Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Shaikoten

The atheism thread somehow spawned from the pictures thread

Recommended Posts

Maes said:

They don't and they don't have to: the Catholic faith is based on the Dogma of Papal infallibility. Everything the Pope says is to be taken at face value, and disputing it is just inadmissible.

Not everything. It needs to be on a question of theology (e.g., did the Assumption of Mary happen?), and the Pope needs to say specifically that he's playing the infallibility card. Read what you link to.
"The Pope is not an oracle; he is infallible in very rare situations, as we know." -- Pope Benedict XVI, July 2005

That's a far cry from "everything the Pope says"... Unless you want a new variant on Epimenides' paradox!

Share this post


Link to post
Gez said:

That's a far cry from "everything the Pope says"... Unless you want a new variant on Epimenides' paradox!


Too bad that even in this case they change the cards on the table a-posteriori, as they see fit. The Pope "got" something right? Of course, he's infallible. The Pope didn't get something right? Well, he didn't say he was infallible at that particular time. How very convenient. Reminds me of this:

  1. The Leader is always right
  2. In case the Leader is not right, refer to rule #1.
In other words, Pauperes, penes vos sunt.

Share this post


Link to post

[Last few posts about Papal infallibility]

  1. Maes is always right
  2. In case Maes is not right, refer to rule #1.

Share this post


Link to post
myk said:

  1. Maes is always right
  2. In case Maes is not right, refer to rule #1.


Believe, and do not Enquire.

Share this post


Link to post
Maes said:

Too bad that even in this case they change the cards on the table a-posteriori, as they see fit. The Pope "got" something right? Of course, he's infallible. The Pope didn't get something right? Well, he didn't say he was infallible at that particular time. How very convenient.

It seems you'll never read what you linked to, so allow me to quote:

According to the teaching of the First Vatican Council and Catholic tradition, the conditions required for ex cathedra teaching are as follows:

1. "the Roman Pontiff"
2. "speaking ex cathedra" ("that is, when in the discharge of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, and by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority….")
3. "defines"
4. "that a doctrine concerning faith or morals"
5. "must be held by the whole Church" (Pastor Aeternus, chap. 4)

For a teaching by a pope or ecumenical council to be recognized as infallible, the teaching must make it clear that the Church is to consider it definitive and binding. There is not any specific phrasing required for this, but it is usually indicated by one or both of the following:

* a verbal formula indicating that this teaching is definitive (such as "We declare, decree and define..."), or
* an accompanying anathema stating that anyone who deliberately dissents is outside the Catholic Church. For example, in 1950, with Munificentissimus Deus, Pope Pius XII's infallible definition regarding the Assumption of Mary, there are attached these words:

Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which We have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith.


Changing the cards a posteriori? Not possible, since for a saying to be infallible it must be clearly and non-ambiguously said to be infallible at the moment of the speech. That's the first point where you're wrong.
The Pope cannot "get" something right or wrong since it can only work on a doctrine, something which cannot ever be found right or wrong. Second and third point where you're wrong.
The Pope doesn't need to invoke papal infallibility to be right; infallibility is not automatically invoked whenever he's correct. That's the fourth point where you're wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
jute said:

For what it's worth, every Catholic I have ever known (several, many of whom did not know one another) has believed in the literal truth of transubstantiation.

That could be at least in part because such belief is required. In Catholicism you don't get to have your own opinions. "Heretical" beliefs get you excommunicated.

Share this post


Link to post
Gez said:

Changing the cards a posteriori? Not possible, since for a saying to be infallible it must be clearly and non-ambiguously said to be infallible at the moment of the speech.


Since the Catholic Church is the one and only arbitrer of itself (aka, it plays by its own rules), it's undecidable whether it's right or wrong. The "card changing" is usually done in a subtle manner (subtler than e.g. Soviet or 1984-like censorship, or Berlusconi's Chewbacca-like manipulation) and usually just with careful choices of word. I can't be wrong either, since I just recalled their own dogmas. I am as "wrong" as they, no more, no less.

And Papal infallibility or not, I've never seen an instance where they admitted to being wrong. At most they admit to having hurt others or being too harsh in the past, but never wrong. Examples of that include Galileo's condemnation and the 1204 Crusade against Constantinople, as well as supporting the WW 2 Croatian Ustashi fascist regime.

Pauperes, penes vos sunt.

Share this post


Link to post
fraggle said:

(video)

Wat. I had some guy try to convert me to Islam over ICQ years back and he was talking about how the Koran accurately described the diameter of the Earth and said how it was round. He claimed that having this kind of information in such an old text was proof it was written by God or something, though I'm pretty sure the Greeks figured this stuff out long before that.

