Papal Visit to the UK

[Cort Haus]

Oh, and Sava. A couple of very good posts up there

[OneFootInTheGrave]

So in 5bn years we'll have several billion (at least) new universes created by these 'gods'? Each of them with a whole eternity, a heaven and a hell, and with human-alikes with 'eternal souls' that somehow get transferred to 'heaven' on their deaths (and not a computer simulation)?

I don't think I can argue with this one, but i would hope they have a bit more interesting ideas than heaven and hell style solutions

[OneFootInTheGrave]

This is a bizarre extrapolation, to put it mildly.

First, is the suggestion that us still-relatively-unsophisticated primates (who have only just got over the notion that digital watches are a pretty neat idea) are somehow halfway along the time-line to deity - whatever that is. Not sure how that's calculated.

Second, this hypothetical deity, although poorly defined, is frequently credited with the ability to conjure universes up on a whim - presumably because it has nothing better to do and must be rather bored with being omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and all the rest but with no actual universe(s) to exercise these super powers over. I'm not sure how humans-becoming-god fits in here. Do they create a universe to to lord it over too? What will the original god feel about this? Perhaps retirement to pipe & slippers.

Third, I'm not sure where this 'ton of circumstantial evidence' is other than in people's imaginations.

As for "case closed". Welcome back AAHZ

for first and second - what would you propose we get if you add another 5 bn years to humanity

For the third - too easiliy dismissed - religious beliefs are quite universal, and IMO if you give yourself some effort you can find out it is not just imagination, as the reason why there are so many "believers" of one sort or another. Lots of peer pressure and tradition, but also quite a lot of convincing reasons can be found for some of them to believe in what they do. I am sure some of the believers here on the board have some personal reasons why they do so which are not just pure imagination.

as for AAHZ

[Cort Haus]

Well, if we are to believe in one god and accompanying accessories, we might as well make room for an infinite number of them while we're at it.

(edit - glib quip to #257)

[OneFootInTheGrave]

sure, I am not arguing that one, but just that the notion of "nothing but us" in this universe is very unlikely, based on what we know about it at the moment. Furhtermore a "god"/"gods"/whatever are very likely too, I would say almost inevitable due to us existing and the ~infity of space and time that has passed under the current conditions. The God question should not be - does he exist, but what is he/they/it/whatever...

[Cort Haus]

for first and second - what would you propose we get if you add another 5 bn years to humanity

Civ=M, if my understanding of Roman numerals is correct, and assuming one release every five years - it should be quite a game.

For the third - too easiliy dismissed - religious beliefs are quite universal, and IMO if you give yourself some effort you can find out it is not just imagination, as the reason why there are so many "believers" of one sort or another. Lots of peer pressure and tradition, but also quite a lot of convincing reasons can be found for some of them to believe in what they do. I am sure some of the believers here on the board have some personal reasons why they do so which are not just pure imagination.

The notion that one's country is superior to the one next door, if not all others, is also quite universal, but it doesn't make it correct. Personal conviction in millions of people for the validity of a given metaphysical belief system might be overwhelmingly convincing for the individual, but it doesn't validate any particular religion. There are plenty of personal reasons for not believing too, FWIW.

Perhaps you may be arguing just for a metaphysical 'something' though, rather than a specific religion, or even god. With such a moving target it can be difficult to refute an undefined thing.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

no I would define it as a being/s as material as us, based on the above. For the religious reality vs immagination, I think that in a lot of cases the actual help is not just imagination and it is the basis for belief by a number of actual religious people, the religion itself being irrelevant. Prayer, meditation, religious type behaviour works for a lot of people and IMO not on an imaginary basis only. This should be a different discussion, but in this particular one, I think it is a worthy consideration for evidence of non-humans being involved with humans on a regular basis.

[N35t0r]

Gods exist because people grow up and realise that their fathers are just human like them, and probably even more mediocre than the next door neighbour.

[Ben Kenobi]

Mike:

Catholicism stands for all these outrageous things

That's entirely personal opinion. There are plenty more outrageous things out there than what the Catholic church believes.

against the views of modern society

Personally given the things that modern society is, that's not exactly a bad thing. You think modern society is reasonable and rational? Look at the supermarket checkout.

So essentially, you joined the Catholic Church to troll?

Recall that people spraypainted the Catholic church on campus. These are the supposedly 'reasonable' people. That really opened my eyes. It's because people who considered themselves so 'tolerant' were so intolerant that made me wonder why. I was one of you, not that long ago, and when the folks who are supposed to be on my side are doing things that I find to be wrong, it makes me thing that I was on the wrong side. I believe in freedom of religion of thought, and that just because people disagreed with me didn't make them wrong. That hasn't changed. I think that the Church deserves respect, as does the Hitchens group.

[Ben Kenobi]

Nobody here is surprised to learn that BK joined the Catholic Church for an utterly ridiculous reason rather than genuine faith. He's repeatedly shown himself to be a terrible Christian, even by Catholic standards.

Believing what the Catholic church teaches to be true isn't genuine faith?

Recall it took me a long time to join. I wasn't going to join unless I understood what I needed to.

