On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 4:39 PM, Simon Ewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> The only Christians who try to reason their beliefs are those who lack
>>> enough trust in their faith. Faith requires no reason.
>> Or alternatively, its simple enough to note that as a generalization
>> humanistic reason is not adequate nor competent as epistemological
>> first principles.
> Its all you have.
Actually, one who argues from humanistic premises does not have an
objective basis with which to object to any competing belief! What a
poor epistemology. :)
> Actually, one who argues from humanistic premises does not have an
> objective basis with which to object to any competing belief! What a
> poor epistemology. :)
And again you use human reasoning to formulate an idea and write it out.
Every argument you try to make here is the product of your human reasoning. You have no other. You have only you humanity to measure what you believe to be true and to formulate it as you do.
Every time you use your humanity to type an idea or a thought here you disprove your favourite axiom. You are the disproof of your own assertions.
-- "However many holy words you read, however many you speak,
what good will they do you if you do not act on upon them?"
[Buddha]
> > That is what they believe, who don't distinguish between the rational
> > preambles to faith, and the faith.
> Faith and 'the faith' do not address the same thing.
> > "Faith and reason" writes Pope John Paul the II in http://tr.im/E4A5 > > ... "are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the
> > contemplation of truth".
> Then the Pope disagrees with Hebrews, which is mildly surprising. Hebrews makes it very clear that faith is to be considered a type of evidence. The evidence of hope. That should be enough, but Christians don't seem to really be able to accept faith alone so they go to great lengths to convince themselves by engaging in futile reasoning with non-believers. This is to no avail as the number of Christians is dropping.
> > For example, that God exists is not an article of faith for those who
> > can follow the purely rational demonstrations.
> Yes it is. There are no purely rational demonstrations of gods existing. If there were then there would be no atheists.
Can't speak about the gods, Simon. But with regards to The God, a
billion Catholics beg to differ. Did you know the Church teaches, as a
matter of infallible dogma, that God's existence can be known with
certainty by reason, with no appeal to faith? Here it is in the
Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 296:
286 Human intelligence is surely already capable of finding a response
to the question of origins. The existence of God the Creator can be
known with certainty through his works, by the light of human reason,
even if this knowledge is often obscured and disfigured by error. This
is why faith comes to confirm and enlighten reason in the correct
understanding of this truth: "By faith we understand that the world
was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was made out of
things which do not appear."
Simon, from the fact that God's existence can be known by light of
human reason, it does not follow there would be no atheists.
Clearly most people don't put in the intellectual effort required to
understand the many solid proofs. I know I did not really study the
classic proofs until well into midlife. Perhaps they get discouraged
by all those atheists and fideists spreading their central dogma that
there are no "solid rational demonstrations" that God exists ;-).
> > In fact, here are five
> > things no educated Catholic believes on faith alone, from Ronald
> > Knox's _the belief of Catholics_ at http://tr.im/E4J1 > > (i.) The existence of God.
> Must be faith alone. There is no solid rational argument for the existence of gods. The existence of atheists and thousands of individual theistic sects and outright religions is eloquent proof. Further Christians endlessly tell non-Christians that one cannot use the Bible to understand God unless one 'opens their hearts' and believes in God first. Eloquent demonstration of the need to abandon reason in favour of faith, so they cannot be the same thing.
> > (ii.) The fact that he has made a revelation to the world in Jesus
> > Christ.
> Again, if it were a fact there would be 6,000,000,000 Christians instead of only 33% (and dropping), 19% Muslims (and growing). This is eloquent proof that a god has not revealed himself to the world through Jesus or in any other way. People are generally not ignorant of facts and such a revelation to 6,000,000,000 people would result in way more than a paltry 1/3.
> > (iii.) The Life (in its broad outlines), the Death, and the
> > Resurrection of
> > Jesus Christ.
> Again, if it were a fact there would be 6,000,000,000 Christians instead of only 33% (and dropping), 19% Muslims (and growing). This is eloquent proof that a god has not revealed himself to the world through Jesus or in any other way. People are generally not ignorant of facts and such a revelation to 6,000,000,000 people would result in way more than a paltry 1/3.
> > (iv.) The fact that our Lord founded a Church.
> Again, if it were a fact there would be 6,000,000,000 Christians instead of only 33% (and dropping), 19% Muslims (and growing). This is eloquent proof that a god has not revealed himself to the world through Jesus or in any other way. People are generally not ignorant of facts and such a revelation to 6,000,000,000 people would result in way more than a paltry 1/3.
> > (v.) The fact that he bequeathed to that Church his own teaching
> > office,
> > with the guarantee (naturally) that it should not err in teaching.
> Again, if it were a fact there would be 6,000,000,000 Christians instead of (as of 2000) only 33% (and dropping), 19% Muslims (and growing). This is eloquent proof that a god has not revealed himself to the world through Jesus or in any other way. People are generally not ignorant of facts and such a revelation to 6,000,000,000 people would result in way more than a paltry 1/3.
> > (vi.) The consequent intellectual duty of believing what the Church
> > believes.
> Not very convincing at all. One cannot be intellectually honest and believe that which is not intellectually supportable.
On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 4:54 PM, Simon Ewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [Brock Organ]
>> Actually, one who argues from humanistic premises does not have an
>> objective basis with which to object to any competing belief! What a
>> poor epistemology. :)
> And again you use human reasoning to formulate an idea and write it out.
I don't articulate a humanistic position, in fact, I make clear the contrast:
Humankind is not the measure of all things.
> Every argument you try to make here is the product of your human reasoning.
Rather, the objective truth of reality is not limited or bound by
humanistic reasoning.
> You have no other. You have only you humanity to measure what you believe to
> be true and to formulate it as you do.
Rather, the objective nature of reality is independent of my
measurement of it. :)
> Every time you use your humanity to type an idea or a thought here you
> disprove your favourite axiom. You are the disproof of your own assertions.
That's not an accurate characterization. If Archimedes understood the
truth of the principle that bears his name[1], its truth preceded his
knowledge of it.
> Can't speak about the gods, Simon. But with regards to The God, a
> billion Catholics beg to differ. Did you know the Church teaches, as a
> matter of infallible dogma, that God's existence can be known with
> certainty by reason, with no appeal to faith? Here it is in the
> Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 296:
Two billion Catholics would make no difference.
> 286 Human intelligence is surely already capable of finding a response
> to the question of origins. The existence of God the Creator can be
> known with certainty through his works,
It cannot be reasoned that they are "his" works. Again you have to assume there is a "his" before examining the works. Examining the works without assuming "his" first will not lead inescapably to God. Hence it cannot be reasoned.
> by the light of human reason,
Impossible. Reason cannot and has not ever found God. If it had there would only be one religion and no atheists.
> even if this knowledge is often obscured and disfigured by error.
If it were clear there would only be one god that is believed in and none would disbelieve. Faith is the answer, not reason.
> This
> is why faith comes to confirm and enlighten reason in the correct
> understanding of this truth:
Incorrect. Faith substitutes for reason.
> "By faith we understand that the world
> was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was made out of
> things which do not appear."
That is closer to the truth. As I have been saying, it is by faith that you come to find God, not reason. The closing of '286' falls back to faith. It starts with reason but eventually summarizes belief as an act of faith.
"By faith we understand..." - my point exactly.
> Simon, from the fact that God's existence can be known by light of
> human reason, it does not follow there would be no atheists.
