Atheist Blogger Decides to Become Catholic

Bannasidhe

Ok- I think we have all missed the point of the OP which is Blog writing woman (aka someone who feels the world needs to hear what she has to say) defined herself as an Atheist but was also searching for some definitive definition of human morality via philosophy etc. Woman comes to conclusion that human morality is not an abstract concept but an actual being which exists outside of us. Women decides this being is 'God'. Woman decides to become a Roman Catholic even though she admits she has some issues with that particular religion. Therefore all Atheists should immediately recognise the error of their ways, acknowledge the existence of a supernatural being as the font of all human morality, sign up to the Roman Catholic Church (or possibly some other church - that bit's not clear) and shut up. We should do this because a woman who writes a blog did it even though the woman in question admits she hasn't quite worked out the fine details yet.

Have we all got that? - Repent ye Atheists - for it doth state in a blog that ye are wrong.


This woman writes a Right-Wing blog - http://michellemalkin.com/ I ain't buying what she's selling either.

Blowfish

jank wrote: »

And this is divorced from a mental preparation for a game... how exactly?

Actually what you are saying is pretty interesting.

If, as you mention prayer is simply another form of mental preparation and any improvement is solely due to this, then in essence you are admitting that God doesn't answer prayers.

Also, from what you are saying, God may as well not exist as it'll be irrelevant anyway, Tebow will still get the 'mental preparation' boost regardless.

In other words, God is the ultimate placebo.

jank

MagicMarker wrote: »

It doesn't, my only issue is you appear to be of the opinion that it's solely a form of mental preparation, and that he doesn't really believe god guides him through it, as demonstrated by you saying....

I dont care what he believe or doesnt believe in. At least I can divorce myself from the fact that he says a prayer before a match which is logicaly equal to mental preperation for a match.

MagicMarker wrote: »

So, what are you basing this on? Are you a mind reader? Or are you resorting to your usual "makey uppy" style of debating?

Well, I don't know what he prays for, you are right. But I imagine his prayers go in the form of "please give me strength and focus to play my best etc. etc." rather than " please strike down my opponents with lightning and plague"
You are right, I don't know his mind but neither do you? Happy with that stale mate? Nobody knows what he is praying for so arguing that point is useless.

MagicMarker wrote: »

Who said I had a problem with it? I couldn't give a toss. I do give a toss about you making stuff up though.

Like most on here, you don't really care for the truth, only care about wining the argument.

Just for you.

It's called the argumentative theory of reasoning, and it says that humans didn't learn to ask questions and offer answers in order to find universal truths. We did it as a way to gain authority over others. That's right -- they think that reason itself evolved to help us bully people into getting what we want. Here's how a proponent puts it:
"'Reasoning doesn't have this function of helping us to get better beliefs and make better decisions,' said Hugo Mercier, who is a co-author of the journal article, with Dan Sperber. 'It was a purely social phenomenon. It evolved to help us convince others and to be careful when others try to convince us.' Truth and accuracy were beside the point."
And as evidence, the researchers point out that after thousands of years of humans sitting around campfires and arguing about issues, these glaring flaws in our logic still exist. Why hasn't evolution weeded them out? The answer, they say, is that these cognitive flaws are adaptations to a system that's working perfectly fine, thank you. Our evolutionary compulsion is to triumph, even if it means being totally, illogically, proudly wrong.

joseph brand

jank wrote: »

Is this a competition? Why must always be a winner? No matter what I say you wont agree with me and visa versa. Why then waste time unless you want a circle jerk?

We would like you to try and come up with something that makes sense. We will agree with any valid points you make, if you do.

Obviously your opinions will differ from the majority of posters in here. Did you not see the big Atheism sign over the door?

Sarky

Bannasidhe wrote: »

It's like open hunting season on hookers in Mexico :eek:.

It has quickly become my favourite negative to ask people to prove. I blame Glenn Beck and to a lesser extent, Archer.

Bannasidhe

Sarky wrote: »

It has quickly become my favourite negative to ask people to prove. I blame Glenn Beck and to a lesser extent, Archer.

CSI Tijuana should be interesting - watch as the team try and gather trace lack of evidence. :rolleyes:

Sarky

They'd be awfully quick episodes. They could just stop the nearest onlooker and ask "Can you prove this wasn't you? No? THAT MEANS YOU DID IT CASE CLOSED!"

