God is Imaginary
Replies
-
I agree that no-one should be allowed to push their beliefs on other people. However, I have ask - replacement for what?I don't think the sort of atheist who feels the need to push their beliefs onto other people has a good replacement handy.0 -
Conversations such as this are interesting. In this short time I've come to respect what you've got to say even though our world view is radically different.
And I, you.0 -
Even your own Church teaches the date m_a_b is defending.
I think you've already mentioned it, but you're confused on what m_a_b and I were actially debating.0 -
How does an atheist push their beliefs onto other people? I see Christians demanding that we teach creationism in schools. I've never heard of an atheist saying we need to teach that God is imaginary. I've seen Christians protest that a mosque was being built. I've never seen an atheist protest that a church was. I've had Christians come to my home uninvited and tell me I'm going to hell if I don't believe as they do. I've never had an atheist come to my house and tell me there is no hell. I see Christians saying that gay marriage should be illegal because of their salad bar approach to their religious beliefs. Then they turn around and say that atheists saying their religion has no bearing on laws is "forcing atheism down their throat."I'm not sure why anyone thinks:
1. The existence of G-d is scientifically provable
2. The Bible has to be scientifically true in order to be either a) true or b) useful
3. Science and reason are sufficient to resolve ethical issues
Then against, I think we Jews (and probably other tribal cultures as well) have a very different understanding of religion that Christians and Muslims do.
Yeah, I'm being a snarky jerk and running away from the argument.
Just addressing point 3, I would argue that religion is neither sufficient nor necessary to resolve ethical issues.
And I'd agree with you, but I don't think the sort of atheist who feels the need to push their beliefs onto other people has a good replacement handy. Mostly, they just strike me as being bitter about religion, which is annoying since that usually means that they are projecting their own negative experiences onto other religions that they know nothing about. Which would explain why Richard Dawkins et al. remind me so much of early Christians.0 -
No, but you've seen atheists push to have prayer REMOVED from schools, to have certain statues removed from government buildings, to change the Pledge of Allegiance, forcing people to change the name of Christmas trees to holiday trees, etc.How does an atheist push their beliefs onto other people? I see Christians demanding that we teach creationism in schools. I've never heard of an atheist saying we need to teach that God is imaginary.
Not all protestors of mosques being built are ChristiansI've seen Christians protest that a mosque was being built.
And I've seen atheists say the government should stay out of people's bedrooms but then push for the government to make sure companies (even Catholic ones) provide coverage for birth control.I see Christians saying that gay marriage should be illegal because of their salad bar approach to their religious beliefs. Then they turn around and say that atheists saying their religion has no bearing on laws is "forcing atheism down their throat."
Standing on your convictions is an admirable thing. Both sides of this issue do the same things, just in different ways. There is a difference for standing for what you believe in and "shoving it on other people".0 -
No, but you've seen atheists push to have prayer REMOVED from schools, to have certain statues removed from government buildings, to change the Pledge of Allegiance, forcing people to change the name of Christmas trees to holiday trees, etc.How does an atheist push their beliefs onto other people? I see Christians demanding that we teach creationism in schools. I've never heard of an atheist saying we need to teach that God is imaginary.
Not all protestors of mosques being built are ChristiansI've seen Christians protest that a mosque was being built.
And I've seen atheists say the government should stay out of people's bedrooms but then push for the government to make sure companies (even Catholic ones) provide coverage for birth control.I see Christians saying that gay marriage should be illegal because of their salad bar approach to their religious beliefs. Then they turn around and say that atheists saying their religion has no bearing on laws is "forcing atheism down their throat."
Standing on your convictions is an admirable thing. Both sides of this issue do the same things, just in different ways. There is a difference for standing for what you believe in and "shoving it on other people".