It sure does. If God rearranged the stars to spell GOD do you think there would be anyone who would disbelieve? Of course not. So an obvious fact that demonstrated a god (and only a god) would be an act of reason that would be accepted by all, how could they not? The FACT that there is no indisputable fact that a god exists is why there are those who do not accept that one exists. Hence, faith.
> Clearly most people don't put in the intellectual effort required to
> understand the many solid proofs.
There are none. There is not a single proof that leads inescapably to your god or any others. If there were all would believe it as surely as all believe in trees.
> I know I did not really study the
> classic proofs until well into midlife. Perhaps they get discouraged
> by all those atheists and fideists spreading their central dogma that
> there are no "solid rational demonstrations" that God exists ;-).
There aren't any. Ultimately it is simply a question of choosing to believe on faith. Once you have faith then all the proofs will work for you. But that is simply because they lead where your faith has already taken you which is where you want to be.
Why are you so ashamed of your faith?
-- "However many holy words you read, however many you speak,
what good will they do you if you do not act on upon them?"
[Buddha]
Perhaps not, but you use it to articulate its opposite which immediately proves that you are wrong.
> in fact, I make clear the contrast:
> Humankind is not the measure of all things.
And yet again you use your humanity to measure and weigh your ideas and beliefs and form that statement. Writing that statement always proves it to be false because you must use what you disclaim in order to write it.
>> Every argument you try to make here is the product of your human reasoning.
> Rather, the objective truth of reality is not limited or bound by
> humanistic reasoning.
But your reality is, and so is that sentence. Again you measure your reality using human measurement and negate your own argument.
>> You have no other. You have only you humanity to measure what you believe to
>> be true and to formulate it as you do.
> Rather, the objective nature of reality is independent of my
> measurement of it.
But all you can perceive is your measure of it. Reality is completely beyond the grasp of anyone. The actual nature of reality is unknown. So you use your humanity to frame it as you measure it. Again, constructing your hypothesis immediately disproves it.
> That's not an accurate characterization. If Archimedes understood the
> truth of the principle that bears his name[1], its truth preceded his
> knowledge of it.
There you go again measuring with your humanity. You simply cannot measure any other way. Your humanity is the measure of all things. There is no choice.
-- "However many holy words you read, however many you speak,
what good will they do you if you do not act on upon them?"
[Buddha]
Only a very silly person would claim that all decisions in life can be
made based on repeatable experience and solid deductive reasoning.
This is why intuition and faith cannot be dispensed with by anyone if
they're honest about it. There is only a conflict between faith and
reason among certain groups and individuals who deny reason based on
faith.
The indispensibility of intuition is the reason that pluralistic
democracy is the most viable political system. There is no mechanism
for clearly determining whose intuition is more accurate (so long as
it does not deny reason). So the somewhat arbitrary method of free
debate and voting seems the least bad mechanism to use.
The fantasy that intuition can be dispensed with is why the high
ideals of Communism came to produce such horrors. Communists thought
that Marx's Theory of Class Struggle made Sociology as hard a Science
as Physics, so they saw no need for pluralism to resolve political
issues.
On Nov 3, 6:33 pm, Simon Ewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 4, 3:54 pm, Simon Ewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [Brock Organ]
> > Actually, one who argues from humanistic premises does not have an
> > objective basis with which to object to any competing belief! What a
> > poor epistemology. :)
> And again you use human reasoning to formulate an idea and write it out.
No, the truth of the Bible is axiomatic for Brock. We do not derive
our axioms from reason, they are the starting point of reason. Reason
can only invalidate axioms by showing self-contradiction. Brock
claims (to the extent I can cut through all his obfuscation) that
Empiricism leads to self-contradiction. To non-fundamentalist-
Christians, the Bible seems to lead to many logical self-
contradictions.
> Every argument you try to make here is the product of your human reasoning. You have no other. You have only you humanity to measure what you believe to be true and to formulate it as you do.
> Every time you use your humanity to type an idea or a thought here you disprove your favourite axiom. You are the disproof of your own assertions.
> --
> "However many holy words you read, however many you speak,
> what good will they do you if you do not act on upon them?"
> [Buddha]
On Nov 3, 3:33 pm, Simon Ewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The only Christians who try to reason their beliefs are those who lack enough trust in their faith. Faith requires no reason. Faith is enough.
> When Christians lack enough faith to maintain their beliefs they resort to reason, not to convince others, but to convince themselves.
Faith has nothing to do with reason. Reason builds from certain
scientific evidence, whereas faith is based on sentiment and feeling.
Faith and reason are not the same, but Catholics believe that both our
faith and our ability to reason are gifts from God. Both faith and
reason are given to us so that we can know the truth about reality.
Since truth cannot contradict truth, so also faith cannot contradict
reason and vice versa. The Holy Father, in his encyclical Fides et
Ratio (Faith and Reason), calls faith and reason two wings on which
the human spirit rises to God. Far from being based on feeling and
sentiment, faith is reasonable and sure.
There are two distinctions obscured by the above philosophical error.
First, there is a distinction between what is reasonable in itself and
what is reasonable to us. Those things we know by faith—such as that
God is a Trinity or that Jesus has a divine and a human nature—we know
to be reasonable in themselves or reasonable in principle, because we
know them by the authority of God, who reveals these things to us. The
knowledge of God is a much surer foundation on which to build than on
the conclusions of mere human reason. Some things, such as the above
mysteries of the faith, are not reasonable to us right now because we
do not fully understand them. We cannot say for sure, though, that
they are not reasonable, because they are matters that surpass our
competence. We know them to be reasonable on the basis of God’s
authority through the instrument of his instruction, the Church.
Second, there are distinctions between types of knowledge. For
instance, there is knowledge from mathematics, from natural science,
from metaphysics, and from the data of revelation. The proponents of
this philosophical error want to admit only the first two types of
knowledge and sometimes only the first. Such selectivity is arbitrary
and self-defeating, since it is impossible to justify merely on the
basis of mathematics or natural science why mathematic or scientific
knowledge are the only admissible types of knowledge.
Faith has its reasons. Most believers will say that faith makes sense
based on their experiences. Sophisticated believers will say that the
findings of philosophy, science, and mathematics all point to the
reasonableness of faith. While it is true that it is impossible for us
to provide a geometric proof for the Trinity of God or to use
scientific methodology to verify that Christ has two natures, there is
no reason for us to limit ourselves to these means.
> Only a very silly person would claim that all decisions in life can be
> made based on repeatable experience and solid deductive reasoning.
Couldn't agree more, except I would use stronger language than 'silly'.
> This is why intuition and faith cannot be dispensed with by anyone if
> they're honest about it.
Agreed again.
> There is only a conflict between faith and
> reason among certain groups and individuals who deny reason based on
> faith.
There I again agree. Reason can, indeed incorporate faith. I think this creates serious validation issues but it can and does happen. Faith is a powerful motivator in thought processes but its primary drawback, and why it should be used sparingly and carefully, is that it always incorporates desire. It is a sad fact of this universe that our desires have little to do with truth other than it can be said that it is true that I desire X.
> The indispensibility of intuition is the reason that pluralistic
> democracy is the most viable political system. There is no mechanism
> for clearly determining whose intuition is more accurate (so long as
> it does not deny reason). So the somewhat arbitrary method of free
> debate and voting seems the least bad mechanism to use.
> The fantasy that intuition can be dispensed with is why the high
> ideals of Communism came to produce such horrors. Communists thought
> that Marx's Theory of Class Struggle made Sociology as hard a Science
> as Physics, so they saw no need for pluralism to resolve political
> issues.
