Why do we respect religious beliefs?

5uspect

Tim Robbins wrote:

Incorrect. Catholism , the major sect in Christianity now more and more preaches that it is about being a good person <B>not</B> not blieving and non believing.
I seriously question your research.

Well...

John Paul II wrote:

Rather than a place, Hell indicates the state of those who freely and definitively separate themselves from God, the source of all life and joy

And the Catholic Encyclopedia.

Tim Robbins wrote:

A completly different style though?

I'll have to watch it again. They're both say they're anti-theistic at least.

philologos

Acid_Violet wrote:

I think a lot of atheists and agnostics, let alone theists, would have problems with the conflicting narratives and guidelines in the bible. I have always said to christians preaching against homosexuality that if anything the most important commandment is 'love one another as I have loved you'. Also, the bible is imo a bit dated as a guidebook to humanity. Any arguments I've heard against this is that the bible is open to interpretation, which imo equates it to nothing more than horoscopes.

Homosexuality, is a sin in the Bible. However one thing people take out of context is that it is equivilent to any other sin. This includes stealing, adultery, etc.. etc.. Indeed you can respect other people, but if you are to truly love them you would ask of them to correct their ways wouldn't you?

Acid_Violet wrote:

A lot of theists I know who probably would not have as deep a faith as yours would accept that in theory at least, belief that a priest can turn crackers into someone's body, wine into someone's blood and that by eating this you will get salvation is a little far-fetched. I know I'm simplifying things and that obviously that's not the extent of gaining salvation, but if you look at things, dare I say 'logically', it seems a little silly. Sure if you brush your teeth really well the tooth fairy will leave plenty of money under your pillow. Get my drift? Yet they still, often staunchly believe in God.

You are discussing transubstantiation, which infact is only considered in the Orthodox and the Catholic branches of Christianity. (Not so sure about Orthodox, I'll have to look that up). I'm a member of the Church of Ireland, and we recognise communion as symbolism since it was coined during the symbolic Passover celebrations. Also if anyone is telling you that you have to take communion to be saved is i'm afraid wrong. You have to proclaim a belief in God over all, and love Him more than yourself.

Articles of Religion, ireland.anglican.org wrote:

Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.

Acid_Violet wrote:

Ok, the first problem with the book of Job example is defining evil. Is it evil to kill someone who killed your son? Eye for an eye in Jewish tradition. Yet Jesus says 'turn the other cheek'.

There is one of the fundemental differences between Judaism and Christianity. We honour the revelation of Jesus Christ, as the final and the greatest revelation that man will ever recieve from God. The thing about Christianity as opposed to Judaism, is that Judaism held the view of being judged on earth, whereas Christians hold that people will be judged in the afterlife. So even if someone gets away with murdering your son. S/he will get judged by God. Justice will always be done.

Acid_Violet wrote:

Evil often depends on who's writing the history books. If Hitler had won the WWII we'd probably be learning that he was a great man with a great vision and that the third reich is better than any other civilisation yet because he exterminated all the jews, homosexuals, gypsies and people with mental and physical disabilities.
Also, mass-murderers and rapists often, if not always, have psychiatric illnesses resulting in psychotic tendencies. They themselves are victims or an illness and of their own nature as there is no drugs or remedy to cure or help them cope with this often neurological disorder. Needless to say, the people they harm are moreso victims. Elizabeth Bathory, for example, known as 'the Blood Countess' and a relative of Vlad the Impaler. There was a history of violence and mental illness in her family due to a long history of inbreeding.
You can't ignore the science behind the nature of 'evil' instincts in people, nor ignore the empirical argument that evil depends on opinion and definition just as much, if not more, than the evil acts themselves. I'm sure you agree with me that evil is not so simple as black and white and probably not so simple as purely 'created'.

Not particularly. In Christianity it is rather clear what is right and what is wrong. That's why I claimed that the Bible was the source of all morality for Christians. "Thou shalt not steal" etc etc etc... However, in a society of people where Satan is very much present, he can lead people away from the truth and cause them to carry out injustices against other people. This is why people are asked "Do you reject the Devil and all proud rebellion against God?", "Do you renounce the deceit and corruption of evil?", "Do you repent of the sins that seperate us from God and neighbour?" at their confirmations in the COI.