Small point of order. The push on the Pledge of Allegiance is to put it back the way it was before it was changed during the Red Scare.0 -
I agree with that - religion has no place in schools or the workplace.No, but you've seen atheists push to have prayer REMOVED from schools,
Again religion has no place in the workplace. Good health and hygiene does.And I've seen atheists say the government should stay out of people's bedrooms but then push for the government to make sure companies (even Catholic ones) provide coverage for birth control0 -
I agree that no-one should be allowed to push their beliefs on other people. However, I have ask - replacement for what?I don't think the sort of atheist who feels the need to push their beliefs onto other people has a good replacement handy.
One of the useful parts of religion is that it can serve as an ethical check on people. Bob Dylan phrased this really well in one of his songs, when he sang, "Every man's conscience is vile and depraved. You cannot depend on it to be your guide when its you who must keep it satisfied."
This, of course, doesn't mean that religious people are automatically more ethical. But it does mean that an exterior ethical system, such as provided by religion and philosophy, is a very good thing to have. Especially since science is not capable of providing moral judgments (though it can provide utilitarian judgments sometimes).0 -
No, but you've seen atheists push to have prayer REMOVED from schools,
You get my point. That's YOU pushing your beliefs on others (your belief that religion has no place in school or workplace).I agree with that - religion has no place in schools or the workplace.And I've seen atheists say the government should stay out of people's bedrooms but then push for the government to make sure companies (even Catholic ones) provide coverage for birth control
My point made again. YOU want to push your view onto Cathoolic employers.Again religion has no place in the workplace. Good health and hygiene does.
My point is that Christians and atheists do the same things for different reasons.0 -
I agree that no-one should be allowed to push their beliefs on other people. However, I have ask - replacement for what?I don't think the sort of atheist who feels the need to push their beliefs onto other people has a good replacement handy.
One of the useful parts of religion is that it can serve as an ethical check on people. Bob Dylan phrased this really well in one of his songs, when he sang, "Every man's conscience is vile and depraved. You cannot depend on it to be your guide when its you who must keep it satisfied."
This, of course, doesn't mean that religious people are automatically more ethical. But it does mean that an exterior ethical system, such as provided by religion and philosophy, is a very good thing to have. Especially since science is not capable of providing moral judgments (though it can provide utilitarian judgments sometimes).
Yet science has seen ethics and morality present in higher mammals such as bonobos with an absence of religion. I disagree with Dylan that all men are vile and depraved. I believe the majority have empathy and will do right by their fellow human beings.0 -
I agree with that - religion has no place in schools or the workplace.No, but you've seen atheists push to have prayer REMOVED from schools,
Again religion has no place in the workplace. Good health and hygiene does.And I've seen atheists say the government should stay out of people's bedrooms but then push for the government to make sure companies (even Catholic ones) provide coverage for birth control
1. There is no prohibition on students praying individually in public schools. The issue is and always has been when it is mandated by the school or the teachers.
2. I know more women on birth control pills for health reasons than I do for birth control reasons. So, yes, when friends are told that they will likely never be able to have children unless they use the pill to regulate their hormones, I think that employers should be required to cover that, just as they cover their middle-aged male employees' viagra.0 -
No - I would ensure that no belief was enforced. It's either that or allow all. So as well as Christian prayers taking place in schools the children should also attend Muslim prayers.You get my point. That's YOU pushing your beliefs on others (your belief that religion has no place in school or workplace).
Again - no. I'm saying that Catholic employers are not above the law. And surely what they'd want anyway is a healthy work force.My point made again. YOU want to push your view onto Cathoolic employers.
Here's a fact - the use of condoms reduces the risk of cervical cancer to a woman by 70%. Isn't that in itself worth making sure that every woman in the world has access to them? That has nothing to do with me being an atheist, it's to do with me being a human being.
Here's another fact - the chance of preventing cervical cancer through prayer? Ziltch.0 -
I'm actually not disagreeing with your opinion on this. But, what my point in this is: We all tend to "push our opinions on others", whether we're Christians or not.No - I would ensure that no belief was enforced. It's either that or allow all. So as well as Christian prayers taking place in schools the children should also attend Muslim prayers.
