[SPLIT] The "finer" points of apologetics and its rebuttal

[thushan]

Playing Satan's Advocate: You are free to obey me. You are also free to go to hell. I am not forcing you to obey me.

[enwiabe]

Hmm. Agnostic, but very very close to atheist. I don't think anyone, even enwiabe, could be ENTIRELY atheist - because that would imply that you have absolute incontrovertible proof that god doesn't exist. Which I don't have, and nor does anyone to my knowledge.

Indeed. I am an agnostic atheist, the only scientifically defensible position.

What evidence would make you change your position?

Change the universal physical constants.

[thushan]

Hmm. Agnostic, but very very close to atheist. I don't think anyone, even enwiabe, could be ENTIRELY atheist - because that would imply that you have absolute incontrovertible proof that god doesn't exist. Which I don't have, and nor does anyone to my knowledge.

Indeed. I am an agnostic atheist, the only scientifically defensible position.

What evidence would make you change your position?

Incontrovertible proof to the limitations of my senses that god exists. Just like what we do in the scientific method.

[JellyDonut]

So what you're saying is that the catholic church had the implied military force of whichever ruling party it got into bed with. Sounds like it had a standing army ready to go at any time it chose...

Yes, but two things to consider at the time: 1) the church was still an instrument of the state and 2) the kings, even up to Charlemagne, didn't really appreciate a church that started butting into military affairs

They had the protection of the state they were sucking up to, but not necessarily the ability to be the aggressor

[Soul_Khan]

Hmm. Agnostic, but very very close to atheist. I don't think anyone, even enwiabe, could be ENTIRELY atheist - because that would imply that you have absolute incontrovertible proof that god doesn't exist. Which I don't have, and nor does anyone to my knowledge.

Indeed. I am an agnostic atheist, the only scientifically defensible position.

What evidence would make you change your position?

Change the universal physical constants.

Lol, ty for the succinct answer
Theists.. I suggest you start praying..

[enwiabe]

So what you're saying is that the catholic church had the implied military force of whichever ruling party it got into bed with. Sounds like it had a standing army ready to go at any time it chose...

Yes, but two things to consider at the time: 1) the church was still an instrument of the state and 2) the kings, even up to Charlemagne, didn't really appreciate a church that started butting into military affairs

They had the protection of the state they were sucking up to, but not necessarily the ability to be the aggressor

But they went hand in hand. The state used the church for legitimacy with its constituency. Why? The populace listened to the church. The church had that power over people which is what made them such an attractive partner for those transient states.

So when the church says that heretics get burnt and heresy includes investigating science -and they did do that- it is obvious as to why we stagnated 1500 years.

[Russ]

I know the logic is highly controversial

I wonder why...

And I'm acting as a Devil's advocate here for the good of debate

If you're going to do this then you need to actually provoke interesting debate, not just post the first CONTROVERSIAL thing you can think of and run with it. I could play devil's advocate by suggesting any number of absurd things, but that's not going to further anything.

Given the standard of contraception in the 1960s (and earlier)

They had condoms...what else do you want?

please, I'm only talking initial, enwiabe has made his point somewhat rightly about Africa NOWADAYS,

Why is it only somewhat right?

It seems fair to assume that if such practice was encouraged or not frowned upon by society, that the problem could have become a lot worse a lot quicker.

Non sequitur. Just because society frowns on gays having sex, doesn't mean they're not going to do it. (also read my post above)

[pi]

I've already established that religion makes people unaccountable to their peers. That is a thematic argument that you wanted. I already made it.

Once you are unaccountable to your peers, you can wrong them in whatever way you think your god wants you to do so. My rationalist advocacy is about setting the bar higher and saying that it is not enough to hold up a holy book and say "because god said so". You must justify it based on humanist principles.

It then follows that religion is unsustainable in this model, because it stifles critical appraisal. That is not the way forward for an advanced society.

Okay, I still think that is a rather Abrahamic view of religion.

Take Buddhism or Hinduism as examples, your post isn't in line with them at all.

As for humanist principles, do you refer to common laws? If so, many of those are based on what religions advocate anyway. The two are entwined in modern times.

If you're going to do this then you need to actually provoke interesting debate, not just post the first CONTROVERSIAL thing you can think of and run with it. I could play devil's advocate by suggesting any number of absurd things, but that's not going to further anything.

I'll admit to it being fairly poor tact, but the goal was to convince everyone here that the religion is not solely to blame for the problems enwiabe listed, and certainly not "religion" as a concept.

[thushan]

I would even go as far as to say Buddhism isnt really a religion as much as it is a philosophy. In Buddhism, it is taught, firstly that there is no god, that god is a product of fear.

[mr.politiks]

This has a scant level of relevance, but needs to be shared.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRUGqUkZ5Lk&feature=related

Its pretty funny as well that this news channel's fb page was removed by fb admin. Free speech?