Acid_Violet wrote:

So are you going to ignore any agrument I make because you think it's daft or because it's convenient? What I said in reference to 'clinging to bibles' is that when people are offered logical explainations as opposed to answers previously dictated by celibate (or often not so celibate...) men in robes they cover their ears and relentlessly believe in the bible, even though any reasonably discerning individual can clearly see what makes sense and what doesn't. My opinion is that people are not stupid but selective in what they hear, let alone believe.

I'm not ignoring your arguments. I'm reading them amn't I? My view is the following. I have seen the truth through God's message, it's one of the most incredible things I have every pursued doing and I'm thankful to Him that He let me be a part of His people. Nothing that you say, will beat what I have recieved through faith in God. However, what I will say to you is this. Your viewpoint will help me understand you and secular humanists in general a bit more.
On celibacy again, you have a very Catholic-centric view of things. You don't really see how diverse Christianity has become as a faith. The interesting view on celibacy is this, looking to Leviticus 21.

Leviticus 21:7 wrote:

A priest shall not marry a woman who has been a prostitute or a woman who is not a virgin or has been divorced; he is holy.

But he can marry.

Leviticus 21:13-14 wrote:

He shall marry a virgin, not a widow or a divorced woman or a woman who has been a prostitute.

Interesting no?

Articles of Religion, ireland.anglican.org wrote:

Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, are not commanded by God's Law, either to vow the estate of single life, or to abstain from marriage: therefore it is lawful for them, as for all other Christian men, to marry at their own discretion, as they shall judge the same to serve better to godliness.

Personally I think that it's a constructive thing that priests are able to marry and experience family lives for themselves so that they can relate to other people more.

Acid_Violet wrote:

Also, what happens when what God has passed down to his people as the ultimate truth is contradicted by new scientific findings? Would one just ignore them point blank and claim whatever creed as right beyond contradiction? Of course you're entitled to quote and argue with passages from the bible, but does it make more sense to believe the simple explainations of tales thousand of years old. About the world being created in seven days or a goddess being born out of Ouranos' penis being thrown into the ocean? Or from scientific solid evidence?

You mean what happens if what God has passed down to his people as the ultimate truth is contradicted by new scientific findings? I don't think it will ever happen to be honest with you, but if it did, sure I'd be chuffed. If there was an ultimate proof that God didn't exist. However I would be sceptical an analyse it for myself. It's very difficult to prove something didn't exist when you weren't alive during the creation.

Acid_Violet wrote:

I respect your beliefs to the extent that I understand why you have them. I don't respect them if you staunchly believe in a God even when confronted with other evidence against him or in favour of another god.

Hmm, what do you mean. I believe in God because I have felt His Spirit upon me. What if I consider that to be empirical truth to me as a Christian? All I can do is understand someones faith more an recognise that they have a right to believe in it. But I won't outwardly reject my faith if someone came up to me to tell me their view. Is that what you are asking?

Tim Robbins

Wicknight wrote:

But that is ridiculous. Are you saying that because Unitarians don't believe in hell therefore no one has every suffered mental anguish in their childhood over the idea taught to them by their parents that hell exists, its horrible and ever lasting, and that they might end up there?

No I have saying that your statement has shown to not always been true.
A small minority of people have suffered mental anguish because of being told of hell. Now how do we objectively measure that against the small minority of those who have suffered mental anguish because they were made play competitive sports?
BTW, my own anecdotal evidence suggests I have seen way more kids cry and being given out, shouted out for not winning in competitive sports than I have seen kids cry about the Devil - but maybe your's life is different.

That largely irrelevant. The Catholic church could remove hell and everything else from their teaching tomorrow, problem solved, but it doesn't change what has already taken place

It's largely irrelevant because you didn't know about it, you mean.
But fair enough live in the past, refine your arguments consistently that way. You are arguing Richard Dawkins arguments for the present, please refine them for the past or for the minorities of Religions that still preach to kids and scare them about hell.
And you accuse me of making of generalisations.
This is getting ridiculous and boring Wicknight.

Scofflaw

Tim Robbins wrote:

We're down to arguing semantics and typos. Brilliant.

Sigh. Your substantive point, you say, is:

Tim Robbins wrote:

No I am trying to get to core of the issue here, is it child abuse or not?I say it's not.

You say it's not because you define 'child abuse' as sexual or physical abuse. Dawkins includes mental abuse, and you object because this doesn't match your definition.