> On Nov 3, 6:33 pm, Simon Ewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The only Christians who try to reason their beliefs are those who lack enough trust in their faith. Faith requires no reason. Faith is enough.
>> When Christians lack enough faith to maintain their beliefs they resort to reason, not to convince others, but to convince themselves.
>> --
>> "However many holy words you read, however many you speak,
>> what good will they do you if you do not act on upon them?"
>> [Buddha]
>> Virtual Gods:http://users3.jabry.com/sjewins/library/__philorelig.htm > --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
> To post to this group, send email to
> atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.
-- "However many holy words you read, however many you speak,
what good will they do you if you do not act on upon them?"
[Buddha]
> On Nov 4, 3:54 pm, Simon Ewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> [Brock Organ]
>> > Actually, one who argues from humanistic premises does not have an
>> > objective basis with which to object to any competing belief! What a
>> > poor epistemology. :)
>> And again you use human reasoning to formulate an idea and write it out.
> No, the truth of the Bible is axiomatic for Brock. We do not derive
> our axioms from reason, they are the starting point of reason.
You formulate the concept of accepting the truth of an axiom using reason.
Reason is the process by which one reads, hears, listens, understand and accepts.
So, sorry, reason is used, extensively. What is more it is the only way to measure whether you accept an axiom as true or not.
Your sentence above incorporate a massive amount of reasoning.
> Reason
> can only invalidate axioms by showing self-contradiction.
Besides the point. The point is that even to accept an axiom as true requires the use of reason.
Reading the above requires the use of reason.
-- "However many holy words you read, however many you speak,
what good will they do you if you do not act on upon them?"
[Buddha]
> On Nov 3, 3:33 pm, Simon Ewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The only Christians who try to reason their beliefs are those who lack enough trust in their faith. Faith requires no reason. Faith is enough.
>> When Christians lack enough faith to maintain their beliefs they resort to reason, not to convince others, but to convince themselves.
[Brother Aquinas]
> Faith has nothing to do with reason. Reason builds from certain
> scientific evidence, whereas faith is based on sentiment and feeling.
That is what I have been saying, so yes. Faith incorporates feelings, emotions, sentiments and more importantly, desire.
> Faith and reason are not the same, but Catholics believe that both our
> faith and our ability to reason are gifts from God. Both faith and
> reason are given to us so that we can know the truth about reality.
Which is, of course, impossible since all anyone can ever see or understand of reality is only that which they are able to successfully share with others. The actual underlaying fabric or substance of reality is not available to any of us.
> Since truth cannot contradict truth, so also faith cannot contradict
> reason and vice versa.
Well, we seemed to agree up until now. Faith certainly can, and regularly does, contradict reason. What we desire to be so is rarely so. For example, a woman who is abused typically takes 7 episodes of violence before she will finally lose faith in her husband. Her belief on the previous 6 leading to her returning to him is based upon the faith that she has that he will change. This faith is risen from the desire that such will be true. The truth is that he will not change, the faith is that he will. Faith is an indicator of our desires and feelings. We never have faith that something bad will happen, do we?
> The Holy Father, in his encyclical Fides et
> Ratio (Faith and Reason), calls faith and reason two wings on which
> the human spirit rises to God. Far from being based on feeling and
> sentiment, faith is reasonable and sure.
I am aware of that and the chap is wrong. Faith incorporates desire and can lead that accepting individual's 'spirit' to rise to God. Faith can do that alone. Reason cannot. Reasoning that incorporates faith can but not pure reason.
> There are two distinctions obscured by the above philosophical error.
> First, there is a distinction between what is reasonable in itself and
> what is reasonable to us. Those things we know by faith?such as that
> God is a Trinity or that Jesus has a divine and a human nature?we know
> to be reasonable in themselves or reasonable in principle, because we
> know them by the authority of God, who reveals these things to us.
You do not know those things you believe them. That belief is based upon faith. That is fine, I have no problem with that at all. I just wonder why so many believers are ashamed of it. They try to validate their faith using reason which cannot be done.
At some point one makes make a 'leap of faith' in order to overcome an obstacle raised by reason. Fine, again.
In reasoning one does not say that you need to make 'a leap of reason' or 'a leap of knowledge' because reason and knowledge do not leap, they move in tiny steps, slowly accumulating minute truths that eventually reveal the whole. Faith does not work that way at all.
> The
> knowledge of God is a much surer foundation on which to build than on
> the conclusions of mere human reason.
See? There you are relying on reason to determine that reason is inadequate. You could not have formulated that idea and turned it into a sentence and typed it on your keyboard with using a massive amount of reasoning. Even accept the truth of it at some point involved asking "Is this true or not?" and then deciding yes or no, which is reasoning.
So it is nonsensical to use reason to support the idea that reason i inadequate to use as a foundation.
> Some things, such as the above
> mysteries of the faith, are not reasonable to us right now because we
> do not fully understand them. We cannot say for sure, though, that
> they are not reasonable, because they are matters that surpass our
> competence. We know them to be reasonable on the basis of God?s
> authority through the instrument of his instruction, the Church.
Again, an awful lot of reasoning in that paragraph and yet in the prior one you state that reason is inadequate.
> Second, there are distinctions between types of knowledge. For
> instance, there is knowledge from mathematics, from natural science,
> from metaphysics, and from the data of revelation. The proponents of
> this philosophical error want to admit only the first two types of
> knowledge and sometimes only the first. Such selectivity is arbitrary
> and self-defeating, since it is impossible to justify merely on the
> basis of mathematics or natural science why mathematic or scientific
> knowledge are the only admissible types of knowledge.
There you go using reason again.
> Faith has its reasons. Most believers will say that faith makes sense
> based on their experiences. Sophisticated believers will say that the
> findings of philosophy, science, and mathematics all point to the
> reasonableness of faith. While it is true that it is impossible for us
> to provide a geometric proof for the Trinity of God or to use
> scientific methodology to verify that Christ has two natures, there is
> no reason for us to limit ourselves to these means.
Again more reasoning.
It seems to me that you use too much reasoning. Just accept that it is faith that sustains and strengthens you beliefs and leave it at that. Don't be ashamed of your faith and do not try to use reason to support it because in the end reasoning is inadequate to the task.
-- "However many holy words you read, however many you speak,
what good will they do you if you do not act on upon them?"
[Buddha]
On Nov 5, 1:00 pm, Simon Ewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 4, 3:54 pm, Simon Ewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> [Brock Organ]
> >> > Actually, one who argues from humanistic premises does not have an
> >> > objective basis with which to object to any competing belief! What a
> >> > poor epistemology. :)
> >> And again you use human reasoning to formulate an idea and write it out.
> > No, the truth of the Bible is axiomatic for Brock. We do not derive
> > our axioms from reason, they are the starting point of reason.
> You formulate the concept of accepting the truth of an axiom using reason.
> Reason is the process by which one reads, hears, listens, understand and accepts.
If you equate reason with understanding and accepting, I doubt you
really have an argument with Brock on that point. Brock says he
understands the Bible, which is more than most people could say.
I think the word reason is more typically used to mean logical
analysis.
> On Nov 5, 1:00 pm, Simon Ewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Nov 4, 3:54 pm, Simon Ewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> [Brock Organ]
>> >> > Actually, one who argues from humanistic premises does not have an
>> >> > objective basis with which to object to any competing belief! What a
>> >> > poor epistemology. :)
>> >> And again you use human reasoning to formulate an idea and write it out.