I get what you're saying. My point is not whether you're right or wrong. My point is that you want your opinions and views enforced on others. Period.Again - no. I'm saying that Catholic employers are not above the law. And surely what they'd want anyway is a healthy work force.0 -
Here's another fact - the chance of preventing cervical cancer through prayer? Ziltch.
You really sure that's a fact? Do you know "for a fact" that a woman who has prayed NOT to get cancer and hasn't gotten cancer was NOT because of prayer? I don't think you really want to commit to that statement of fact.0 -
Good point. There are, of course, women who have prayed not to get cancer and have, indeed, not got cancer. However, there is no statistical link between the prayer being done and the cancer developing or not developing. Statistically prayer makes no difference to the chances of getting cancer. What does make a difference is putting on a condom.You really sure that's a fact? Do you know "for a fact" that a woman who has prayed NOT to get cancer and hasn't gotten cancer was NOT because of prayer? I don't think you really want to commit to that statement of fact.0 -
Good point. There are, of course, women who have prayed not to get cancer and have, indeed, not got cancer. However, there is no statistical link between the prayer being done and the cancer developing or not developing. Statistically prayer makes no difference the chances of getting cancer. What does make a difference is putting on a condom.
Morally speaking, for Catholics, artificial contraception is wrong. You may place a higher value on physical health, and I may place a higher value on spiritual health.0 -
Good point. There are, of course, women who have prayed not to get cancer and have, indeed, not got cancer. However, there is no statistical link between the prayer being done and the cancer developing or not developing. Statistically prayer makes no difference the chances of getting cancer. What does make a difference is putting on a condom.
But you cannot judge someone's morality. Morally speaking, for Catholics, artificial contraception is wrong. You may place a higher value on physical health, and I may place a higher value on spiritual health.
Which is your personal choice and right. But should this personal choice be forced upon others simply because of where they work?0 -
You get my point. That's YOU pushing your beliefs on others (your belief that religion has no place in school or workplace).
I disagree with this statement. It's not atheists pushing their beliefs as much as it is them defending themselves against others' beliefs. The constitution protects us from religion in public schools. Private places of employment are another story.
However, in the case of religious hospitals, I think public health should trump religious beliefs. Similar to this case in the UK where the court decided this nurse's right to wear a cross did not override the health and safety of her patients.
"But in Chaplin's case, which was superficially almost identical, the judges unanimously decided the British courts had resolved competing rights equitably.
Chaplin had also stressed the importance for her to be allowed to bear witness to her Christian faith by wearing a crucifix visibly around her neck at work. In her case, however, the Strasbourg judges considered the fact that hospital authorities had asked her to remove it for the protection of health and safety and to prevent infections spreading on a ward "was inherently more important". Hospital managers, the judges agreed, "were well placed to make decisions about clinical safety".
http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2013/jan/15/ba-rights-cross-european-court0 -
You know us atheist - no morals whatsoever. Now where's that baby? I haven't had my lunch yet.But you cannot judge someone's morality. Morally speaking, for Catholics, artificial contraception is wrong. You may place a higher value on physical health, and I may place a higher value on spiritual health.
However, I do believe that it is morally wrong to prevent women from having simple protection from one of the most common cancers. I know there's the argument that it's a woman's choice whether or not she has sex, but we both know that many don't have a choice.
Also, I don't think that the Bible actually says anything about contraception. As far as I know, that's just the Catholic creed of wanting to be miserable. If the Pope can't have any fun no-one else can either (queue "celebrate" joke).0 -
I've never said any such thing.You know us atheist - no morals whatsoever. Now where's that baby? I haven't had my lunch yet.0 -
Apologies - maybe I should have added a
I've never said any such thing.You know us atheist - no morals whatsoever. Now where's that baby? I haven't had my lunch yet.
or a :devil: 0 -
Apologies - maybe I should have added a or a :devil:
Well, I do often use the "eating babies" joke with my atheist friends! I just have to be careful here so no one thinks I really mean that. Ha!0 -
Which is your personal choice and right. But should this personal choice be forced upon others simply because of where they work?
