Compulsion to convert

bnt

Calibos wrote: »

RE: Catalus, I'm convinced this dude is actually one of those "Atheists are as bad as Theists (and I feel superior to both)" psuedo intellectual hipsters, who is getting his jollies trolling the non religious side with POE'esque religious pronouncements. Maybe its just me but in the wording of a lot of these pronouncements I almost detect a 'tongue in cheek' vibe.

Talking about "belief" in the big bang theory is a giveaway, too. I think it's probably correct but if not, well, I never really "believed" in it anyway. My life does not depend on it, it doesn't carry any instructions on how to behave, etc. What kind of "belief" is that?

It's a fallacy to equate irrational belief (the kind that requires faith but not evidence) with an evidence-based scientific view of the world. One requires that you turn your brain down and think less, the other works better as more thought goes in to it.

efb

The One Doctor wrote: »

Barristers aren't involved in the Employment Appeals Tribunal.

I know barristers that are

YFlyer

jill_valentine wrote: »

So this guy could follow me around telling me how terrible and grotesque and hellbound I was all day long and I'd be obliged to let him. Brilliant.

Had a few born again working in the labs here in UL. Fcuking nightmare listening to them. Spouting sh1te to me when they knew I meditate and practice yoga.

Another born again said I was going to hell in a nice way :mad:

A Primal Nut

No wonder unemployment is so high...it's impossible for employers to hire people due to all these inconsistent laws and regulations. This is a clear case of him harassing other employees and yet he wins due to his religious beliefs...laughable. Religious beliefs are only protected if they don't interfere with other people. If I create a new religion where my beliefs said I can kill anyone I want it wouldn't work for this reason.

Iwasfrozen

bnt wrote: »

Talking about "belief" in the big bang theory is a giveaway, too. I think it's probably correct but if not, well, I never really "believed" in it anyway. My life does not depend on it, it doesn't carry any instructions on how to behave, etc. What kind of "belief" is that?

It's a fallacy to equate irrational belief (the kind that requires faith but not evidence) with an evidence-based scientific view of the world. One requires that you turn your brain down and think less, the other works better as more thought goes in to it.

The problem is logically speaking to say that there definitely isn't an intelligent creator requires a leap of faith...

The only scientific position is agnostisism because the presence of an intelligent creator can never be proven or disproven.

jackofalltrades

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The only scientific position is agnostisism because the presence of an intelligent creator can never be proven or disproven.

But that's not a scientific position, it's a position of faith.

There may not be proof now, but there's no way of knowing what proof may be found, for or against an intelligent creator in the future.

kylith

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The problem is logically speaking to say that there definitely isn't an intelligent creator requires a leap of faith...

The only scientific position is agnostisism because the presence of an intelligent creator can never be proven or disproven.

Sure, we can't say that there definitely isn't a divine creator but since, if there is one, it seems to have nothing to do with anything then it makes sense to assume that there isn't a divine creator and carry on that way.

The burden of proof is on those claiming that there is a divine being to back up their claims with something more than a book - something like actual evidence. Until they can do that then the only rational position is to assume that the thing that there's no evidence for doesn't exist. When you think about it it should be the easiest thing in the world for a divine creator being to prove itself. That it hasn't done so means that either a) it doesn't exist or b) it doesn't give a toss what happens on Earth - in which case why should we care what it might or might not think.

osarusan

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The problem is logically speaking to say that there definitely isn't an intelligent creator requires a leap of faith...

The only scientific position is agnostisism because the presence of an intelligent creator can never be proven or disproven.

Russell's teapot argument for this one.

VinLieger

jackofalltrades wrote: »

But that's not a scientific position, it's a position of faith.

There may not be proof now, but there's no way of knowing what proof may be found, for or against an intelligent creator in the future.

No its scientific, just beacuse things might change in the future does not remove the fact that right now there is not one single iota of evidence to prove the existence of any form of higher being.

Maybe read up on religious faith vs scientific fact before jumping in an argument you know nothing about

suicide_circus

In the words of the late Lou Reed

You're gonna reap just what you sow

VinLieger

Would be very interested to know what he does with the cash and if he gives it to charity like his religion requires no as well :P

Reekwind

floggg wrote: »

Any links? I will gladly stand corrected if I am wrong.