>> > No, the truth of the Bible is axiomatic for Brock. We do not derive
>> > our axioms from reason, they are the starting point of reason.
>> You formulate the concept of accepting the truth of an axiom using reason.
>> Reason is the process by which one reads, hears, listens, understand and accepts.
[Walt]
> If you equate reason with understanding and accepting, I doubt you
> really have an argument with Brock on that point. Brock says he
> understands the Bible, which is more than most people could say.
> I think the word reason is more typically used to mean logical
> analysis.
Yes and that is also what I mean. Do you not realize the incredible amount of logical analysis that is involved in reading, hearing, understanding and accepting an idea (axiom or otherwise)? It is massive. A long and complex string of true/false decisions. All paying attention to logical rules.
Brock also says (to the point of inanity) that "Humanity is not the measure of all things" or words to that effect.
What he doesn't understand is that it is only his humanity and his human reasoning that allows him to accept the truth of that statement. So the statement negates itself. It is based upon a massive amount of 'humanity' and a long and complex string of measurements and decisions.
-- "However many holy words you read, however many you speak,
what good will they do you if you do not act on upon them?"
[Buddha]
Communism was not based on logic or science...communism is a religion, just
as is christianity...whereby the "state" is god...and as god can make life
and death decisions.
Communists "believed" through their own faulty intuition...that human beings
could be programmed through preaching/teaching...into something useful to be
used by the state.
Why communism failed...is because science of human behavior and the "mind"
was not either known or developed to the level it is today....and communisms
faulty "intuition" that utopia (heaven on earth) could be achieved...was
flat wrong.
Communism like religion...does not seek to prove anything...or find the
facts of its belief, but merely makes "intuitive" and extremely faulty
guesses and statements that are just flat wrong and idiotic.
There is no difference between communism or christianity...none...both
demand that human beings "serve" and obey either god or the state....and
each promises "heaven" (utopia) in return, here on earth and/or in
heaven...if you just believe and obey either god or the state.
Communism and Religion do not like individualism, do not like thinkers, do
not like people making up their own minds....do not like research or demands
for facts and the truth...because when the individual human mind...demands
facts, proof, or some evidence of what either the state or the religion says
is "true"...and the individual finds out that it is NOT true...then the
"individual" becomes a nonbeliever...and concludes they are Atheists.
There is no difference between communism and religion....none. Each says
they are the "savior" of human kind...and we know that is a bogus lie from
all the death, murders, holocausts, slavery, oppression of women through out
history in the name of god, jesus, the church....or the state.
It is most interesting, that Religion...serves the "state" and the 'state'
is served by religion....religion cannot exist very well...unless the state
allows it...so religion makes a "deal" whereby it won't fight the state...if
it wants to exist and continue to fool the people.
Christianity, Islam, Judaism, socialism, communism, fascism....are all
religions...its does not matter who the divinity is...either an imaginary
god or the state...all of them DEMAND TO BE OBEYED, and seek to have the
powers of a "god".... and all of them Profess that if you believe...then
there will be peace and utopia...and universal health care, hahahaha..
And the most hideous part of the demands of these religions...is that the
church and the state...CLAIM they have some kind of divine RIGHT to dictate
what other people do, how they think, and the freedoms they may or may not
get...all in the name of "god" or the people. Bull crap...
Science and Free Will to Think. is to Religion as Sunshine is to a
Vampire...Poof
On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 11:12 AM, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Only a very silly person would claim that all decisions in life can be
> made based on repeatable experience and solid deductive reasoning.
> This is why intuition and faith cannot be dispensed with by anyone if
> they're honest about it. There is only a conflict between faith and
> reason among certain groups and individuals who deny reason based on
> faith.
> The indispensibility of intuition is the reason that pluralistic
> democracy is the most viable political system. There is no mechanism
> for clearly determining whose intuition is more accurate (so long as
> it does not deny reason). So the somewhat arbitrary method of free
> debate and voting seems the least bad mechanism to use.
> The fantasy that intuition can be dispensed with is why the high
> ideals of Communism came to produce such horrors. Communists thought
> that Marx's Theory of Class Struggle made Sociology as hard a Science
> as Physics, so they saw no need for pluralism to resolve political
> issues.
> On Nov 3, 6:33 pm, Simon Ewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The only Christians who try to reason their beliefs are those who lack
> enough trust in their faith. Faith requires no reason. Faith is enough.
> > When Christians lack enough faith to maintain their beliefs they resort
> to reason, not to convince others, but to convince themselves.
> > --
> > "However many holy words you read, however many you speak,
> > what good will they do you if you do not act on upon them?"
> > [Buddha]
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
> To post to this group, send email to
> atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<atheism-vs-christianit y%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com>
> .
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.
What is it that xians must have enough faith to main a belief....in
what?....a
What exactly do xians have faith in?
Utopia on earth...if they just believe and have faith? Well the history of
the church shows that to be complete bull shit
How about faith that if they believe in god/jesus etc...they will go to
heaven? Really??? Where is heaven? What's the address...if you claim there
is a heaven, then where is it?
How about faith in the belief that if we DO NOT believe in religious
myths...then us nonbelievers will go to HELL...OK, then...if you are going
to use blackmail, extortion and threats to force and manipulate conversions
into your religion...shouldn't you at least know where hell is? And,
no..hell is not in the middle of the earth....
So...you have some kind of supernatural intuition there is a heaven, and a
hell...and so on...but, not once in all of known history for the past 10,000
years...or 13.6 billion years in known cosmological history...has there been
shown to be some kind of supernatural event that would indicate a god did it
all.
So Faith is simply synonymous with Delusions and Hallucinations caused by
ongoing brainwashing since childhood...of which you are now so imprinted
that it has become impossible for your to face or deal with reality. In
fact....reality scares the crap out of you.
Basically...you xians are simply cowards...and cannot face life...so you
have to believe, and are forced by your fears....to believe in the imaginary
demons and gods of your own mind.
ATheists are so much more honest and braver than any xian I've ever been
exposed to....And there are Atheists in Foxholes....both my nephews have
served in Iraq, one of them twice, both have been in combat, and they are
Atheists...so much for that silly, untested, specious lie...meant to create
some degree of preferance for your fear-based religion.
I've really never met an honest christian...wanna know why? Because no
matter how many lies you tell, or what you do...you are
forgiven....Forgiveness is your escape hatch out of feeling any guilt...or
learning what NOT to do.
Hey...as long as you are "Forgiven" by your imaginary god...why you can do
anything, you don't have to learn anything, you don't have to think deeply
about your behavior....you are always forgiven. YOU can commit heinous
murders and if you are "saved" 5 minutes before dying..why you can take that
elevator right up to heaven...and sit right next to god...
Atheists live in the here and now...and pay close attention to what they do
and don't do...because there is only one time around...and there is no
heaven or escape hatch for a life filled with fk ups and hate....
The xian religion says....you don't have to pay very much attention to
anything...just spend your time with your eyes figuratively closed, thinking
about jesus...and begging and praying to your imaginary god....xianity is
all about DEATH...it is a religion of death...you spend your entire
lives...preparing for death. Ridiculous.
On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 11:40 AM, Brother Aquinas
<brotheraqui...@gmail.com>wrote:
> On Nov 3, 3:33 pm, Simon Ewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The only Christians who try to reason their beliefs are those who lack
> enough trust in their faith. Faith requires no reason. Faith is enough.
