judasim has basically always been something that is passed down through families, and not something that has been widely embraced by outsiders.

[Wind Songs]

Basically my point and gripe with organised religion is this:

I think that organised religions pre-(ill)-conceived ideas about humanity unreasonably affect scientific fact (and some social issues). If the cardinal is accepting the facts about evolution, yet adding that it may be all guided by an unseen hand, then goodbye Adam and Eve. Or am I to believe that the old testament is something which should be interpreted only very loosley?

If the bible can be shown to be wrong about something so major as how humanity was created, why not cast a more skeptical eye over the entire book before commiting to absolute faith in it?

What a blunder for a book that is supposed to dictate our moral code.


The Bible hasn't been shown to be wrong about anything.

[mgri]

The Bible hasn't been shown to be wrong about anything.

Hi. Did you miss the point about Adam and Eve?.. or just ignore it? In the face of the implicit acceptance of the facts behind evolution by the catholic church it proves the adam and eve 'in the beginning' story was wrong.

[Wind Songs]

Hi. Did you miss the point about Adam and Eve?.. or just ignore it? In the face of the implicit acceptance of the facts behind evolution by the catholic church it proves the adam and eve 'in the beginning' story was wrong.


Uh, yeah, and I'm not Catholic. What the Catholics think has no bearing on me.

Personally, I think theistic evolution is just as big a load of crap as non-theistic evolution.

[Meiri]

Your disbelief doesn't make Him unreal.Just as your belief does not render him real.

It's a Belief, not a fact. Learn the difference already and get over it.

OK here is where I am getting my basis for the quran being unfair in its treatment of women. I really am listening if you can discredit this stuff, but it seems to me that that book was written by the guys for the guys.

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.c...women/long.htmlFirst of all, many cultures have rules surrounding menstruation and what spouses may or may do during that time. Islam is not the first by any stretch.

Second of all, unless you're also getting the inside story from the women who actually practice the religion, all you've got is a group of outsiders' view--hardly comprehensive.

Third of all, are those real verses and well translated?

sorry I don't have more than questions. I readily admit that I have not studied the Quran itself. What I have done is "spoken" online with Muslim women, watched many PBS shows that cover THEIR point of view on THEIR religion, and listened to a speaker at AAUW too many years ago who'd been to the Middle East and had studied the history of how some of the customs came about.

What I have gotten from all of this is that, like any other religion, it depends on who's interpreting it and how whether that religion empowers or enslaves women. I've seen Christianity do both just as readily as Islam.

[kingclick]

Kingclick: You cannot define all of the arguments as you choose. The argument I made was that you had drawn from nothing more than the Cardinal's statement that unguided natural selection was not acceptable the unjustified conclusion that this demonstrated his support for some other approach to evolution. As he is well known as a very intelligent man who has previously supported the scientific method, of course it is plausible that he supports another approach to evolution - but denying the validity of one subset of a proposition is very definitively not the same as proclaiming the validity of another subset.

Here is an example completely removed from volatile issues:
If A, then not B.
A does not equal C.
If B, then C.
This is completely invalid. Plugging in real world propositions, such a statement could look like this:
Dogs are not cold blooded animals.
Dogs are not cats.
If an animal is cold blooded, it is a cat.
Here is another:
Unguided natural selection is not acceptable Catholic doctrine.
Evolution guided by God's hand is not unguided natural selection.
Acceptable Catholic doctrine is that Evolution guided by God's hand is the truth.

Using my own examples:
Emma should not have sex without a condom.
Using a condom is not the same thing as not using a condom.
Emma should have sex using a condom.
This result is foolish.

The valid assumptions are these:
If A, then not B.
A does not equal C.
If B, then not A; C is possible but not established as true by the evidence given.
or:
Emma should not have sex without a condom.
Using a condom is not the same thing as not using a condom.
If Emma is to have sex, she should not do so without using a condom, but whether she should have sex even under that proviso is not proven.
or:
The Cardinal rejects unguided natural selection as a valid means of evolution.
Guided evolution is not the same thing as unguided natural selection.
If the Cardinal finds a means of evolution to be valid, it must not consist of unguided natural selection. Guided evolution, a different concept, is not ipso facto declared invalid; neither is its validity established by this line of argument.