Share this post


Link to post

Atheism is a system, and as such traps you into its way of thinking just like any religion does. Jiddu Krishnamurti has a lot of interesting thoughts about such systems and their effects on the mind in his book "Freedom from the Known".

Personally I don't believe in atheism or any religion whatsoever. They're all poison for the mind and detract from simply existing and experiencing life.

Share this post


Link to post
hex11 said:

Atheism is a system, and as such traps you into its way of thinking just like any religion does. Jiddu Krishnamurti has a lot of interesting thoughts about such systems and their effects on the mind in his book "Freedom from the Known".

Personally I don't believe in atheism or any religion whatsoever. They're all poison for the mind and detract from simply existing and experiencing life.

Get the fuck out of here.

Share this post


Link to post
Eponasoft said:

Everything can be explained by science...eventually.


Not necessarily. What we are experiencing as reality might only be a small subset, and if that's the case it's impossible to test theories about the realms beyond.

There is also the matter of limited time before some natural disaster takes us out, or we do ourselves in. Even if some survive, much knowledge may be lost.

Share this post


Link to post

Maes said:
Since the Catholic Church is the one and only arbitrer of itself (aka, it plays by its own rules), it's undecidable whether it's right or wrong.

What external force is it supposed to be accountable to? Consider this is a religious institution, which lasts more than nations. Are you expecting Popes to pass judgment on their peers? Wouldn't that be God's role?

The "card changing" is usually done in a subtle manner (subtler than e.g. Soviet or 1984-like censorship, or Berlusconi's Chewbacca-like manipulation) and usually just with careful choices of word.

An what is your point, actually putting them to saintly standards? I'll accept that if you're some sort of religious believer that has been disappointed by Catholicism.

I can't be wrong either, since I just recalled their own dogmas. I am as "wrong" as they, no more, no less.

I had to post that above because I'm quite amused by irony. You were (and are) doing exactly what you said Popes do. After we noted Papal infallibility can't be used against them in such a trivial way ("all Catholics always do what the Popes say and the Popes are never wrong") you changed your discourse a bit to try to justify your position and ignored the weakness of your point.

hex11 said:
Atheism is a system

Your mom is a system. At least more so than atheism...

If you're going to refer to it as a specific system, you will have to justify your belief in concrete terms. Atheism is a term that indicates an absence or rejection of a god. There are many different groups, institutions, actions, individual expressions and ways in which things that may be called "atheist" or "atheism" can manifest. And, supposing God "does not exist," would it be both a system and the facts?

Atheism often means things like lack of religious practice or caring for religion, but can also mean more things; some religions are atheistic, for example. It doesn't need a unifying factor other than such a basic idea. You could say any term creates a system of meaning around it, but the things it associates are often pretty different from each other, even referring to different acceptations of the same term and hardly related past the term itself. Are Buddhism and a society of skeptics challenging the creationist movement part of a single and same system, for example?

Share this post


Link to post

In what sense is atheism a "system"? What does "system" even mean in this context?

It's certainly not a "system" in the way that religions are: there's no kind of organised structure, no holy books, no kind of dogmatic belief. Sure, there are prominent atheists like Richard Dawkins, but it's not like they invented the idea or are controlling/leading people.

So really, what do you mean by "system" exactly? How does it "trap you into its way of thinking"?

Share this post


Link to post
Danarchy said:

Really? Well she believes in evolution, is against polygamy, plays D&D, and is tolerant of other people's beliefs, so she's not all that crazy. Also, we've dated before, so I guess she isn't too against outspoken atheists like me. :P


I've never met anyone who was 100% rational or consistent in all things. Not even scientists. Hell, especially not scientists. Many of them have far too much energy and time invested into their research to allow themselves that luxury. The mind plays tricks like that...

Share this post


Link to post
fraggle said:

In what sense is atheism a "system"? What does "system" even mean in this context?

It's certainly not a "system" in the way that religions are: there's no kind of organised structure, no holy books, no kind of dogmatic belief. Sure, there are prominent atheists like Richard Dawkins, but it's not like they invented the idea or are controlling/leading people.

So really, what do you mean by "system" exactly? How does it "trap you into its way of thinking"?


I'm using the first definition of atheism: "The disbelief or denial of the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Being.", or alternately "the doctrine or belief that there is no God [syn: {godlessness}][ant: {theism}]", both of which come from the handy dict server at dict.org. :)

I have seen atheism also defined as "the lack of belief", but that sounds a lot more like agnosticism to me. Anyway, now you know where I'm coming from.