> > When Christians lack enough faith to maintain their beliefs they resort
> to reason, not to convince others, but to convince themselves.
> Faith has nothing to do with reason. Reason builds from certain
> scientific evidence, whereas faith is based on sentiment and feeling.
> Faith and reason are not the same, but Catholics believe that both our
> faith and our ability to reason are gifts from God. Both faith and
> reason are given to us so that we can know the truth about reality.
> Since truth cannot contradict truth, so also faith cannot contradict
> reason and vice versa. The Holy Father, in his encyclical Fides et
> Ratio (Faith and Reason), calls faith and reason two wings on which
> the human spirit rises to God. Far from being based on feeling and
> sentiment, faith is reasonable and sure.
> There are two distinctions obscured by the above philosophical error.
> First, there is a distinction between what is reasonable in itself and
> what is reasonable to us. Those things we know by faith—such as that
> God is a Trinity or that Jesus has a divine and a human nature—we know
> to be reasonable in themselves or reasonable in principle, because we
> know them by the authority of God, who reveals these things to us. The
> knowledge of God is a much surer foundation on which to build than on
> the conclusions of mere human reason. Some things, such as the above
> mysteries of the faith, are not reasonable to us right now because we
> do not fully understand them. We cannot say for sure, though, that
> they are not reasonable, because they are matters that surpass our
> competence. We know them to be reasonable on the basis of God’s
> authority through the instrument of his instruction, the Church.
> Second, there are distinctions between types of knowledge. For
> instance, there is knowledge from mathematics, from natural science,
> from metaphysics, and from the data of revelation. The proponents of
> this philosophical error want to admit only the first two types of
> knowledge and sometimes only the first. Such selectivity is arbitrary
> and self-defeating, since it is impossible to justify merely on the
> basis of mathematics or natural science why mathematic or scientific
> knowledge are the only admissible types of knowledge.
> Faith has its reasons. Most believers will say that faith makes sense
> based on their experiences. Sophisticated believers will say that the
> findings of philosophy, science, and mathematics all point to the
> reasonableness of faith. While it is true that it is impossible for us
> to provide a geometric proof for the Trinity of God or to use
> scientific methodology to verify that Christ has two natures, there is
> no reason for us to limit ourselves to these means.
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
> To post to this group, send email to
> atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<atheism-vs-christianit y%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com>
> .
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.
There is no such thing as magical, or supernatural intuition. I really wish
you xians
would take some college courses and stop making pronouncements that you know
nothing about.
Intuition is "good guessing" in which on a subconscious level...the brain is
relying on "cues" and already
known knowlege and using deduction to find an answer. Because, that is what
the brain does automatically
all day long.
There are many "lateralized" decisions...not simply based on repeatable
experience or solid deductive reasoning...
but "alike" similiarities...for example. You know what a baseball is....it
is hard and round...but if someone hands you
a large beach ball....even if it is soft and squishy and you have never seen
one before...because you have the experience
holding something round...you now identify the beach ball...as a "ball" of
some type.
It continues to amaze me how unschooled, uneducated, and ignorant xians are
about the most simplest things...which are
learned in psychology 101, or a course in logic...but, then....
No matter what the topic...it does not matter, then take some religious
concept...such as intuition from god, or whatever...and
attempt to turn it into a lesson in religious concepts. Ridiculous.
Another example...every thing that you touch, use, feel, and that surrounds
you, heals you, feeds you...has been created or influenced by
scientists...who do not use any kind of magical religious "intuition" to
create them. Not once have I ever heard of a scientist state..."Oh, I just
prayed to god, and god gave me the DNA code for a new anti biotic."
The problem with religion is that it is a belief in magic...where if one is
a good xian, or believes enough or has enough faith...then all answers and
everything will be given to them. Poppycock...Science and logic are hard
work...and our limited senses and brains only have so much capacity...and
that is why science has created advanced tools such as microscopes,
mathematics, computers, and so on...including the Hadron collider etc...to
"seek" knowledge.
Religion demands that you believe...not seek...although the bible says "Seek
(meaning do research) the truth (Truth is backed up by researched, and
proven attributes of what is a FACT), because the "truth" (also meaning
reality) will make you free...
But...this one universal fact and concept about the value of knowledge
and research and seeking facts/truth...is poo pooed by the religious...and
their greasy-haired, jumping jimmy jack, money-grubbing preachers WHO DO NOT
WANT YOU TO THINK OR DO RESEARCH...BUT FOLLOW THEIR ORDERS...AND JUST
BELIEVE what they tell you....and pass that collection plate.
What a bunch of knuckle-dragging, idiotic primitive preacher
silliness...that has done nothing good for anyone at any time in history but
turn human beings, with perfectly good brains into a bunch of brainwashed
sheep...all willing to do god's swill...as determined by a massive 2000 year
old bible hoax...and power hungry priests and preachers.
And now you xians are getting a good taste why so many people are concluding
they are Atheists...Atheism has nothing to do with "belief" in no god*...It
is impossible not to believe or disbelieve in something that does not exist*
....*ATheism is a conclusion not a belief or an alternative religion. *
There is no god is a fact, because a) not once in all of 10,000 years of
known history has any religion been able to prove a god exists, or b) cause
any such god to "move mountains" or heal the sick...or stop wars, or invent
medicines....or stop hunger...and so on.
Only the human mind...acting rationally and intelligently, and working hard
can solve the problems...religion has done absolutely nothing in history but
create murder and slavery.
On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 11:12 AM, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Only a very silly person would claim that all decisions in life can be
> made based on repeatable experience and solid deductive reasoning.
> This is why intuition and faith cannot be dispensed with by anyone if
> they're honest about it. There is only a conflict between faith and
> reason among certain groups and individuals who deny reason based on
> faith.
> The indispensibility of intuition is the reason that pluralistic
> democracy is the most viable political system. There is no mechanism
> for clearly determining whose intuition is more accurate (so long as
> it does not deny reason). So the somewhat arbitrary method of free
> debate and voting seems the least bad mechanism to use.
> The fantasy that intuition can be dispensed with is why the high
> ideals of Communism came to produce such horrors. Communists thought
> that Marx's Theory of Class Struggle made Sociology as hard a Science
> as Physics, so they saw no need for pluralism to resolve political
> issues.
> On Nov 3, 6:33 pm, Simon Ewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The only Christians who try to reason their beliefs are those who lack
> enough trust in their faith. Faith requires no reason. Faith is enough.
> > When Christians lack enough faith to maintain their beliefs they resort
> to reason, not to convince others, but to convince themselves.
> > --
> > "However many holy words you read, however many you speak,
> > what good will they do you if you do not act on upon them?"
> > [Buddha]
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
> To post to this group, send email to
> atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<atheism-vs-christianit y%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com>
> .
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.
> > On Nov 5, 1:00 pm, Simon Ewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > On Nov 4, 3:54 pm, Simon Ewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> [Brock Organ]
> >> >> > Actually, one who argues from humanistic premises does not have an
> >> >> > objective basis with which to object to any competing belief! What a
> >> >> > poor epistemology. :)
> >> >> And again you use human reasoning to formulate an idea and write it out.
> >> > No, the truth of the Bible is axiomatic for Brock. We do not derive
> >> > our axioms from reason, they are the starting point of reason.
> >> You formulate the concept of accepting the truth of an axiom using reason.
> >> Reason is the process by which one reads, hears, listens, understand and accepts.