Dude....Your argument was..."Nonetheless, a personage of such rank speaking on the compatibility of faith and science can be expected to have, and to intend to have, a chilling effect on scientific belief among the faithful."

Point blank...your assumption on what that man is saying is WRONG. You can try and detract from that point all you want...but the WHOLE point I was making is that you are WRONG for thinking that man is saying anything evolution that would have a "chilling effect" on scientific belief among the faithful.

In short...he isn't saying what you THINK he is saying. YOU....ARE....WRONG. And the is nothing to support what you are saying.

All of your little inconsistent analogies aren't going to change that fact...all of your poorly formed statements are not going to change that fact.

This man said that evolution without God is inconsistent with Catholic teachings. Period...you CANNOT come to that assumption that ALL evolution is inconsistent with Catholic teachings out of his statement.

So now that I have said it NUMEROUS times please don't go off point AGAIN and try and worry about your poor logic arguments. Either admit your failure to actually read what this man had to say......or let it go.

[kingclick]

Have a look at some stats:

http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html

Its not his universe. Thats exclusionist .

LOL. :howling: That cracks me up...

I am gonna go in to work tomorrow and say..."I don't believe that YOU are my boss." I'm sure that my boss will probably laugh at my stupidity.

Just because someone doesn't BELIEVE in God doesn't mean it changes who is in charge. Your "adherents" list is useless in that debate.

[kingclick]

What a blunder for a book that is supposed to dictate our moral code.

So what is it intended to do? Be a science book or "guide" (not dictate) our moral code. Hmmmmmm. I wonder why you would think that a moral code book would even NEED to have a detailed and perfect description of science? Oh again it's because you have a chip on your shoulder and hope to discredit religion in any way you can...I forgot...sorry.

If the bible was intended to be a science book you would be right....but since it is a "moral code" I see no reason for the Book of Genesis to delve into concepts that early man would have NO need for or ability to understand.

[Meiri]

Just because someone doesn't BELIEVE in God doesn't mean it changes who is in charge. Just because someone BELIEVES in a God doesn't mean there is one or that he/she/it is in charge of any but his/her/its own adherents.

Your belief is not my fact. My belief is not your fact.

The only fact in this is that we all have beliefs, but that does not make any of those beliefs into facts.

Learn the difference and get over it already.

[kingclick]

Just because someone BELIEVES in a God doesn't mean there is one or that he/she/it is in charge of any but his/her/its own adherents.

Your belief is not my fact. My belief is not your fact.

The only fact in this is that we all have beliefs, but that does not make any of those beliefs into facts.

Learn the difference and get over it already.

I actually KNOW the difference....but of course I can't expect you to recognize that because you chose to take my post out of context. Thanks.

My post was to POINT OUT that a list of adherents doesn't mean anything to the one in charge (be he Allah, Goddess, or God).

So learn to read and get over it already.

[Meiri]

I left out the adherents list because it wasn't relevent. I can actually agree with you on that, though again, belief no more makes any God's existance into fact then nonbelief might make his existance nonfact.

Did you or did you not make the same sort of statement as Windsongs above?

KC: "Just because someone doesn't BELIEVE in God doesn't mean it changes who is in charge."

WS: "Uh....it doesn't matter whether you believe it or not. Your disbelief doesn't make Him unreal."

Perhaps it's a tangent, but if you're going to make such statements, be prepared to have the nonsense pointed out for what it is.

[kingclick]

I left out the adherents list because it wasn't relevent. I can actually agree with you on that, though again, belief no more makes any God's existance into fact then nonbelief might make his existance nonfact.

Did you or did you not make the same sort of statement as Windsongs above?



Perhaps it's a tangent, but if you're going to make such statements, be prepared to have the nonsense pointed out for what it is.

Hmmm. Nonsense? The ONLY nonsense that I see is that YOU are taking a KEY sentence out of that statement of mine.

So AGAIN I ask you to learn to read before you post.

[Jetton327]

Dude....Your argument was..."Nonetheless, a personage of such rank speaking on the compatibility of faith and science can be expected to have, and to intend to have, a chilling effect on scientific belief among the faithful."