Atheism is necessarily a system of belief, because the nature of deities is intangible and outside of this realm of existence. I'm not talking about the flesh and blood avatar instance, but rather the unearthly and timeless being.

Atheism (given by this definition) is a trap precisely because it reaches a conclusion without sufficient data to warrant that conclusion. It is an all too easy answer to a question that may never be solved, and the mind is always looking for closure, even in the form on an irrational belief.

Share this post


Link to post

Arussellsteapotism (given by this definition) is a trap precisely because it reaches a conclusion without sufficient data to warrant that conclusion. It is an all too easy answer to a question that may never be solved, and the mind is always looking for closure, even in the form on an irrational belief.

Share this post


Link to post

fraggle said:
It's certainly not a "system" in the way that religions are:

If atheism is the lack of religion plus a few other things, then it's naturally more vague, less definable under certain characteristics in the way a system would be, than religion.

Sure, there are prominent atheists like Richard Dawkins,

More importantly, many just share the fact they "have no God" but otherwise don't share characteristics, ideologies or interests.

but it's not like they invented the idea

Not sure why that matters... what is it to "invent an idea"?

or are controlling/leading people.

I think you're using some kind of stereotype there. People known as atheists are capable of this, as are others. Most atheist aren't intending to create a religion or a set of dogmas, but equating that to "control or lead people" is another matter. Religion doesn't necessarily make you be controlled by someone or grant you leadership. Dawkins himself is something of an activist, and might be doing that more of that than quite a few religious figures.

How does it "trap you into its way of thinking"?

In that part (citing that Indian writer that is something of a religious anarchist) hex11 seemed to be referring to the acquisition of knowledge and its effects, which is not necessarily an attribute of atheism. By doing that he's associating "atheism" with opposing scientific finds to giving importance to gods, but that isn't the only reason to reject or ignore gods, nor does that practice make much of a system. One can certainly be wary of the dangers of knowledge and yet be uninterested in gods.

hex11 said:
Atheism is necessarily a system of belief, because the nature of deities is intangible and outside of this realm of existence. I'm not talking about the flesh and blood avatar instance, but rather the unearthly and timeless being.

Your conclusion is based on a notion of deities which isn't even universal, and you're arbitrarily saying the notion can't be rejected or treated as irrelevant without becoming part of some sort of system to do so. It's just a concept. Atheism is primarily a position in regard to what people say and think, to notions, not to the intangible. Hence one says "God is holy," another "perhaps there is a God" and yet another "no idea whether there is a God, and I have little reason to feel or think there is, but it sure looks like the notions of God I've encountered are bullshit".

Share this post


Link to post
myk said:

What external force is it supposed to be accountable to?


None, isn't that obvious? They just play basketball with a sealed hoop, just as I do.

myk said:

An what is your point, actually putting them to saintly standards? I'll accept that if you're some sort of religious believer that has been disappointed by Catholicism.


The point is that they can always have it their way, in one way or another, even if that entails "playing basketball with a sealed hoop". If you understand how strongly they believe and stick to this doctrine, you'll understand how they can have their way, too. And how the actual strength of a point is not of a primary importance here. You can't harm an "opponent" that does not acknowledge defeat. Even more properly, he doesn't even define the concept of defeat. This is (also) the Catholic Church. And no, I'm no believer, actually I hold believers of any religion in contempt, especially if believing in a particular doctrine involves double standards and doublethinking.

Share this post


Link to post

Maes said:
If you understand how strongly they believe and stick to this doctrine

As strongly as you insist on a broken point, I gather.

Even more properly, he doesn't even define the concept of defeat.

What are they, martyrs? But seriously, why should anyone predefine defeat? Unless you're talking about yourself here. It's like you're annoyed that there isn't some simple set of standards by which to judge them. (Which is kind of what you found out during the discussion.)

And no, I'm no believer, actually I hold believers of any religion in contempt, especially if believing in a particular doctrine involves double standards and doublethinking.

Yeah, I noticed your holier-than-thou attitude. You can do better, I'm sure.

Share this post


Link to post
hex11 said:

I'm using the first definition of atheism: "The disbelief or denial of the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Being.", or alternately "the doctrine or belief that there is no God [syn: {godlessness}][ant: {theism}]", both of which come from the handy dict server at dict.org. :)


This is a false representation of the word atheist, simply because it suggest that the person who is an atheist "knows" that God exist, just doesn't want to accept it.

The proper definition would be (as I've already stated earlier in this thread, but I know you didn't read it since you're just trolling anyway):
• Atheist (n.): one without a belief in, or one who lacks belief in, the existence of god or gods.