> [Walt]
> > If you equate reason with understanding and accepting, I doubt you
> > really have an argument with Brock on that point. Brock says he
> > understands the Bible, which is more than most people could say.
> > I think the word reason is more typically used to mean logical
> > analysis.
> Yes and that is also what I mean. Do you not realize the incredible amount of logical analysis that is involved in reading, hearing, understanding and accepting an idea (axiom or otherwise)? It is massive. A long and complex string of true/false decisions. All paying attention to logical rules.
I don't understand what you mean by logic then. My understanding is
that logic has to start from axioms, it cannot derive axioms. If a
set of axioms leads to logical contadiction, one or more axioms from
the set have to be discarding. But this discarding process is based
on intuition and trial-and-error. There is no way to deduce, in any
strict sense of the word, which axioms to use.
> Brock also says (to the point of inanity) that "Humanity is not the measure of all things" or words to that effect.
> What he doesn't understand is that it is only his humanity and his human reasoning that allows him to accept the truth of that statement. So the statement negates itself. It is based upon a massive amount of 'humanity' and a long and complex string of measurements and decisions.
> --
> "However many holy words you read, however many you speak,
> what good will they do you if you do not act on upon them?"
> [Buddha]
> I don't understand what you mean by logic then. My understanding is
> that logic has to start from axioms, it cannot derive axioms.
Logic is basically the rules that we have determined in order to assign a truth value to something. Things like non-contradiction and so on.
Axioms are statements that are considered to be true on their face and don't need to be proven or demonstrated, they are self-evident. "I Exist" is axiomatic because it is self-evident that it is true.
Axioms are arrived at using logical processes even if they are self-evident. They do not give rise to logic.
In fact when faced with an axiom the first thing done is to use logic to determine is it self-evident? Does it really not need to be proven? These decisions are made using logic. Something is or is not, true false. All logical processes.
Using the axiom of equality ( x = x ) we can say that if A = B and C = B then A = C. That uses logic to prove that it is axiomatic but, like all logically supported statements the chance is there for disproof.
An axiom and logical support for it, and other things, is just a convenience for the human mind. It allows us to organize and make some sense of reality. Since by and large the actual nature of the fabric of reality is unknown it is entirely possible that what we think is logically true may not be in any way other than how we understand or organize it. The universe does not need to obey our 'laws', they are only our interpretations of how we think it behaves.
In Wei Shi my teacher gave us two exercises:
1: Nothing is possible.
2: It is and it is not (where it is whatever you like).
With sufficient meditation and separation from the limits of dogmatic thinking it is possible to arrive at a point where they can be accepted as true. These exercises (along with others) demonstrate that we can (at least momentarily) get closer to the fabric or substance of reality although we can never fully understand it.
-- "The mind is everything. What you think you become."
[Buddha]
> There is no such thing as magical, or supernatural intuition. I really wish
> you xians
> would take some college courses and stop making pronouncements that you know
> nothing about.
> Intuition is "good guessing" in which on a subconscious level...the brain is
> relying on "cues" and already
> known knowlege and using deduction to find an answer. Because, that is what
> the brain does automatically
> all day long.
> There are many "lateralized" decisions...not simply based on repeatable
> experience or solid deductive reasoning...
> but "alike" similiarities...for example. You know what a baseball is....it
> is hard and round...but if someone hands you
> a large beach ball....even if it is soft and squishy and you have never seen
> one before...because you have the experience
> holding something round...you now identify the beach ball...as a "ball" of
> some type.
> It continues to amaze me how unschooled, uneducated, and ignorant xians are
> about the most simplest things...which are
> learned in psychology 101, or a course in logic...but, then....
> No matter what the topic...it does not matter, then take some religious
> concept...such as intuition from god, or whatever...and
> attempt to turn it into a lesson in religious concepts. Ridiculous.
> Another example...every thing that you touch, use, feel, and that surrounds
> you, heals you, feeds you...has been created or influenced by
> scientists...who do not use any kind of magical religious "intuition" to
> create them. Not once have I ever heard of a scientist state..."Oh, I just
> prayed to god, and god gave me the DNA code for a new anti biotic."
> The problem with religion is that it is a belief in magic...where if one is
> a good xian, or believes enough or has enough faith...then all answers and
> everything will be given to them. Poppycock...Science and logic are hard
> work...and our limited senses and brains only have so much capacity...and
> that is why science has created advanced tools such as microscopes,
> mathematics, computers, and so on...including the Hadron collider etc...to
> "seek" knowledge.
> Religion demands that you believe...not seek...although the bible says "Seek
> (meaning do research) the truth (Truth is backed up by researched, and
> proven attributes of what is a FACT), because the "truth" (also meaning
> reality) will make you free...
> But...this one universal fact and concept about the value of knowledge
> and research and seeking facts/truth...is poo pooed by the religious...and
> their greasy-haired, jumping jimmy jack, money-grubbing preachers WHO DO NOT
> WANT YOU TO THINK OR DO RESEARCH...BUT FOLLOW THEIR ORDERS...AND JUST
> BELIEVE what they tell you....and pass that collection plate.
> What a bunch of knuckle-dragging, idiotic primitive preacher
> silliness...that has done nothing good for anyone at any time in history but
> turn human beings, with perfectly good brains into a bunch of brainwashed
> sheep...all willing to do god's swill...as determined by a massive 2000 year
> old bible hoax...and power hungry priests and preachers.
> And now you xians are getting a good taste why so many people are concluding
> they are Atheists...Atheism has nothing to do with "belief" in no god*...It
> is impossible not to believe or disbelieve in something that does not exist*
> ....*ATheism is a conclusion not a belief or an alternative religion. *
> There is no god is a fact, because a) not once in all of 10,000 years of
> known history has any religion been able to prove a god exists, or b) cause
> any such god to "move mountains" or heal the sick...or stop wars, or invent
> medicines....or stop hunger...and so on.
> Only the human mind...acting rationally and intelligently, and working hard
> can solve the problems...religion has done absolutely nothing in history but
> create murder and slavery.
> On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 11:12 AM, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Only a very silly person would claim that all decisions in life can be
> > made based on repeatable experience and solid deductive reasoning.
> > This is why intuition and faith cannot be dispensed with by anyone if
> > they're honest about it. There is only a conflict between faith and
> > reason among certain groups and individuals who deny reason based on
> > faith.
> > The indispensibility of intuition is the reason that pluralistic
> > democracy is the most viable political system. There is no mechanism
> > for clearly determining whose intuition is more accurate (so long as
> > it does not deny reason). So the somewhat arbitrary method of free
> > debate and voting seems the least bad mechanism to use.
> > The fantasy that intuition can be dispensed with is why the high
> > ideals of Communism came to produce such horrors. Communists thought
> > that Marx's Theory of Class Struggle made Sociology as hard a Science
> > as Physics, so they saw no need for pluralism to resolve political
> > issues.
> > On Nov 3, 6:33 pm, Simon Ewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > The only Christians who try to reason their beliefs are those who lack
> > enough trust in their faith. Faith requires no reason. Faith is enough.
> > > When Christians lack enough faith to maintain their beliefs they resort
> > to reason, not to convince others, but to convince themselves.
> > > --
> > > "However many holy words you read, however many you speak,
> > > what good will they do you if you do not act on upon them?"
> > > [Buddha]
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to
> > atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<atheism-vs-christianit y%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com>
> > .