Point blank...your assumption on what that man is saying is WRONG. You can try and detract from that point all you want...but the WHOLE point I was making is that you are WRONG for thinking that man is saying anything evolution that would have a "chilling effect" on scientific belief among the faithful.

In short...he isn't saying what you THINK he is saying. YOU....ARE....WRONG. And the is nothing to support what you are saying.

All of your little inconsistent analogies aren't going to change that fact...all of your poorly formed statements are not going to change that fact.

This man said that evolution without God is inconsistent with Catholic teachings. Period...you CANNOT come to that assumption that ALL evolution is inconsistent with Catholic teachings out of his statement.

So now that I have said it NUMEROUS times please don't go off point AGAIN and try and worry about your poor logic arguments. Either admit your failure to actually read what this man had to say......or let it go.


Kingclick, I don't actually care what he said. My point - the ONLY point I have been trying to make - is that YOUR assertion (that a statement that unguided natural selection is inconsistent with Catholic teaching is somehow the same thing as a statement that guided natural selection is consistent with Catholic teaching) does not hold up. Both statements may be entirely accurate, but the second one is not implied by the first one, and to believe otherwise leaves one vulnerable to such obviously invalid conclusions as were in my analogies. Here is one last one to consider:

A. The belief that right wing thinkers should be killed is evil.
B. Mussolini does not believe right wing thinkers should be killed.
C. Then Mussolini is not evil!
This is wrong. In this example, Mussolini is not shown to be evil, nor is he shown to not be evil.

In this case:
A. The Cardinal says proposition 1 is false.
B. Proposition 2 is not proposition 1.
C. Then the Cardinal is saying Proposition 2 is true.
Again, this is wrong. Purely from the first two statements, all we can deduce is that any statement which includes proposition 1 is rejected by the Cardinal, but that Proposition 2's validity is not addressed.

[Jetton327]

So what is it intended to do? Be a science book or "guide" (not dictate) our moral code. Hmmmmmm. I wonder why you would think that a moral code book would even NEED to have a detailed and perfect description of science? Oh again it's because you have a chip on your shoulder and hope to discredit religion in any way you can...I forgot...sorry.

If the bible was intended to be a science book you would be right....but since it is a "moral code" I see no reason for the Book of Genesis to delve into concepts that early man would have NO need for or ability to understand.

All this is true enough, but whenever a "moral code" makes a definitive statement about scientific truth which is demonstrably untrue it is left open to criticism on the grounds that it promotes false belief in that realm.

For those who approach the Bible as a collection of parables, tribal histories and mythology, this is a very small problem, at most, because they are already looking at the text with no literalist expectations.

For those who are strict literalists, the issue is a serious one. It can be, and has been, addressed completely to their satisfaction, and I won't spell the arguments out. It is simply a fact that such concerns arise, and they should be recognized.

[kingclick]

Kingclick, I don't actually care what he said. My point - the ONLY point I have been trying to make - is that YOUR assertion (that a statement that unguided natural selection is inconsistent with Catholic teaching is somehow the same thing as a statement that guided natural selection is consistent with Catholic teaching) does not hold up.

Wrong. That is NOT the point you attempted and failed to make in the FIRST post which included quoting the cardinal. Sorry it is NOT the ONLY point you have been trying to make. Again attempting to detract from the point.

Person A said..."only fundamental christians".
Jet said.."Actually this Catholic Cardinal says."
King says.."Jet, you are wrong about what that Catholic Cardinal says."

This whole deal is me showing where you are wrong about what the Cardinal is saying.

You are just attempting to detract from the real discussion by trying and making up poor analogies to prove my logic wrong. However as I already went into DEEP detail about my logic, it is not wrong if we take the knowledge that we have about the Catholic Church and apply it to the sentence. However again YOU are off point and are attempting to detract from your OWN failure to read what the Cardinal meant and you attempted to come to a conclusion that is not supported by the Cardinals statment.

[Jetton327]

Kingclick: It must be comforting to know what other people's intentions are, despite their own statements of what they intend. I do not have that power, not being divine. Yes, my first post on this topic used the Cardinal as an example, as his statement declared off bounds a scientific approach which is as close to proven fact as any evolutionary theory can be. All subsequent posts were on this topic:

That knowledge that the Cardinal rejects one theory and additional knowledge that another theory is not identical to the first theory does not establish IN ITSELF that the Cardinal accepts the second theory.