So, your substantive point is just semantics.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Dades

Tim Robbins wrote:

We're down to arguing semantics and typos. Brilliant.

The above statement => you are above that.

Tim Robbins

5uspect wrote:

Well...
And the Catholic Encyclopedia.

Not sure what version you have there. but I have heard serveral Catholic theoligians support what I was saying. I can't access video links at work but will post them up this evening should you wish.

I'll have to watch it again. They're both say they're anti-theistic at least.

I would say McGinn is more post theist.

Tim Robbins

The Atheist wrote:

The above statement => you are above that.

=> is a logical symbol, it's more important as it changes the logic of an argument.

Tim Robbins

Scofflaw wrote:

You say it's not because you define 'child abuse' as sexual or physical abuse. Dawkins includes mental abuse, and you object because this doesn't match your definition.

So, your substantive point is just semantics.

cordially,
Scofflaw

?

Scofflaw

Tim Robbins wrote:

=> is a logical symbol, it's more important as it changes the logic of an argument.

And if this were logic class, you'd have a point.

regards,
Scofflaw

Tim Robbins

Scofflaw wrote:

And if this were logic class, you'd have a point.

regards,
Scofflaw

Well are we debating using logic or spell checker?

PS try not to start a sentence with And.

Scofflaw

Tim Robbins wrote:

Well are we debating using logic or spell checker?

PS try not to start a sentence with And.

We are debating, but we are not using formal logic. Indeed, there is a high level of informality in general, which is both expected and desirable.

regards,
Scofflaw

Tim Robbins

Scofflaw wrote:

We are debating, but we are not using formal logic. Indeed, there is a high level of informality in general, which is both expected and desirable.

regards,
Scofflaw

Please explain the difference between formal and informal logic please?

Zombrex

Tim Robbins wrote:

No I have saying that your statement has shown to not always been true.

That isn't the point, the point is that it can be true.

Tim Robbins wrote:

A small minority of people have suffered mental anguish because of being told of hell.

I would like to know how you assessed that

Tim Robbins wrote:

BTW, my own anecdotal evidence suggests I have seen way more kids cry and being given out, shouted out for not winning in competitive sports than I have seen kids cry about the Devil - but maybe your's life is different.

Well firstly if a parent is making a child cry because to lost in a competitive sport I would consider that mentally abusing the child and very bad parenting. I would tell the parent to cop on, and I certainly wouldn't take the "He's my kid I can do what I like" excuse.

Secondly, we aren't talking about isolated incidents here, we are talking about long sustained state of fear induced by the parents.

I remember being very scared when I was about 6 of nuclear war (it was the mid 80s after all). This produced many a sleepless night and a general unease sense for a long time. My parents did there best to explain to me that nuclear was wasn't going to happen. In fact I can trace back to that time as when I first remember becoming interested in politics.

Now imagine I didn't know anything about nuclear war and my parents introduced it to me. I said I thought that was really scary and they said something along the lines of "Good, you should be worried about nuclear war. Its very real and very serious. I'm scared sh*tless about it" And I spend the next year being not only afraid of nuclear war, but also knowing that my parents thought it was very likely.

Good parenting or bad parenting?

Tim Robbins wrote:

But fair enough live in the past

Well considering we are talking about harm using examples of what has already happened (it is kind hard to use examples from the future) I think the past is probably the place to be looking

I'm arguing this happened and still happens and you seem to be arguing it won't happen as much in the future if you are Catholic. Which strangle enough seems to be an admission that it did and still does happen.

So what point you are trying to make is beyond me.

Scofflaw

Tim Robbins wrote:

Please explain the difference between formal and informal logic please?

Since I didn't use the term "informal logic" I can't see why I would.

What we are engaged in here is an informal, even conversational, debate. We are not using "axioms" and "postulates", nor are we using logic symbols instead of words. We expect a poster's conclusion to follow from their arguments by steps that can be followed, and that don't rely on mere assertion, but we don't expect them to state it in some form of notation, and we do expect that they can draw an arrow without someone claiming their argument is invalid because the type of arrow they've used means something they didn't intend in a system of notation they weren't using. Last but not least, I would expect a poster who does make such claims to be a hell of a lot better at logical debate than you've ever shown yourself to be.

regards,
Scofflaw

pH

Tim Robbins wrote:

Well are we debating using logic or spell checker?

PS try not to start a sentence with And.