Before disappearing...

<sunglasses>

... without a trace.

<YEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!>

Bannasidhe

Sarky wrote: »

They'd be awfully quick episodes. They could just stop the nearest onlooker and ask "Can you prove this wasn't you? No? THAT MEANS YOU DID IT CASE CLOSED!"

Before disappearing...

<sunglasses>

... without a trace.

<YEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!>

I'm looking forward to the episode where one of the team gets buried alive inside a piñata - or do they? There is no evidence they were so they must have been. It'll be an edge of the seat nail biter and no mistake.

MagicMarker

jank wrote: »

I dont care what he believe or doesnt believe in. At least I can divorce myself from the fact that he says a prayer before a match which is logicaly equal to mental preperation for a match.

I never said it wasn't mental preparation. My issue was with you saying that he doesn't really believe that god will guide him, which I think we've established, you made up.

jank wrote: »

Well, I don't know what he prays for, you are right. But I imagine his prayers go in the form of "please give me strength and focus to play my best etc. etc." rather than " please strike down my opponents with lightning and plague"
You are right, I don't know his mind but neither do you? Happy with that stale mate? Nobody knows what he is praying for so arguing that point is useless.

What are you on about? I have no idea what his prayers are, never assumed to know and never speculated. All I know is that he prays, and a devout believer praying to god is probably doing so because he believes his prayers may/will/can be answered. You seem to think otherwise.

jank wrote: »

Like most on here, you don't really care for the truth, only care about wining the argument.

Aww, diddums.

oldrnwisr

jank wrote: »

Frankly this logical fallacy argument is bull**** and a red herring. Humans are not robots nor can they simply be encapsulated into a nice equation. They are hugely complex, emotional and for the most part spiritual beings.
Betrand Russel was a brilliant logician but he was also a bit of a weirdo. Humans are not Vulcans.

Do you ever have anything useful to contribute?

This logical fallacy argument isn't "bull****" but using one to construct a coherent point is.

Perhaps you could be so kind as to enlighten us all as to why it is bull**** and how it is a red herring.

You can by all means utilise your emotion and spirituality to argue your point, doesn't mean anyone's going to take it seriously.

Penn

jank wrote: »

Is this a competition? Why must always be a winner? No matter what I say you wont agree with me and visa versa. Why then waste time unless you want a circle jerk?

We could reach a point where we agree to disagree. That's generally the point to having a reasonable adult discussion. Both sides go back and forth making their points. We take each other's points of view on board, and by the end, if no agreement can be made or no final conclusion reached, we agree to disagree and move on.

I take on board your point about how praying to God can help improve a players mentality or confidence, and it's a fair point to make. However, for it to be effective, the player has to believe that God is actually going to help them. Which brings us to:

a) Why would God help someone in a sporting event when there is so much more important things happening in the world?
b) If they thank God for helping them, why do they not blame him when they lose?
c) If opposing players both pray and only one wins, why would God have favoured them?
d) If one player prays to God to win, but all the opposing team's fans all prayed to God he'd lose, does God go with the majority?
e) If one player prays to God and the opposing player wears lucky underwear, do they cancel each other out?
f) If a player knows that praying to God helps his mental conditioning and confidence but he keeps praying, is he really praying to God or just doing it to boost his confidence which would lead him to win without God's help, thereby negating the necessity of praying to God in the first place?

Dades

^^ Thanks, Penn, for bringing us back to the basic question.

jank - it's not an "issue" for anyone. I would say it's more of a bemused annoyance that otherwise smart people overlook the logical flaws of their request for divine intervention.

Bannasidhe

Dades wrote: »

^^ Thanks, Penn, for bringing us back to the basic question.

jank - it's not an "issue" for anyone. I would say it's more of a bemused annoyance that otherwise smart people overlook the logical flaws of their request for divine intervention.

I also am pondering the question 'If God exists and helps a particular sports person win an event - is that not cheating?'

swampgas

jank wrote: »

Like most on here, you don't really care for the truth, only care about wining the argument.

Just for you.