> > For more options, visit this group at
> >http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.
just because xtians dont go to church does not mean they still dont
believe in 'god'. maybe they just have realized that the dogma is full
of it? 'god' and religion are not the same word.
On Nov 4, 3:03 am, philosophy <smwil...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
> On Nov 4, 12:28 pm, Simon Ewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > [Alan Wostenberg]
> > > That is what they believe, who don't distinguish between the rational
> > > preambles to faith, and the faith.
> > Faith and 'the faith' do not address the same thing.
> > > "Faith and reason" writes Pope John Paul the II in http://tr.im/E4A5 > > > ... "are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the
> > > contemplation of truth".
> > Then the Pope disagrees with Hebrews, which is mildly surprising. Hebrews makes it very clear that faith is to be considered a type of evidence. The evidence of hope. That should be enough, but Christians don't seem to really be able to accept faith alone so they go to great lengths to convince themselves by engaging in futile reasoning with non-believers. This is to no avail as the number of Christians is dropping.
> > > For example, that God exists is not an article of faith for those who
> > > can follow the purely rational demonstrations.
> > Yes it is. There are no purely rational demonstrations of gods existing. If there were then there would be no atheists.
> > > In fact, here are five
> > > things no educated Catholic believes on faith alone, from Ronald
> > > Knox's _the belief of Catholics_ at http://tr.im/E4J1 > > > (i.) The existence of God.
> > Must be faith alone. There is no solid rational argument for the existence of gods. The existence of atheists and thousands of individual theistic sects and outright religions is eloquent proof. Further Christians endlessly tell non-Christians that one cannot use the Bible to understand God unless one 'opens their hearts' and believes in God first. Eloquent demonstration of the need to abandon reason in favour of faith, so they cannot be the same thing.
> > > (ii.) The fact that he has made a revelation to the world in Jesus
> > > Christ.
> > Again, if it were a fact there would be 6,000,000,000 Christians instead of only 33% (and dropping), 19% Muslims (and growing). This is eloquent proof that a god has not revealed himself to the world through Jesus or in any other way. People are generally not ignorant of facts and such a revelation to 6,000,000,000 people would result in way more than a paltry 1/3.
> You know Simon, I sometimes wonder about people who claim to be
> Christians. I don't know what it's like where you come from, but in
> Australia very few so-called Christians actually go to a church on
> Sunday. It seems to me that there are more Muslims who go to their
> Mosques, than there are Christians who go to their churches. I do
> feel that Christianity will implode. At least, it will become a minor
> religion in years to come. It's had its hay-day. Whereas Islam is on
> the rise. That's the real worry, isn't it - the Islamist.......
> > > (iii.) The Life (in its broad outlines), the Death, and the
> > > Resurrection of
> > > Jesus Christ.
> > Again, if it were a fact there would be 6,000,000,000 Christians instead of only 33% (and dropping), 19% Muslims (and growing). This is eloquent proof that a god has not revealed himself to the world through Jesus or in any other way. People are generally not ignorant of facts and such a revelation to 6,000,000,000 people would result in way more than a paltry 1/3.
> > > (iv.) The fact that our Lord founded a Church.
> > Again, if it were a fact there would be 6,000,000,000 Christians instead of only 33% (and dropping), 19% Muslims (and growing). This is eloquent proof that a god has not revealed himself to the world through Jesus or in any other way. People are generally not ignorant of facts and such a revelation to 6,000,000,000 people would result in way more than a paltry 1/3.
> > > (v.) The fact that he bequeathed to that Church his own teaching
> > > office,
> > > with the guarantee (naturally) that it should not err in teaching.
> > Again, if it were a fact there would be 6,000,000,000 Christians instead of (as of 2000) only 33% (and dropping), 19% Muslims (and growing). This is eloquent proof that a god has not revealed himself to the world through Jesus or in any other way. People are generally not ignorant of facts and such a revelation to 6,000,000,000 people would result in way more than a paltry 1/3.
> > > (vi.) The consequent intellectual duty of believing what the Church
> > > believes.
> > Not very convincing at all. One cannot be intellectually honest and believe that which is not intellectually supportable.
> > On Nov 3, 3:33 pm, Simon Ewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> The only Christians who try to reason their beliefs are those who lack enough trust in their faith. Faith requires no reason. Faith is enough.
> >> When Christians lack enough faith to maintain their beliefs they resort to reason, not to convince others, but to convince themselves.
> [Brother Aquinas]
> > Faith has nothing to do with reason. Reason builds from certain
> > scientific evidence, whereas faith is based on sentiment and feeling.
> That is what I have been saying, so yes. Faith incorporates feelings, emotions, sentiments and more importantly, desire.
> > Faith and reason are not the same, but Catholics believe that both our
> > faith and our ability to reason are gifts from God. Both faith and
> > reason are given to us so that we can know the truth about reality.
> Which is, of course, impossible since all anyone can ever see or understand of reality is only that which they are able to successfully share with others. The actual underlaying fabric or substance of reality is not available to any of us.
It's not impossible to reason what is real. Of course, Catholics can
also share what is real to anyone who clamors for what is real.
> > Since truth cannot contradict truth, so also faith cannot contradict
> > reason and vice versa.
> Well, we seemed to agree up until now. Faith certainly can, and regularly does, contradict reason. What we desire to be so is rarely so. For example, a woman who is abused typically takes 7 episodes of violence before she will finally lose faith in her husband. Her belief on the previous 6 leading to her returning to him is based upon the faith that she has that he will change. This faith is risen from the desire that such will be true. The truth is that he will not change, the faith is that he will. Faith is an indicator of our desires and feelings. We never have faith that something bad will happen, do we?
No, why dwell on negativism? That should not be the foundation of
living a good life. Optimism should always guide us in reasoning out
our faith. This is so hard to explain to a non-beliver but to
Catholics, it's a way of life.
> > The Holy Father, in his encyclical Fides et
> > Ratio (Faith and Reason), calls faith and reason two wings on which
> > the human spirit rises to God. Far from being based on feeling and
> > sentiment, faith is reasonable and sure.
> I am aware of that and the chap is wrong. Faith incorporates desire and can lead that accepting individual's 'spirit' to rise to God. Faith can do that alone. Reason cannot. Reasoning that incorporates faith can but not pure reason.
Like the author said, faith and reasonare two different oranges, well
one is an apple actually.
> > There are two distinctions obscured by the above philosophical error.
> > First, there is a distinction between what is reasonable in itself and
> > what is reasonable to us. Those things we know by faith?such as that
> > God is a Trinity or that Jesus has a divine and a human nature?we know
> > to be reasonable in themselves or reasonable in principle, because we
> > know them by the authority of God, who reveals these things to us.
> You do not know those things you believe them. That belief is based upon faith. That is fine, I have no problem with that at all. I just wonder why so many believers are ashamed of it. They try to validate their faith using reason which cannot be done.
> At some point one makes make a 'leap of faith' in order to overcome an obstacle raised by reason. Fine, again.
> In reasoning one does not say that you need to make 'a leap of reason' or 'a leap of knowledge' because reason and knowledge do not leap, they move in tiny steps, slowly accumulating minute truths that eventually reveal the whole. Faith does not work that way at all.
> > The
> > knowledge of God is a much surer foundation on which to build than on
> > the conclusions of mere human reason.
> See? There you are relying on reason to determine that reason is inadequate. You could not have formulated that idea and turned it into a sentence and typed it on your keyboard with using a massive amount of reasoning. Even accept the truth of it at some point involved asking "Is this true or not?" and then deciding yes or no, which is reasoning.