It is perfectly valid to state that he does in fact accept the second theory, based on information not included in the two statements. It is completely invalid to state that this proof is found within the two statements themselves.

[kingclick]

Kingclick: It must be comforting to know what other people's intentions are, despite their own statements of what they intend. I do not have that power, not being divine. Yes, my first post on this topic used the Cardinal as an example, as his statement declared off bounds a scientific approach which is as close to proven fact as any evolutionary theory can be. All subsequent posts were on this topic:

That knowledge that the Cardinal rejects one theory and additional knowledge that another theory is not identical to the first theory does not establish IN ITSELF that the Cardinal accepts the second theory.

It is perfectly valid to state that he does in fact accept the second theory, based on information not included in the two statements. It is completely invalid to state that this proof is found within the two statements themselves.
So basically you are saying that you have been arguing with no one for how many pages? That you have been arguing a statement that no one has been supporting?

Ok.

[Jetton327]

So basically you are saying that you have been arguing with no one for how many pages? That you have been arguing a statement that no one has been supporting?

Ok.

No, I am saying that I have been arguing with you for a number of pages. Although I completely disagree with much that you say, I would not go so far as to call you "no one." The statements I have been arguing (against) came from your keyboard. It seems likely that you supported them, since you propounded them.

[kingclick]

No, I am saying that I have been arguing with you for a number of pages. Although I completely disagree with much that you say, I would not go so far as to call you "no one." The statements I have been arguing (against) came from your keyboard. It seems likely that you supported them, since you propounded them.

Sorry...I never did "propound" the arguments you suggest.

You said..."Cardinal said this, and this is what it means."
I said "You are wrong...this is what he said and THIS is what it means. Especially considering X Y and Z that we know about the Catholic church.

You are attempting to make this some sort of "logic" puzzle to detract that you were wrong in your assessment of what the cardinal said. Sorry it wont work.

No one has been arguing your point for dozens of posts.....however we HAVE been arguing YOUR statements and you seem to be very adept at ignoring those arguments.

Why not address that point of failure on your part?

You were wrong in assuming that the Cardinals statement would chill scientific thought.

[Jetton327]

Okay, I will cut to the chase. When the Cardinal denied that unguided natural selection was valid, in my opinion, right then he was acting to stifle sound scientific method. In my earliest posts on the matter, I allowed that many theologians believe he does not have the authority to speak for the Church as a whole. So: his actions do not necessarily reflect badly on the Catholic Church, but they show a hostility to the true scientific spirit on his part as a sour, opinionated, biased, irrational old man. There is nothing he could say or do now in the area of permitting some truncated, emasculated version of natural selection as permissible to his outdated views which would let him be counted among those officials of the Church who do not wish to stifle the scientific method.

Kingclick, when you said that his statements demonstrated his support for evolutionary theory - You were propounding the argument that his statements did demonstrate such support - Your belief that this was so was what I was most vehemently rejecting.

[kingclick]

Kingclick, when you said that his statements demonstrated his support for evolutionary theory - You were propounding the argument that his statements did demonstrate such support - Your belief that this was so was what I was most vehemently rejecting.

They show support for evolutionary theory WITHIN CONTEXT is what I said. Using what we know about the Catholic Church they are supportive of evolutionary theory.

And as you slowly back away from your stance I will continue to challenge you...

but they show a hostility to the true scientific spirit on his part as a sour, opinionated, biased, irrational old man.

There is NOTHING in his statement (that you posted) that supports this erroneous assumption. If you know something specifically about this man then by all means include it in this discussion.

You are reading too much into a statement...for what reason I don't know.

[Jetton327]

[QUOTE=kingclick]They show support for evolutionary theory WITHIN CONTEXT is what I said. Using what we know about the Catholic Church they are supportive of evolutionary theory.
[QUOTE]

So if I tell you that 3+4=7 on Thursdays, but it is antithetical to my beliefs that it is so on Saturdays, I have demonstrated my support for mathematics?

Evolution which is only accepted as happening under the direct administration of a supernatural entity is not evolution: It is a circuitous explanation of how God presently chooses to express his miraculous powers. It may be very satisfying theology, but it is no kind of science.