No one forced them to work at a Catholic organization. I don't understand going to work (or study) at a religious institution and then wanting to force YOUR beliefs on THEM. Go work or study some place else.0 -
I see you were actually debating the date of Mark, not Matthew. Here's what the Catholic bishops say about that:Traditionally, the gospel is said to have been written shortly before A.D. 70 in Rome, at a time of impending persecution and when destruction loomed over Jerusalem. http://old.usccb.org/nab/bible/mark/intro.htm
You're quoting an article. I think this article is factually wrong on the dating issue. This is taken from the notes included in the New American Bible, a Catholic translation. Although I am a Catholic, there is no obligation for me to accept the claims of this article. It is simply wrong to say that "traditionally, the gospel is said to have been written shortly before AD 70." What tradition? I know of no such tradition, certainly not in the early centuries. What does "shortly before" mean?
I think I gave a sound argument for an earlier dating in the observations I made about Luke's Gospel. The primary reason for choosing a later date for these Gospels is anti-supernatural and "historicist" assumptions, all of which I reject. The actual evidence, internal and external, supports an earlier date.
So much for your position that you don't pick and choose which teachings of the Catholic Church to believe. Like everyone, you do pick and choose, based on how authoritative you find the teaching. The American Catholic bishops have approved a translation of the Bible that includes that introduction to Mark and yet you reject it based on what you believe is superior evidence. Welcome to the wonderful world of "cafeteria Catholicism"!0 -
So much for your position that you don't pick and choose which teachings of the Catholic Church to believe. Like everyone, you do pick and choose, based on how authoritative you find the teaching. The American Catholic bishops have approved a translation of the Bible that includes that introduction to Mark and yet you reject it based on what you believe is superior evidence. Welcome to the wonderful world of "cafeteria Catholicism"!
Nice try. I don't "pick and choose which of the teachings of the Catholic Church to believe". I think you're either misunderstanding what I'm saying or misunderstanding the difference between the Church's teachings and articles you've read.0 -
This debate has ranged over many issues with input from many contributors. Some contributors have been dismissive of the views of others and some have displayed remarkable intolerance. There is one issue however which has to be faced by every person who has contributed to the debate. All of us will one day die and will be unable to escape from the consequences of the position which each has espoused. It surely behoves each person to reflect soberly on the certainty of their position. As a committed christian my confidence is based on the person of Jesus Christ and the atonement which he made for my sins at Calvary. I accept that many people do not share my faith and they are free to do so. If those who reject the message of the gospel are correct, and I don't for one moment believe that they are ,then the consequences for me are simply oblivion. If however they are wrong, as scripture solemnly tells them they are, then the consequences for them are too horrible to contemplate. All the side issues raised in this debate pale into insignificance when faced with this simple question, WHAT ARE THE CONSEQUENCES FOR YOU IF YOU ARE WRONG? There are no second chances.0
-
So much for your position that you don't pick and choose which teachings of the Catholic Church to believe. Like everyone, you do pick and choose, based on how authoritative you find the teaching. The American Catholic bishops have approved a translation of the Bible that includes that introduction to Mark and yet you reject it based on what you believe is superior evidence. Welcome to the wonderful world of "cafeteria Catholicism"!
You profoundly misunderstand Catholicism. The Catholic Church has a specific Creed and Catechism that explain the essentials of our faith. The Church has a hierarchy that has varying levels of authority in interpreting and applying the Catholic faith. Nowhere has the Catholic Church issued a formal decree on the specific dating of the Gospels. The notes written by scholars for a study Bible do not qualify as having any significant level of authority in the formal Magisterial teachings of the Church. Please find something on this matter in the Catechism or a formal statement of an ecumenical council or papal encyclical or formal teaching and you have some grounds for your accusations. The USCCB puts things on their website that they think may be helpful but they do not intend that those documents (unless otherwise indicated) have any binding force on studious members of the Catholic Church. You seem to have a very skewed notion of the Church’s teaching office.