> So it is nonsensical to use reason to support the idea that reason i inadequate to use as a foundation.
> > Some things, such as the above
> > mysteries of the faith, are not reasonable to us right now because we
> > do not fully understand them. We cannot say for sure, though, that
> > they are not reasonable, because they are matters that surpass our
> > competence. We know them to be reasonable on the basis of God?s
> > authority through the instrument of his instruction, the Church.
> Again, an awful lot of reasoning in that paragraph and yet in the prior one you state that reason is inadequate.
> > Second, there are distinctions between types of knowledge. For
> > instance, there is knowledge from mathematics, from natural science,
> > from metaphysics, and from the data of revelation. The proponents of
> > this philosophical error want to admit only the first two types of
> > knowledge and sometimes only the first. Such selectivity is arbitrary
> > and self-defeating, since it is impossible to justify merely on the
> > basis of mathematics or natural science why mathematic or scientific
> > knowledge are the only admissible types of knowledge.
> There you go using reason again.
> > Faith has its reasons. Most believers will say that faith makes sense
> > based on their experiences. Sophisticated believers will say that the
> > findings of philosophy, science, and mathematics all point to the
> > reasonableness of faith. While it is true that it is impossible for us
> > to provide a geometric proof for the Trinity of God or to use
> > scientific methodology to verify that Christ has two natures, there is
> > no reason for us to limit ourselves to these means.
> Again more reasoning.
Yes, reason is a powerfull tool to accept what faith is.
> It seems to me that you use too much reasoning. Just accept that it is faith that sustains and strengthens you beliefs and leave it at that. Don't be ashamed of your faith and do not try to use reason to support it because in the end reasoning is inadequate to the task.
> --
> "However many holy words you read, however many you speak,
> what good will they do you if you do not act on upon them?"
> [Buddha]
On Nov 5, 9:44 am, Diana Wilson <dwilso...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What is it that xians must have enough faith to main a belief....in
> what?....a
> What exactly do xians have faith in?
> Utopia on earth...if they just believe and have faith? Well the history of
> the church shows that to be complete bull shit
Why do you think that is? In order to live the future, we must know
the past.
> How about faith that if they believe in god/jesus etc...they will go to
> heaven? Really??? Where is heaven? What's the address...if you claim there
> is a heaven, then where is it?
> How about faith in the belief that if we DO NOT believe in religious
> myths...then us nonbelievers will go to HELL...OK, then...if you are going
> to use blackmail, extortion and threats to force and manipulate conversions
> into your religion...shouldn't you at least know where hell is? And,
> no..hell is not in the middle of the earth....
To Catholics, hell is not the same as the one perceived by others. If
you know what hell really is, then your "blackmail" issue is down the
drain.
> So...you have some kind of supernatural intuition there is a heaven, and a
> hell...and so on...but, not once in all of known history for the past 10,000
> years...or 13.6 billion years in known cosmological history...has there been
> shown to be some kind of supernatural event that would indicate a god did it
> all.
> So Faith is simply synonymous with Delusions and Hallucinations caused by
> ongoing brainwashing since childhood...of which you are now so imprinted
> that it has become impossible for your to face or deal with reality. In
> fact....reality scares the crap out of you.
> Basically...you xians are simply cowards...and cannot face life...so you
> have to believe, and are forced by your fears....to believe in the imaginary
> demons and gods of your own mind.
> ATheists are so much more honest and braver than any xian I've ever been
> exposed to....And there are Atheists in Foxholes....both my nephews have
> served in Iraq, one of them twice, both have been in combat, and they are
> Atheists...so much for that silly, untested, specious lie...meant to create
> some degree of preferance for your fear-based religion.
> I've really never met an honest christian...wanna know why? Because no
> matter how many lies you tell, or what you do...you are
> forgiven....Forgiveness is your escape hatch out of feeling any guilt...or
> learning what NOT to do.
> Hey...as long as you are "Forgiven" by your imaginary god...why you can do
> anything, you don't have to learn anything, you don't have to think deeply
> about your behavior....you are always forgiven. YOU can commit heinous
> murders and if you are "saved" 5 minutes before dying..why you can take that
> elevator right up to heaven...and sit right next to god...
> Atheists live in the here and now...and pay close attention to what they do
> and don't do...because there is only one time around...and there is no
> heaven or escape hatch for a life filled with fk ups and hate....
> The xian religion says....you don't have to pay very much attention to
> anything...just spend your time with your eyes figuratively closed, thinking
> about jesus...and begging and praying to your imaginary god....xianity is
> all about DEATH...it is a religion of death...you spend your entire
> lives...preparing for death. Ridiculous.
> On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 11:40 AM, Brother Aquinas
> <brotheraqui...@gmail.com>wrote:
> > On Nov 3, 3:33 pm, Simon Ewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > The only Christians who try to reason their beliefs are those who lack
> > enough trust in their faith. Faith requires no reason. Faith is enough.
> > > When Christians lack enough faith to maintain their beliefs they resort
> > to reason, not to convince others, but to convince themselves.
> > Faith has nothing to do with reason. Reason builds from certain
> > scientific evidence, whereas faith is based on sentiment and feeling.
> > Faith and reason are not the same, but Catholics believe that both our
> > faith and our ability to reason are gifts from God. Both faith and
> > reason are given to us so that we can know the truth about reality.
> > Since truth cannot contradict truth, so also faith cannot contradict
> > reason and vice versa. The Holy Father, in his encyclical Fides et
> > Ratio (Faith and Reason), calls faith and reason two wings on which
> > the human spirit rises to God. Far from being based on feeling and
> > sentiment, faith is reasonable and sure.
> > There are two distinctions obscured by the above philosophical error.
> > First, there is a distinction between what is reasonable in itself and
> > what is reasonable to us. Those things we know by faith—such as that
> > God is a Trinity or that Jesus has a divine and a human nature—we know
> > to be reasonable in themselves or reasonable in principle, because we
> > know them by the authority of God, who reveals these things to us. The
> > knowledge of God is a much surer foundation on which to build than on
> > the conclusions of mere human reason. Some things, such as the above
> > mysteries of the faith, are not reasonable to us right now because we
> > do not fully understand them. We cannot say for sure, though, that
> > they are not reasonable, because they are matters that surpass our
> > competence. We know them to be reasonable on the basis of God’s
> > authority through the instrument of his instruction, the Church.
> > Second, there are distinctions between types of knowledge. For
> > instance, there is knowledge from mathematics, from natural science,
> > from metaphysics, and from the data of revelation. The proponents of
> > this philosophical error want to admit only the first two types of
> > knowledge and sometimes only the first. Such selectivity is arbitrary
> > and self-defeating, since it is impossible to justify merely on the
> > basis of mathematics or natural science why mathematic or scientific
> > knowledge are the only admissible types of knowledge.
> > Faith has its reasons. Most believers will say that faith makes sense
> > based on their experiences. Sophisticated believers will say that the
> > findings of philosophy, science, and mathematics all point to the
> > reasonableness of faith. While it is true that it is impossible for us
> > to provide a geometric proof for the Trinity of God or to use
> > scientific methodology to verify that Christ has two natures, there is
> > no reason for us to limit ourselves to these means.
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to
> > atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<atheism-vs-christianit y%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com>
> > .
> > For more options, visit this group at
> >http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.- Hide quoted text -
|