It's hardly a secret. See his (oddly named) Literal Meaning of Genesis, one of three commentaries he wrote on the subject. Augustine's attitude to scripture can be summed up as:

"We should remember that Scripture, even in its obscure passages, has been written to nourish our souls. With these facts in mind, I have worked out and presented the statements of the Book of Genesis in a variety of ways according to my ability; and, in interpreting words that have been written obscurely for the purpose of stimulating our thought, I have not rashly taken my stand on one side against a rival interpretation which might possibly be better. I have thought that each one, in keeping with his powers of under-standing, should choose the interpretation that he can grasp."

That is, scripture should be subject to "worldly learning" and has multiple interpretations. It is not a blow-by-blow description of how the world was made.

(None of which means that Augustine believed in evolution or an entirely rational creation, he was a theologian after all. But his grounding was in Neo-Platonism and he had little time for scripture statements that contradicted reality.)

Would I be right in staying that his was a minority position though? Certainly the treatment of the Darwin et all, and Gailelo showed a strong resistance to any suggestion that genesis should not be taken as the literal truth.

Hmmm? You're conflating very different conflicts. The issue with Galileo wasn't that he contradicted Genesis but that he undermined the Aristotelian model that the Church held to be true. It was fundamentally an attack on ancient Greek cosmology, not the Bible (which only has a few obscure references to geocentrism). Similarly, Darwin's thesis challenged divine creation full-stop, not just the specifics of Genesis were challenged. That is, it ruled out the allegory as well as literalism. Even then, the Church (AFAIK) never outright condemned Darwin - despite being headed by arch-reactionary Pius IX at the time.

As for the minority/majority position, I suspect that few leading figures took Genesis literally. Augustine was by some distance the most influential of the late Church Fathers and he certainly wasn't unique in formulating an allegorical view of Genesis. How far that filtered down to the parish level or 'man in the field' is questionable but certainly by the modern era (particularly with developments in geology) few theologians were willing to defend a literal Genesis - as Darwin showed.

jackofalltrades

VinLieger wrote: »

Maybe read up on religious faith vs scientific fact before jumping in an argument you know nothing about

If I've missed the true meaning of the person I've quoted, I'm sure they'll point it out to me.
If you have a problem with one of my posts feel free to report it.
Until then keep your ignorant suggestions to yourself.

VinLieger

jackofalltrades wrote: »

If I've missed the true meaning of the person I've quoted, I'm sure they'll point it out to me.
If you have a problem with one of my posts feel free to report it.
Until then keep your ignorant suggestions to yourself.

Maybe you don't understand how forums work but its not a private discussion and I can reply to your post if I want.

Also why would I report it? You didn't do anything wrong in that post I just felt your logic was flawed, its called a discussion don't take it so personally.

floggg

Reekwind wrote: »

It's hardly a secret. See his (oddly named) Literal Meaning of Genesis, one of three commentaries he wrote on the subject. Augustine's attitude to scripture can be summed up as:

"We should remember that Scripture, even in its obscure passages, has been written to nourish our souls. With these facts in mind, I have worked out and presented the statements of the Book of Genesis in a variety of ways according to my ability; and, in interpreting words that have been written obscurely for the purpose of stimulating our thought, I have not rashly taken my stand on one side against a rival interpretation which might possibly be better. I have thought that each one, in keeping with his powers of under-standing, should choose the interpretation that he can grasp."

That is, scripture should be subject to "worldly learning" and has multiple interpretations. It is not a blow-by-blow description of how the world was made.

(None of which means that Augustine believed in evolution or an entirely rational creation, he was a theologian after all. But his grounding was in Neo-Platonism and he had little time for scripture statements that contradicted reality.)

Hmmm? You're conflating very different conflicts. The issue with Galileo wasn't that he contradicted Genesis but that he undermined the Aristotelian model that the Church held to be true. It was fundamentally an attack on ancient Greek cosmology, not the Bible (which only has a few obscure references to geocentrism). Similarly, Darwin's thesis challenged divine creation full-stop, not just the specifics of Genesis were challenged. That is, it ruled out the allegory as well as literalism. Even then, the Church (AFAIK) never outright condemned Darwin - despite being headed by arch-reactionary Pius IX at the time.