To show how badly you have characterized the situation, take a look at the Catholic Encyclopedia, the section on the dating of Mark’s Gospel:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09674b.htm
Here you see this respected resource by Catholic scholars concludes that a date between AD 50 and 67 is the most likely time-frame. (By the way, the Catholic Encyclopedia bears the “imprimatur” of the bishop of the area in which it was published; that means that it is deemed “safe” for those wishing to be faithful to Catholic teaching). I guarantee you that any bishop in the United States would confirm what I’m saying. None of those bishops would take a copied section from a study Bible notes and consider it authoritative and binding on the conscience of any Catholic.0 -
Which is your personal choice and right. But should this personal choice be forced upon others simply because of where they work?
No one forced them to work at a Catholic organization. I don't understand going to work (or study) at a religious institution and then wanting to force YOUR beliefs on THEM. Go work or study some place else.
I see a huge difference between imposing rules based on religion run a daycare, private school, or even a restaurant (I'm looking at you, Chik-fil-A!!) than if you're running a hospital or a pharmacy. Public health trumps religious freedom, always.
Let's look at it this way. You've been in a terrible car accident. You're rushed to the hospital and it's determined that you're bleeding out and need a blood transfusion. But wait! This hospital is run by Jehova's witnesses, blood transfusions are against their religion. Sorry, you have to die.0 -
So much for your position that you don't pick and choose which teachings of the Catholic Church to believe. Like everyone, you do pick and choose, based on how authoritative you find the teaching. The American Catholic bishops have approved a translation of the Bible that includes that introduction to Mark and yet you reject it based on what you believe is superior evidence. Welcome to the wonderful world of "cafeteria Catholicism"!
You profoundly misunderstand Catholicism. The Catholic Church has a specific Creed and Catechism that explain the essentials of our faith. The Church has a hierarchy that has varying levels of authority in interpreting and applying the Catholic faith. Nowhere has the Catholic Church issued a formal decree on the specific dating of the Gospels. The notes written by scholars for a study Bible do not qualify as having any significant level of authority in the formal Magisterial teachings of the Church. Please find something on this matter in the Catechism or a formal statement of an ecumenical council or papal encyclical or formal teaching and you have some grounds for your accusations. The USCCB puts things on their website that they think may be helpful but they do not intend that those documents (unless otherwise indicated) have any binding force on studious members of the Catholic Church. You seem to have a very skewed notion of the Church’s teaching office.
To show how badly you have characterized the situation, take a look at the Catholic Encyclopedia, the section on the dating of Mark’s Gospel:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09674b.htm
Here you see this respected resource by Catholic scholars concludes that a date between AD 50 and 67 is the most likely time-frame. (By the way, the Catholic Encyclopedia bears the “imprimatur” of the bishop of the area in which it was published; that means that it is deemed “safe” for those wishing to be faithful to Catholic teaching). I guarantee you that any bishop in the United States would confirm what I’m saying. None of those bishops would take a copied section from a study Bible notes and consider it authoritative and binding on the conscience of any Catholic.
Aren't selections from the NAB used in the only Mass lectionary approved by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops?0 -
This debate has ranged over many issues with input from many contributors. Some contributors have been dismissive of the views of others and some have displayed remarkable intolerance. There is one issue however which has to be faced by every person who has contributed to the debate. All of us will one day die and will be unable to escape from the consequences of the position which each has espoused. It surely behoves each person to reflect soberly on the certainty of their position. As a committed christian my confidence is based on the person of Jesus Christ and the atonement which he made for my sins at Calvary. I accept that many people do not share my faith and they are free to do so. If those who reject the message of the gospel are correct, and I don't for one moment believe that they are ,then the consequences for me are simply oblivion. If however they are wrong, as scripture solemnly tells them they are, then the consequences for them are too horrible to contemplate. All the side issues raised in this debate pale into insignificance when faced with this simple question, WHAT ARE THE CONSEQUENCES FOR YOU IF YOU ARE WRONG? There are no second chances.
Ah, the apologist Pascale's Wager. Does God want people to be faithful out of love and devotion or faithful out of fear?0