[kingclick]

They show support for evolutionary theory WITHIN CONTEXT is what I said. Using what we know about the Catholic Church they are supportive of evolutionary theory.


So if I tell you that 3+4=7 on Thursdays, but it is antithetical to my beliefs that it is so on Saturdays, I have demonstrated my support for mathematics?


Incomparible....the cardinal didn't have it only work on certain days. Rotten rotten analogy.

Evolution which is only accepted as happening under the direct administration of a supernatural entity is not evolution: It is a circuitous explanation of how God presently chooses to express his miraculous powers. It may be very satisfying theology, but it is no kind of science.

Hmmmm. "no kind of science"

Ugh....talk about grasping at straws here, you are grasping at straw.

Evolution is accepted by Catholics and it seems so this Cardinal as well. Just because one sees a CREATOR of that process, doesn't make the provable science within that belief system "no kind of science."

Face it, you are wrong about what this guy said. Just can't admit it, can you?

[Jetton327]

If I tell you evolution only works under the direct administration of God, I am rejecting natural selection entirely. Belief that although there is a first cause, now evolution proceeds along lines of pure natural selection, may have one unverifiable premise, but it doesn't reject the accepted science. Belief that God is keeping His hand in the process rejects the idea that natural selection is anything more than an illusion.

By the way, when you say that it seems this Cardinal accepts evolution, that statement contradicts many of your previous statements that it is very well known that he does.

[kingclick]

If I tell you evolution only works under the direct administration of God, I am rejecting natural selection entirely.
Well no one said administration, he said guiding hand.

Belief that although there is a first cause, now evolution proceeds along lines of pure natural selection, may have one unverifiable premise, but it doesn't reject the accepted science. Belief that God is keeping His hand in the process rejects the idea that natural selection is anything more than an illusion.

Bzzzt. Wrong answer. I guide my son's eduation but that doesn't make his education an illusion.

By the way, when you say that it seems this Cardinal accepts evolution, that statement contradicts many of your previous statements that it is very well known that he does.

I've made no statements as such. I have made statements about it is well known that CATHOLICISM accepts evolution.

[Pops In]

I have no beef with faith and belief. It's when you make books and rules out of it, when you create priests to 'interpret' the books and rules. They lead, you follow.

BTW, I think was me that first discovered the easiest way to wind-up Yanks was to say they were brainwashed. :lol:

[Jetton327]

I said "You are wrong...this is what he said and THIS is what it means.

Kingclick, you don't have to worry about me mischaracterizing your statements as long as you are around to do it so much more effectively.

[Pops In]

Where'd that Paddy go?

[kingclick]

Kingclick, you don't have to worry about me mischaracterizing your statements as long as you are around to do it so much more effectively.

Ah...personal attacks...the last bastion of the losing debater .

I will accept your unwritten but clear concession.

[Pops In]

Pardon?

[Jetton327]

Ah...personal attacks...the last bastion of the losing debater .

I will accept your unwritten but clear concession.

Kingclick, if you like personal attacks so much, I will oblige. Virtually every word you post makes the case that you are much too foolish to be allowed near a keyboard. You see attacks in every direction, which should be a cause for concern.

"I will accept your unwritten but clear concession"? You have not received any concession, so it is best not to accept one.

[kingclick]

Kingclick, if you like personal attacks so much, I will oblige. Virtually every word you post makes the case that you are much too foolish to be allowed near a keyboard. You see attacks in every direction, which should be a cause for concern.

"I will accept your unwritten but clear concession"? You have not received any concession, so it is best not to accept one.

By resorting to personal attacks you show that you have no more real answer to the debate. Therefore it is an unwritten concession.

[Jetton327]

Kingclick, if resorting to personal attacks is an unwritten concession, this debate is unnecessary: Your concession came long ago.

For myself, I am not comfortable with "unwritten concessions" being read into posts. People say whatever they say, and the words remain out there to read.

[kingclick]

Kingclick, if resorting to personal attacks is an unwritten concession, this debate is unnecessary: Your concession came long ago.

For myself, I am not comfortable with "unwritten concessions" being read into posts. People say whatever they say, and the words remain out there to read.