As for the minority/majority position, I suspect that few leading figures took Genesis literally. Augustine was by some distance the most influential of the late Church Fathers and he certainly wasn't unique in formulating an allegorical view of Genesis. How far that filtered down to the parish level or 'man in the field' is questionable but certainly by the modern era (particularly with developments in geology) few theologians were willing to defend a literal Genesis - as Darwin showed.

His teachings might not be a secret, but I imagine very few "lay people" would have heard of it.

Your right - Gailelo wasn't challenging genesis. I just referenced him as an example of the attitude to scientific knowledge but I should have made that clearer.

Does Darwin refute the allegory? As I understand that the RCC now fully accepts the theory of Darwinian evolution but believe that "god" shaped the process (intelligent design or whatever it is).

So they believe in both evolution and genesis, but as I understand it the latter is only believed as allegorical.

Frank Lee Midere

floggg wrote: »

His teachings might not be a secret, but I imagine very few "lay people" would have heard of it.

Your right - Gailelo wasn't challenging genesis. I just referenced him as an example of the attitude to scientific knowledge but I should have made that clearer.

Does Darwin refute the allegory? As I understand that the RCC now fully accepts the theory of Darwinian evolution but believe that "god" shaped the process (intelligent design or whatever it is).

So they believe in both evolution and genesis, but as I understand it the latter is only believed as allegorical.

Galileo was subject to house imprisonment. That's all. There have been plenty of priest scientists.

Reekwind

floggg wrote: »

His teachings might not be a secret, but I imagine very few "lay people" would have heard of it.

And? Wasn't your point that God or the Church hadn't corrected the perception that "Genesis was the literal word of God"? Not only has this never been official Catholic dogma but major Catholic thinkers have argued the opposite since some of the earliest days of the Church.

If this didn't filter down to the mass of peasants then it was because the Church's reach was too limited. That is, there was an inability to overcome traditional superstition and creation myths with the far more nuanced and sophisticated philosophy of the Church Fathers. Ironically, it was the increasing power of Rome (including the Tridentine standardisation and improvement of clerical education) that equipped most priests with a philosophical education.

All of which is very different from the case put forward by yourself that the Church was advocating literalism until those daring scientists stood up and challenged it. Leaving aside the assumption of a conflict that wasn't there (Newton could be both brilliant physicist and Biblical nutjob), this just isn't the case. The Church has employed allegory, particularly to Genesis and Revelations, since its earliest days. Far from being a maverick, Augustine was probably the single greatest individual influence on Catholic thinking.

Does Darwin refute the allegory? As I understand that the RCC now fully accepts the theory of Darwinian evolution but believe that "god" shaped the process (intelligent design or whatever it is).

Not allegory per se (that would be impressive) but some specific allegorical interpretations. To use an example from above, Augustine still assumed that God had created the Earth - He just hadn't done so according to what was laid down in Genesis. Instead he posited that creation had in fact taken place at a single moment in time. Which was wrong (obviously) but he was working from a Neo-Platonist position and didn't feel constrained by what the Bible actually said.

All Darwin really did (from this perspective) was provide a new explanation, a successor to Plato. Which is why the Church - at the time railing against every other sign of modernity, from liberalism to gas lighting - was relatively relaxed about evolution. It could quibble with specifics (humans related to monkeys, surely not!) but wasn't invested in arguing from literalism.

(As noted: Christian fundamentalism was a 19th C reaction to modernity. While the Church could easily accept evolution, fitting it into its allegorical model, the Protestant churches struggled and gave rise to the fundamentalist movement.)

Your right - Gailelo wasn't challenging genesis. I just referenced him as an example of the attitude to scientific knowledge but I should have made that clearer.

Again, the conflict there wasn't 'religion v science'. It was 'one scientific model v a new scientific model'. (Obviously I use the term 'science' loosely here.) The real obstacle to the Church accepting a heliocentric view of the universe (and it certainly wasn't unique in this) was an attachment to a particular brand of Greek philosophy, not the word of God.

The core problem in this case wasn't the actual subject of the debate but the Church's assumed role as the guardian of Western intellectual thought. Which was fair enough during the Middle Ages (when the Church held a near-monopoly on literacy) but increasingly unsustainable in the centuries that followed. This is the real impact of that affair - not 'science v religion' but the development of intellectual traditions outside of the Church. Hence, I'd suggest, the controversy over heliocentrism only flared up when Galileo raised the issue. Copernicus (a member of the Church, even if never a priest himself) was only met indifference and some dense theoretical responses when his thesis was first published.