Tim Robbins wrote:

Please explain the difference between formal and informal logic please?

Another thread being derailed by you into pettiness, I take it you learned everything you know about posting in these forums from ISAW?

Tim Robbins

Wicknight wrote:

That isn't the point, the point is that it can be true.

It can also be true that if play GAA you could die from an heart attack.
I suggest we go statistical analysis since niether of us like generalisations nor anecdotals evidence.

I would like to know how you assessed that

There are counsellors in America who help people deal with getting over what they have been told in Religion. I think I heard this from Dawkins of all people.

Well firstly if a parent is making a child cry because to lost in a competitive sport I would consider that mentally abusing the child and very bad parenting. I would tell the parent to cop on, and I certainly wouldn't take the "He's my kid I can do what I like" excuse.

Well at least you show some consistency, and I glad you also see abuse of children in sport.
As a matter of interest have you ever been in that situation above because it happens regularly in youth sport nowadays?

Secondly, we aren't talking about isolated incidents here, we are talking about long sustained state of fear induced by the parents.

Again I suggest we go to statistics. What is the probability of the child been scared about hell if they adopt a mainstream theology with parential guidance and the probability of the aforementioned sporting scenario.

I remember being very scared when I was about 6 of nuclear war (it was the mid 80s after all). This produced many a sleepless night and a general unease sense for a long time. My parents did there best to explain to me that nuclear was wasn't going to happen. In fact I can trace back to that time as when I first remember becoming interested in politics.

Now imagine I didn't know anything about nuclear war and my parents introduced it to me. I said I thought that was really scary and they said something along the lines of "Good, you should be worried about nuclear war. Its very real and very serious. I'm scared sh*tless about it" And I spend the next year being not only afraid of nuclear war, but also knowing that my parents thought it was very likely.

Good parenting or bad parenting?

I remembered being scared by the big bad wolf.
You are going off the point.

Well considering we are talking about harm using examples of what has already happened (it is kind hard to use examples from the future) I think the past is probably the place to be looking

I'm arguing this happened and still happens and you seem to be arguing it won't happen as much in the future if you are Catholic. Which strangle enough seems to be an admission that it did and still does happen.

So what point you are trying to make is beyond me.

I'm bored.

Tim Robbins

Scofflaw wrote:

Since I didn't use the term "informal logic" I can't see why I would.

What we are engaged in here is an informal, even conversational, debate. We are not using "axioms" and "postulates", nor are we using logic symbols instead of words. We expect a poster's conclusion to follow from their arguments by steps that can be followed, and that don't rely on mere assertion, but we don't expect them to state it in some form of notation, and we do expect that they can draw an arrow without someone claiming their argument is invalid because the type of arrow they've used means something they didn't intend in a system of notation they weren't using. Last but not least, I would expect a poster who does make such claims to be a hell of a lot better at logical debate than you've ever shown yourself to be.

regards,
Scofflaw

If you are referring to my quesioning of Zillah's => I genuinely didn't understand his point so had to ask him what he meant before replying.

=> means implies to me always. I teach Maths so would see and use it a lot.

Your dig at me, is pretty silly and rjection of formal logic and embracing of your own logic seems unfair.

The reality is most of the arguments in this forum, require quite a detailed logical analysis if you are to rebutt them.

One cannot simple say Dawkins is an *sshole in this forum one cannot simple say that child abuse argument is cr*p one must examine closely and pick at it.

This may seem pedantic for you but your pedantry for comma's and correct spelling is hardly laissez faire.

Tim Robbins

pH wrote:

Another thread being derailed by you into pettiness, I take it you learned everything you know about posting in these forums from ISAW?

I don't know the details of ISAW arguments. I have argued against at least 5 people who differ with me on the child abuse argument. Now it's getting tiresome. I'd like to wrap it up actually.

Dades

Tim Robbins wrote:

I'd like to wrap it up actually.

Ohh to see a thread wrap up - just once!

Tim Robbins

The Atheist wrote:

Ohh to see a thread wrap up - just once!

Well lock if you wish or I will opt out of it if you wish. I am sure you can all continue the thread agreeing with each other.
Ultimately, if you think this is child abuse, you should do something about it, lobby the government or else you should admit that child abuse can be acceptable in society?

philologos

It'd be a pity if the thread was locked because I was hoping to see Acid_Violets reply to my last post.