I've stayed on point through this whole thread and not made posts consisting of nothing but personal attacks. So no concession here....

As for not being comfortable with unwritten concessions, I would normally agree with you there, but sometimes people just wont admit that they are in error and it's blatantly obvious in how they handle themselves.

Back on point...

This is one of the reason I am Catholic.....they don't hold a literalist view of the bible yet still believe that it is infallible and God's word.

[Pops In]

Anyway, as I was probably saying, I couldn't give a shit if there is a god or not (stick a label on that), it's the fuckers that do and act on it that get on my tits!

[Archangel]

Anyway, as I was probably saying, I couldn't give a shit if there is a god or not (stick a label on that), it's the fuckers that do and act on it that get on my tits!

I'm not responding to your statement Pops, i just want to know who your arguing with here ? And just one more question, are they implants, or are your tits natural ? :howling: :howling: :howling:

[Jetton327]

This is one of the reason I am Catholic.....they don't hold a literalist view of the bible yet still believe that it is infallible and God's word.

Perhaps more as an experiment than anything else, let me see if I can ask you a straight-out question which you will not take as a personal attack:

If you believe the Bible is "infallible and God's word," how do you avoid a literalist view?

My own view is that it is not infallible and not entirely God's word, so it isn't a stretch to dismiss what doesn't make sense or seems wrong. If one starts with the assumption that error is not possible ("...it is infallible) and the text is directly inspired by God ("...and God's word), where is there room for a non-literalist reading? It would seem that nothing directly inspired by God could stem from incomplete knowledge, as He is generally credited with knowing the truth. It would seem undesirable to work on the assumption that God intentionally gave false information (lied) in inspiring the Bible, so that's probably not a productive direction in which to look. Kingclick, most of my friends from college were Catholic (it was a Jesuit-run university, so that's no surprise.), perhaps some less devout than you, but still fairly observant: Their positions on the Bible being non-literal were mostly the same as yours, and most of them probably agreed about the "infallible and God's word" aspect as well. I am not clear on the workings of such an approach, but do not rule out there being a comprehensible rationale. (I just don't happen to know what that rationale is.)

[kingclick]

The argument that I was given to support this was...the bible is a spiritual guidebook and in that respect it is infallible and God's word.

[Jetton327]

Kingclick: That is an excellent answer. On this point we may be closer than I realized.

[VENDEAN]

If, as I believe, there is a creator God who organized the universe so that the planets follow their appointed path and all creatures exist where they do in harmony, etc. That God who set all things in their place and regulates them has the right to set forth the form of his religion and surely in such a well designed and organized creation God would not set forth to have a disorganized anarchy for a religion.

If our Lord truly is King of all then if we profess faith in him we profess to a MONARCHY not to anarchy.

This is not my opinion since I am only 50 years old and not wise enough to tell God what to do. Instead I quoted a group of early Christian writers.
Pro Altare
Et
Pro Rex

[kingclick]

Kingclick: That is an excellent answer. On this point we may be closer than I realized.

I'm sure it comes no surprise to you that I used to be a literalist. But I was raised in a very fundamental church. Thankfully I have come to learn a new way of looking at the bible.

It was a hard realization to come to....but it just made much more sense.

[Wind Songs]

I'm not responding to your statement Pops, i just want to know who your arguing with here ? And just one more question, are they implants, or are your tits natural ? :howling: :howling: :howling:

Hey AA, have you ever wondered what happens to implants when our bodies are resurrected? Do they stay or do they go? :paranoid:

[mgri]

If I could, I'd like to sum up my feelings on this.

Religion is tolerable to me. Base your faith on whatever you like to believe. We'll cope with living with each other just fine.

But, if you or your "organised religion" ever tries to influence my life with those unsubstantiated beliefs in any way, be it through control over a regional schoolboard, or running in a nationwide election I will fight you tooth and nail and so will the rest of the rational thinkers in the world.

I just hope to god we win.... (joke)

Religion is part of the problem. Not part of the answer.

[Terrell]

Whatever works for you is fine with me, so long as you don't try and force me to do what works for you if I don't want to do what works for you.

[GracieMae]

Mgri, if you spam again you will be banned.