[enwiabe]

This has a scant level of relevance, but needs to be shared.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRUGqUkZ5Lk&feature=related

Its pretty funny as well that this news channel's fb page was removed by fb admin. Free speech?

Maybe make a new thread for this?

[mr.politiks]

If you want to make one. Personally wouldnt see much benefit in it. Just felt that some of those in this discussion might have some interest in this sort of thing.

Apologies. Correction: presstv advertisements were banned, not a massive issue.

[slothpomba]

Hmm. Agnostic, but very very close to atheist. I don't think anyone, even enwiabe, could be ENTIRELY atheist - because that would imply that you have absolute incontrovertible proof that god doesn't exist. Which I don't have, and nor does anyone to my knowledge.

You really can't just be agnostic with no qualifier.

Agnostic is a term that relates to knowledge. Atheist/Theist/Believer is a term that relates to theology and God.

Agnostic implies you don't have enough evidence or proof to conclusively know one way or the other. I could be agnostic about the fact you own a cat for example. Indeed, its an entirely reasonable and logical thing for you to have (unlike say a castle) but i can't actually logically derive you have a cat, so, i have to witness it to be sure. Short of doing that though, i could be agnostic about your cat (of course most people will just believe you own a cat on face value, you have no reason to lie, this was just an example).

Likewise, throughout the history of philosophy of religion, theres been no conclusive argument that shows a God either does or does not exist. So, it would almost be the height of hypocrisy for any atheist to claim they weren't agnostic about the existence of God, that would be very illogical and non-scientific. 

If you're interested in these things, you might like to read a little more extensive piece i wrote about it.

I would even go as far as to say Buddhism isnt really a religion as much as it is a philosophy. In Buddhism, it is taught, firstly that there is no god, that god is a product of fear.

The western idea of religion seems ill-equipped to be applied to religions from other places or maybe our consideration of religion as a whole is flawed.

It's true there is no God in Buddhism but there is metaphysical and mystical elements, there is a moral code attached to it which believers must follow and are rewarded/punished for it. It seems its more substantial than a philosophy.

Incontrovertible proof to the limitations of my senses that god exists. Just like what we do in the scientific method.

What if God couldn't work miracles or chose not too (indeed, in my opinion, there are good reasons for this). Would your method still be sufficient for establishing the truth if you were actually looking for it?

This has a scant level of relevance, but needs to be shared.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRUGqUkZ5Lk&feature=related

Its pretty funny as well that this news channel's fb page was removed by fb admin. Free speech?

They don't like Assad because he's a Shi'a Alawite Muslim. Al-queda are Sunni militant extremists. They don't think believe Shi'a are muslims. There are also political reasons here. Of course al-queda, considering its ambition, would love to have influence in a government. If they help topple Syria and insert their own agents, they can have control over a future Syria and maybe make it more friendly to al-queda. Don't think for a moment they also don't hate the USA. This just presents a useful opportunity for them to grab.

An absolutely excellent docco on the origins of Al-Queda and how its not nearly as strong or ominous as everyone thinks is the power of nightmares.

Video Link

-------

As for the condoms, its true the church teaching is against most forms of contraception. However, it's also true the church teaching against pre-martial casual sex. It seems logical that a lot of cases of transmission of AIDs aren't between two partners who are already married, this wouldn't really explain its explosive growth either. If they are ignoring the churches teaching on pre-martial sex, why would they be following the churches ruling on condoms?

So, if disregarded one of the teachings, they're not likely to follow the other, so its no impediment for them using condoms. If they follow both teachings (eg. no premartial sex), AID's certainly wouldn't be as bad as it is now.

Given what i said above, that should be enough but it seems they've also recently relaxed their position:

"After decades of fierce opposition to the use of all contraception, the Pontiff has ended the Church’s absolute ban on the use of condoms.

He said it was acceptable to use a prophylactic when the sole intention was to “reduce the risk of infection” from Aids.

While he restated the Catholic Church’s staunch objections to contraception because it believes that it interferes with the creation of life, he argued that using a condom to preserve life and avoid death could be a responsible act – even outside marriage. " - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/the-pope/8148944/The-Pope-drops-Catholic-ban-on-condoms-in-historic-shift.html

[ninwa]

"Recently relaxed their position" doesn't make up for the decades of harm they've caused

[slothpomba]

"Recently relaxed their position" doesn't make up for the decades of harm they've caused

If you read the rest of my post, its clear why the level of harm claimed is doubtful.

Whats happened has happened. You can be constantly antagonist to them if you like but they are changing now, feel free to stand and speak if you rather they never changed their position.

I'm not denying they done some harm and this can't totally restore that but surely you shouldn't be critical of the very thing you've (metaphorically) asked them to change. From now on, less harm will be done and i think thats something we're all in favour of, so, in terms of this particular decision, its a good step for the catholic church (pointing out of course there is more to catholicism than Christianity and Africa isn't only full of catholics).