PopePalpatine

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The problem is logically speaking to say that there definitely isn't an intelligent creator requires a leap of faith...

The only scientific position is agnostisism because the presence of an intelligent creator can never be proven or disproven.

Gnosticsm and theism are two separate scales. You can be an agnostic atheist who isn't sure whether god(s) exist, but doesn't believe in them (like myself and the majority of atheists).

Iwasfrozen

jackofalltrades wrote: »

But that's not a scientific position, it's a position of faith.

There may not be proof now, but there's no way of knowing what proof may be found, for or against an intelligent creator in the future.

The position of faith is to say that there definitely isn't an intelligent creator without any proof.

The only scientific position is agnostisism because nothing can be proven either way.

catallus

Could the Scientific Method be considered dogma in the religious sense? Since it is a human construct which underpins our perception of the universe?

LadyMayBelle

I knew this dude from when my family were in a born again church (escaped when I could)

I have no problem with people professing to be of a certain faith but when it comes to constant evangelism (which I can make an assumption it was) which would likely take over when work needed to be done I have a massive issue.

£70k is ridiculous.

jackofalltrades

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The position of faith is to say that there definitely isn't an intelligent creator without any proof.

The only scientific position is agnostisism because nothing can be proven either way.

Atheism would be compatible with a scientific position as well.
As in someone told you about a deity, offered no proof of their existence and you chose to not believe, based on the lack of evidence.

My issue with agnosticism is that the claim that the existence of a deity is unknowable.
I think this is a position of faith, because how can you claim that the existence of something can never not be known.

JuliusCaesar

suicide_circus wrote: »

In the words of the late Lou Reed

You're gonna reap just what you sow

Karma!


If only the world worked in this way. But I see the rich getting richer, the poor getting poorer, the brass-necked being rewarded, and people with ethics ground down........

which brings us back to our evangelical friend.


Seriously, I think this judgement was a huge misinterpretation of the principal of freedom of religion. Sure, you are free to believe what you like - but not to inflict your beliefs on all and sundry while working.

Also, I do not think this is a mental health issue, but rather somebody who takes the evangelising part of their religion more earnestly than most. I'm sure that there are people in Ireland who take the Second Commandment seriously: Thou shalt not taketh the name of the Lord thy God in vain. And there are religious people who see no blasphemy in pious ejaculations: jesus! sacred heart! holy mother of god! (although they might be arrested, no matter what their religion).

Iwasfrozen

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Atheism would be compatible with a scientific position as well.
As in someone told you about a deity, offered no proof of their existence and you chose to not believe, based on the lack of evidence.

My issue with agnosticism is that the claim that the existence of a deity is unknowable.
I think this is a position of faith, because how can you claim that the existence of something can never not be known.

An atheist claims there is definitely no deity of any kind. Given the lack of evidence there is that sort of claim requires faith. Logically speaking the only answer is "I don't know".

SpaceTime

This should absolutely be appealed for judicial review or whatever you can do with an Equality Tribunal ruling.

Hotblack Desiato

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

An atheist claims there is definitely no deity of any kind.

Very few if any atheists make that claim.
Atheism is a lack of belief in god(s) not a claim to knowledge of whether god(s) exist or not.

Iwasfrozen

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Very few if any atheists make that claim.
Atheism is a lack of belief in god(s) not a claim to knowledge of whether god(s) exist or not.

A lack in belief in a deity given no evidence requires a leap of faith.

kylith

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

A lack in belief in a deity given no evidence requires a leap of faith.

No, it doesn't. Would you say it's a leap of faith to not believe alien abduction stories?

mickydoomsux

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

An atheist claims there is definitely no deity of any kind. Given the lack of evidence there is that sort of claim requires faith. Logically speaking the only answer is "I don't know".

How can you prove that something that doesn't exist doesn't exist?

Are people supposed to default to believing that literally everything dreamt up by someone else could possibly exist until it is disproved?

That's idiotic.

blinding

jill_valentine wrote: »

Can you imagine actually having to work with the chap in the article?

Surely there would be some decisive/brutal/barbaric way to deal with him in the Old testament.

God told me to decapitate/or whatever and thems my beliefs !