It's called the argumentative theory of reasoning, and it says that humans didn't learn to ask questions and offer answers in order to find universal truths. We did it as a way to gain authority over others. That's right -- they think that reason itself evolved to help us bully people into getting what we want. Here's how a proponent puts it:
"'Reasoning doesn't have this function of helping us to get better beliefs and make better decisions,' said Hugo Mercier, who is a co-author of the journal article, with Dan Sperber. 'It was a purely social phenomenon. It evolved to help us convince others and to be careful when others try to convince us.' Truth and accuracy were beside the point."
And as evidence, the researchers point out that after thousands of years of humans sitting around campfires and arguing about issues, these glaring flaws in our logic still exist. Why hasn't evolution weeded them out? The answer, they say, is that these cognitive flaws are adaptations to a system that's working perfectly fine, thank you. Our evolutionary compulsion is to triumph, even if it means being totally, illogically, proudly wrong.

Thanks for the quote - I didn't realise there was a name for this.

To a certain extent everyone is susceptible to this, as winning an argument is often seen in terms of demonstrating a superior intellect. It's also an unfortunate reality that many people will stick to their original positions even when logic dictates otherwise, as they don't want to lose face. You only have to look at politics to see how well this works out.

Personally I think being able to change one's position is a sign of strength, not weakness, provided the change is based on better information or a better understanding.

By the way, are you sure you're not a little bit susceptible to this phenomonenon yourself?

Knasher

On the Tebow issue I disagree with everyone. If he was praying for either divine intervention or metal preparedness then he would have probably prayed in a more discrete way. I'm sure a lot of athletes preform some sort of ritual before a game to either prepare themselves or increase their luck or whatever else. It seems to me that praying in such a visible and attention grabbing way is either an attempt to increase his profile among the religious fans or to psych out the other team, it is akin to the all-blacks doing the haka before a match.

georgieporgy

Blowfish wrote: »

The problem is, following her thought processes is a bit pointless as they are based on already held beliefs, not on facts or logic. Look at what she says:
If you don't believe those two premises that she started with then her thought processes aren't really a particularly convincing argument of anything really.

You read the quote out of context. She did not have these preconceived beliefs. Her study and deliberation led to the belief.

When faced with the evidence she had a choice to make (as we all do).

Newman's Grammar of Assent may help you understand what is involved in such decision making


http://www.newmanreader.org/works/grammar/chapter9.html

robindch

georgieporgy wrote: »

Newman's Grammar of Assent may help you understand what is involved [...]

It was Newman, and not Logic, which was loose at both ends.

Galvasean

oldrnwisr wrote: »

This logical fallacy argument isn't "bull****" but using one to construct a coherent point is.

Perhaps you could be so kind as to enlighten us all as to why it is bull**** and how it is a red herring.

Simple, whenever he comes across he a piece of logic that tears his argument apart he declares it bull so he doesn't have to fruitlessly argue against it.

CerebralCortex

Penn wrote: »

We could reach a point where we agree to disagree. That's generally the point to having a reasonable adult discussion. Both sides go back and forth making their points. We take each other's points of view on board, and by the end, if no agreement can be made or no final conclusion reached, we agree to disagree and move on.

This is worth bearing in mind.

King Mob

georgieporgy wrote: »

You read the quote out of context. She did not have these preconceived beliefs. Her study and deliberation led to the belief.

When faced with the evidence she had a choice to make (as we all do).

But none of us accept her premises. Most of us have examined them and found them totally lacking. We don't accept that there is a universal morality, we don't accept that morality is or would be a person and we certainly don't buy that the Catholic church has the singular correct idea of such a being.

So again, what is so convincing about her stance?

Kidchameleon

You know what I mean, people are implying the person in the OP is stupid for adopting religion. People here should stick to the subject at hand.

MrStuffins

Kidchameleon wrote: »

You know what I mean, people are implying the person in the OP is stupid for adopting religion. People here should stick to the subject at hand.

And you should heed your own advice!

Dades

Kidchameleon wrote: »

You know what I mean, people are implying the person in the OP is stupid for adopting religion. People here should stick to the subject at hand.

No, they are not.

At the most, people are implying that her reasons for converting to catholicism are stupid. I'm not even sure that word has been used at all.

Why the insistence on misrepresenting the responses here?

jank

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Ok- I think we have all missed the point of the OP which is Blog writing woman (aka someone who feels the world needs to hear what she has to say) defined herself as an Atheist but was also searching for some definitive definition of human morality via philosophy etc. Woman comes to conclusion that human morality is not an abstract concept but an actual being which exists outside of us. Women decides this being is 'God'. Woman decides to become a Roman Catholic even though she admits she has some issues with that particular religion. Therefore all Atheists should immediately recognise the error of their ways, acknowledge the existence of a supernatural being as the font of all human morality, sign up to the Roman Catholic Church (or possibly some other church - that bit's not clear) and shut up. We should do this because a woman who writes a blog did it even though the woman in question admits she hasn't quite worked out the fine details yet.