Crucifix

Tim Robbins wrote:

or else you should admit that child abuse can be acceptable in society?

I think we have to. Everybody messes up their kids to some degree, you have to draw a line in the sand. I'm not happy about childhood indoctrination, but I don't think it should be illegal, in the same way it shouldn't be illegal for my parents to indoctrinate me into the concept that stealing is wrong or whatever.

JimiTime

Not that it really matters to most I'm sure, but reading this thread, it does seem that nobody has addressed the point that Tim Robins has made. I think its a great point. If you do think its child abuse, don't you think typing on boards is not the place to be. Someone said that they thought it was worse than sexual abuse. Well why the hell aren't you lobbying governments to protect children? Most schools in Ireland are religious, and you feel that its pupils would be better off being molested than having religion class? Well stop hanging around boards.ie and have the courage of your convictions! Save the children.

Zillah

Wow. Just wow. Tim, for all your pretensions of logic, you demonstrate a staggering ability to fail to understand sound arguments. While your knowledge of formal logic seems comprehensive, your actual ability to apply it in discussions is nothing short of atrocious.

JimiTime wrote:

f you do think its child abuse, don't you think typing on boards is not the place to be. Someone said that they thought it was worse than sexual abuse. Well why the hell aren't you lobbying governments to protect children?

1 - I never said I felt it was worse than sexual abuse.
2 - I've got better things to be doing with my time (theres people all over the world suffering for innumerable reasons, I can't help them all. Why aren't you off campaigning for fair trade with Asia or an end to sex slavery in the UK?)
3 - Religious thinking is so upsettingly widespread and powerful we wouldn't have a hope of success.

Scofflaw

JimiTime wrote:

Not that it really matters to most I'm sure, but reading this thread, it does seem that nobody has addressed the point that Tim Robins has made. I think its a great point. If you do think its child abuse, don't you think typing on boards is not the place to be. Someone said that they thought it was worse than sexual abuse. Well why the hell aren't you lobbying governments to protect children? Most schools in Ireland are religious, and you feel that its pupils would be better off being molested than having religion class? Well stop hanging around boards.ie and have the courage of your convictions! Save the children.

Hmm. I don't think most of us do feel it's worse than sexual or physical abuse - certainly I don't myself. I don't feel it's as bad, come to that - but it's abuse, and abuse of children. I would prefer to see it stopped, but there would be a good number of things higher up the list - it doesn't take precedence just because it sounds dramatic.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Tim Robbins

Zillah wrote:

Wow. Just wow. Tim, for all your pretensions of logic, you demonstrate a staggering ability to fail to understand sound arguments. While your knowledge of formal logic seems comprehensive, your actual ability to apply it in discussions is nothing short of atrocious.

Well you could point out specifically where I am not applying it correctly otherwise you have an argument by assertion there.

Asiaprod

Tim Robbins wrote:

Well lock if you wish or I will opt out of it if you wish. I am sure you can all continue the thread agreeing with each other.

Tim, who mentioned locking the thread? Who asked you to opt out of it? No one did. You stated "I'm bored." You stated "I'd like to wrap it up actually." And I don't see everyone agreeing with each other. I see many differing view points.

Zillah

Alright, if you really want, I will go through the thread later and point out a few places where your logic failed you, but I think the fact that a large number of very intelligent posters have just spent half a dozen pages repeatidly pointing out why your argument is flawed might be evidence enough.

Tim Robbins

Scofflaw wrote:

Hmm. I don't think most of us do feel it's worse than sexual or physical abuse - certainly I don't myself. I don't feel it's as bad, come to that - but it's abuse, and abuse of children. I would prefer to see it stopped, but there would be a good number of things higher up the list - it doesn't take precedence just because it sounds dramatic.

cordially,
Scofflaw

So you excuse the abuse of children and child abuse. I don't.

Tim Robbins

Asiaprod wrote:

Tim, who mentioned locking the thread? Who asked you to opt out of it? No one did. You stated "I'm bored." You stated "I'd like to wrap it up actually." And I don't see everyone agreeing with each other. I see many differing view points.

Apologies Asiaprod. I am getting bored with the discourse with Wicknight as we appear to just be going around in circles, we also arguing in circles on another thread.

I got the impression I am annoying people in this debate (especially after PH comments) and not progressing it and for that reason offered to opt out.

You're the mod so it's your call.