That is ALL that atheist means. If you don't believe in a god or gods, you are an atheist. Apart from deciding for yourself whether you believe or not, you don't really have a say in it. Atheism isn't an ideology. It's simply a definition of a state.

Share this post


Link to post
hex11 said:

Not necessarily. What we are experiencing as reality might only be a small subset, and if that's the case it's impossible to test theories about the realms beyond.

There is also the matter of limited time before some natural disaster takes us out, or we do ourselves in. Even if some survive, much knowledge may be lost.

"Realms beyond" is the talk of religious fruitcakes. And it matters not if humanity survives to explain "everything"...the fact remains is that everything in this universe can be explained...whether we can explain it yet or not. We simply lack the current technology and previous understanding to understand that which is not yet understood. Understand?

Share this post


Link to post
hex11 said:

Atheism (given by this definition) is a trap precisely because it reaches a conclusion without sufficient data to warrant that conclusion. It is an all too easy answer to a question that may never be solved, and the mind is always looking for closure, even in the form on an irrational belief.

There is one major problem with this post. Atheism isn't necessarily reaching a conclusion. If someone says "I believe there is no god," they would comfortably be defined as an atheist (I'm sure you can agree with this) even though they haven't actually concluded anything. If someone else says "I'm convinced there is no god" then they have reached a conclusion. Both people are atheists. Therefore, it's inaccurate to say that atheism reaches a conclusion without sufficient data because many atheists have reached no such conclusion. You should therefore be able to accept that there are two types of atheism: One that is a "trap" by your definition and one that isn't.

Also, I should point out that there can be and is proof for the non-existence of certain deities, specifically those that are defined to exist under impossible scenarios. I'm sure that one could easily come up with a handful of descriptions of the Christian god that are in self contradiction. Since a contradiction in terms is all that's really needed to prove the nonexistence of something, it's definitely possible to disprove certain gods. I do, however, agree that it's impossible to prove that there is no god.

Share this post


Link to post
Eponasoft said:

everything in this universe can be explained...whether we can explain it yet or not

Prove it.

Share this post


Link to post
myk said:

As strongly as you insist on a broken point, I gather.

myk said:

It's like you're annoyed that there isn't some simple set of standards by which to judge them. (Which is kind of what you found out during the discussion.)


Growing up in an predominantly Orthodox country where religion is an obligatory schoolcourse leaves certain (perhaps wrong) preconceptions forever imprinted, even to non-believers.

Simply put, our history and religion books draw the Pope and Catholic Church as wrongdoers and manifestations of evil and extremism with particular references to the Inquisition, the Crusades and the forced conversions of conquered people throughout the centuries. In comparison, the Orthodox Church appears much more tame, almost nonexistent. Perhaps they softened up a bit now, but that's what the books were still saying 10 years ago, when I finished high school.

So quite on the contrary, I have a set of simple absolute values to judge and compare them. I can understand that these views must appear unacceptable to any Catholic or someone merely brought up in a Catholic country (as you probably are, myk, being Argentinian) and probably others. Anyway, proceeding this branch of the discussion is like asking the average Catholic to watch a Monty Python film (particularly the Meaning of Life): it won't end up well.

Share this post


Link to post
exp(x) said:

Prove it.

Given a particular object in the universe: it exists, it is then discovered, then studied, then explained. Continue this trend for every known object in the universe.

Share this post


Link to post

Eponasoft said:
the fact remains is that everything in this universe can be explained...whether we can explain it yet or not.

Actually, it's "how we will explain it" that is up in the air. You can enhance the efficiency of explanations in many ways, yet they're still relative.

We simply lack the current technology and previous understanding to understand that which is not yet understood.

Technology harbors a perspective. Technology can be seen more clearly as a form of power of transformation, than an enabler of classic "understanding." Advanced technology, with its broader view of things, has even given us a degree of skepticism in regard to knowledge, where perhaps our ancestors at one point or another had more hopes that they would discover secrets or solutions.

Maes said:
So quite on the contrary, I have a set of simple absolute values to judge and compare them.

Yeah, I was probably being a bit pushy. I was mostly interested in seeing if you were willing to question your own perceptions (which may not necessarily become evident in this thread now anyway, even if so).

I can understand that these views must appear unacceptable to any Catholic or someone merely brought up in a Catholic country (as you probably are, myk, being Argentinian) and probably others.

I'm not sure if unacceptable... after all, I'm not a Catholic myself. Some uncles, aunts and cousins are, but not me, and I went to a Catholic School for only a short period (like 2 years.) Nonetheless, being near Catholics a lot, some critiques on them can end up insufficient, distant or inaccurate in one way or another, to me.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×