Have we all got that? - Repent ye Atheists - for it doth state in a blog that ye are wrong.


This woman writes a Right-Wing blog - http://michellemalkin.com/ I ain't buying what she's selling either.

Conclusion? Women are stupid!

Sonics2k

There we go.

Bye

jank

joseph brand wrote: »

We would like you to try and come up with something that makes sense. We will agree with any valid points you make, if you do.

Obviously your opinions will differ from the majority of posters in here. Did you not see the big Atheism sign over the door?

Atheism doesn't really matter in this forum. Its just a more intellectual version of the thunderdome board. A way of venting and moaning and pointing a finger at religion for all the ills it does to the world. I have already gone through this before.

jank

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Do you ever have anything useful to contribute?

This logical fallacy argument isn't "bull****" but using one to construct a coherent point is.

Perhaps you could be so kind as to enlighten us all as to why it is bull**** and how it is a red herring.

You can by all means utilise your emotion and spirituality to argue your point, doesn't mean anyone's going to take it seriously.

Em, because humans are inherently irrational.

robindch

jank wrote: »

Conclusion? Women are stupid!

jank wrote: »

Atheism doesn't really matter in this forum. Its just a more intellectual version of the thunderdome board.

Well, if everybody contributed at your level, comparisons with the thunderdome would be quite accurate. Luckily, few do.

Anyhow, one red card for signally failing to contribute anything worth reading after being repeatedly asked to.

Sarky

Do any of your posts involve not being sh*tty at people, jank? Any at all?

jank

Penn wrote: »

We could reach a point where we agree to disagree. That's generally the point to having a reasonable adult discussion. Both sides go back and forth making their points. We take each other's points of view on board, and by the end, if no agreement can be made or no final conclusion reached, we agree to disagree and move on.

I take on board your point about how praying to God can help improve a players mentality or confidence, and it's a fair point to make. However, for it to be effective, the player has to believe that God is actually going to help them. Which brings us to:

a) Why would God help someone in a sporting event when there is so much more important things happening in the world?
b) If they thank God for helping them, why do they not blame him when they lose?
c) If opposing players both pray and only one wins, why would God have favoured them?
d) If one player prays to God to win, but all the opposing team's fans all prayed to God he'd lose, does God go with the majority?
e) If one player prays to God and the opposing player wears lucky underwear, do they cancel each other out?
f) If a player knows that praying to God helps his mental conditioning and confidence but he keeps praying, is he really praying to God or just doing it to boost his confidence which would lead him to win without God's help, thereby negating the necessity of praying to God in the first place?

Yes, because the world isnt perfect and every team doesn't win all the time and every player doesn't score 10000 points in every game means.... God DOESNT exist! Right?

Lots of rabbit holes there in fairness. I am not Tim Teebow so I would suggest you ask him or someone who actually prays before sporting events those questions not me.

Bannasidhe

jank wrote: »

Conclusion? Women are stupid!

:rolleyes:

and my vagina concurs.

Sarky

You mean it doesn't conquer?

Bannasidhe

Sarky wrote: »

You mean it doesn't conquer?

In a dentata kind of way.

Penn

jank wrote: »

Yes, because the world isnt perfect and every team doesn't win all the time and every player doesn't score 10000 points in every game means.... God DOESNT exist! Right?

Lots of rabbit holes there in fairness. I am not Tim Teebow so I would suggest you ask him or someone who actually prays before sporting events those questions not me.

My point wasn't that this is proof God doesn't exist, my point was it is most likely that, if God did exist, he would not influence sporting events, and that people who pray to him for that reason are wasting their time and are somewhat arrogant to think God would favour them over everyone else regardless of their belief in him for a sporting event.

There's no need to get so overly dramatic. It's just a discussion. One which you engaged by picking up on points that I had made.

Sarky

Penn wrote: »

There's no need to get so overly dramatic. It's just a discussion. One which you engaged by picking up on points that I had made.

In fairness, it's not like he's got anything besides melodrama.

Jimoslimos

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I also am pondering the question 'If God exists and helps a particular sports person win an event - is that not cheating?'

Spiritual doping perhaps?

MrStuffins

Jimoslimos wrote: »

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I also am pondering the question 'If God exists and helps a particular sports person win an event - is that not cheating?'

Spiritual doping perhaps?

In before someone accuses you of calling these athletes, and therefore all religious people, "dopes".

Galvasean

Sarky wrote: »

Do any of your posts involve not being sh*tty at people, jank? Any at all?

I liked his post in the thread about schools...

snyperkyller

Originally Posted by snyperkyller
And I live in a world where one day 5 billion years ago out of a lump of slime - tadaaa!!- out of nowhere - absolutely nowhere!!! - a creature emerged and gave me eyes, ears, legs and a fantastic singing voice

shizz wrote: »

I see you are having a little trouble with the theory of evolution.

Oh yeah, how does that part work again? - the one about mud suddenly being complex life? Sounds like a leap of faith to me.

MrStuffins

snyperkyller wrote: »

Oh yeah, how does that part work again? - the one about mud suddenly being complex life? Sounds like a leap of faith to me.

Well, the reason it sounds like a leap of faith to you is because, judging by your comments, you have absolutely ZERO idea as to how evolution works.

There are many good books on the subject. I would advise reading one of them.

shizz

snyperkyller wrote: »

Originally Posted by snyperkyller
And I live in a world where one day 5 billion years ago out of a lump of slime - tadaaa!!- out of nowhere - absolutely nowhere!!! - a creature emerged and gave me eyes, ears, legs and a fantastic singing voice




Oh yeah, how does that part work again? - the one about mud suddenly being complex life? Sounds like a leap of faith to me.

Nope. That's not how it works.

fitz0

snyperkyller wrote: »

Originally Posted by snyperkyller
And I live in a world where one day 5 billion years ago out of a lump of slime - tadaaa!!- out of nowhere - absolutely nowhere!!! - a creature emerged and gave me eyes, ears, legs and a fantastic singing voice




Oh yeah, how does that part work again? - the one about mud suddenly being complex life? Sounds like a leap of faith to me.

2/10

Bad troll is bad troll.

Daftendirekt

snyperkyller wrote: »

Oh yeah, how does that part work again? - the one about mud suddenly being complex life? Sounds like a leap of faith to me.

Eh... No. That's Creationism.

Nodin

fitz0 wrote: »

2/10

Bad troll is bad troll.

It's depressing when they don't even make a cursory effort.

Galvasean

Daftendirekt wrote: »

Eh... No. That's Creationism.

Was Creationism not technically dust though?

Daftendirekt

Galvasean wrote: »

Was Creationism not technically dust though?

Yeah, but meh anyway.

The key ingredient was magic!

(And a rib)

The Mad Hatter

Galvasean wrote: »

Daftendirekt wrote: »

Eh... No. That's Creationism.

Was Creationism not technically dust though?

Dust is just dry mud.

qrrgprgua

MrStuffins wrote: »

Well, the reason it sounds like a leap of faith to you is because, judging by your comments, you have absolutely ZERO idea as to how evolution works.

There are many good books on the subject. I would advise reading one of them.

As a catholic i have no issues with evolution. But even evolution does not explain fully our existence. there are many open questions ... Same as faith.

MagicMarker

qrrgprgua wrote: »

As a catholic i have no issues with evolution. But even evolution does not explain fully our existence. there are many open questions ... Same as faith.

Questions such as?

I'll give you €100 if you provide me with questions that don't demonstrate total ignorance of what evolution actually is.

MrStuffins

qrrgprgua wrote: »

As a catholic i have no issues with evolution. But even evolution does not explain fully our existence. there are many open questions ... Same as faith.

For starters, that's all well and good but the poster I was replying to had no understanding of how evolution works.

Also, unanswered questions in religion and unanswered questions in evolution/science are 2 completely different kettles of fish!

Religion:
"We have a problem, how do we explain this?"
- "God"
"But how do we know this?"
- "Faith"

Science:
"We have a problem, how do we explain this?"
-"We're not sure but we think it might be X"
"But how do we know this?"
-"We don't. We're going to do extensive testing and experiements. These will answer our question and if we were wrong, we will do further tests and experiments until we find the right answer".