I guess I'll always be questioned. That's fine. I'd only be surprised by kindnesses shown here, and it ain't your side that's showing it.

[BlackCat]

That's entirely personal opinion. There are plenty more outrageous things out there than what the Catholic church believes.

Sure, but are these criminals supported/protected by a world wide religious organisation ?

Personally given the things that modern society is, that's not exactly a bad thing. You think modern society is reasonable and rational? Look at the supermarket checkout.

Yeah, it was way more reasonable when the church dictated how things was done

Recall that people spraypainted the Catholic church on campus. These are the supposedly 'reasonable' people. That really opened my eyes. It's because people who considered themselves so 'tolerant' were so intolerant that made me wonder why. I was one of you, not that long ago, and when the folks who are supposed to be on my side are doing things that I find to be wrong, it makes me thing that I was on the wrong side. I believe in freedom of religion of thought, and that just because people disagreed with me didn't make them wrong. That hasn't changed. I think that the Church deserves respect, as does the Hitchens group.

Yep, they that tried to expose the crimes of the catholic church is of course evil - how dare they ? even using spray paint

Though, I find it quite amusing that you are so tolerant that you accept child abuse as long as religious freedom isn't hurt.

[giblets]

Recall that people spraypainted the Catholic church on campus. These are the supposedly 'reasonable' people. That really opened my eyes. It's because people who considered themselves so 'tolerant' were so intolerant that made me wonder why. I was one of you, not that long ago, and when the folks who are supposed to be on my side are doing things that I find to be wrong, it makes me thing that I was on the wrong side. I believe in freedom of religion of thought, and that just because people disagreed with me didn't make them wrong. That hasn't changed. I think that the Church deserves respect, as does the Hitchens group.

I find this puzzling, because the Catholic Church has protected pedophiles. Don't you find that to be wrong? Does it make you wonder if you are on the wrong side? I don't even understand the line of reasoning you're using. You seem to be prone to making generalizations about groups of people based on the actions of individuals. A few people spray paint a Catholic church, and all of a sudden non-Catholics as a group are intolerant?

[Cort Haus]

I don't agree with people spray-painting a church. Apart from anything else, I live in one.

It pales into insignificance against raping children though.

[C0ckney]

If I said science "will discover all" I mis-spoke. I thought I'd said that "science could discover all". I doubt we'll be around long enough to find everything out. I can't be bothered going back through the thread to find what I said, but argue against that concept at least if you are going to.

lets remind ourselves of who said what, because it's rather important in the context of this debate.

me in bold, you in italics.

i think to characterise religious belief as simply filling in the blanks until science can provide the answers is taking a very limited view of things and ignores the fact that there are many questions that cannot be answered using the scientific method.

No there aren't. Name one?

There are things we don't have answers to yet. There are things we know we can't measure yet, there aren't questions that can never be answered.

your statement is what i took issue with, and what started this exchange. so to say now that you can't remember and can't be bothered to check it (because it's so hard to go back two pages...) is a bit much. i still maintain that there are (a lot) of questions that can't be answered using a scientific method. someone else (bebro?) said that science isn't some sort of magic meant to answer everything and i agree with them. this is not a criticism of science.

although in fairness you seem to have modified your position somewhat in subsequent posts. so perhaps we disagree less now.

You can't phrase the question in a way that will get you an answer that will satisfy you. We have comprehensively answered "what is love" several times. Read up on emotional evolution if you want to know more.

the question was phrased in a very simple and clear way, so i don't know what you're trying to say here. we talk about love a lot, in our own lives, in books, in music, in all sorts things and ways. it is perfectly legitimate to ask and explore the question of 'what is love'.

you haven't provided anything like a comprehensive answer i'm afraid. you have provided a chemical explanation and talked about some other things which are at best ancillary to the question i asked. it's been pointed out several times why i and others think your answer is inadequate. you'd do better to address that rather than claiming that you've provided THE answer and then bleating that people won't accept your answer.

Much science goes against 'common sense' or standard human view of the world. That doesn't make it wrong. I'm afraid that "that's not how humans consider it" isn't a rebuttal of the arguments.

errr what? where did i say the science was 'wrong'. i very explicitly said that i don't deny the chemical reactions or the effect they have. i am saying that people think about it in a different way, and that it is important to look at it from this point of view because THIS IS HOW PEOPLE ACTUALLY THINK AND HOW THEY MAKE DECISION WHEN FACED WITH SITUATIONS IN LIFE. when the question is what is love, do you not think that you need to look at how people in actually interact with each other?

do you think that someone who studies brain chemistry as their work thinks about love just in terms of the chemistry, or that (s)he thinks about it in a similar way to everybody else?

[Ben Kenobi]

I find this puzzling, because the Catholic Church has protected pedophiles. Don't you find that to be wrong?

Have I stopped beating on my wife? I see no evidence that the Church has shielded pedophiles. Certain bishops, yes, but they don't speak for me or the Church as a whole.

A few people spray paint a Catholic church, and all of a sudden non-Catholics as a group are intolerant?

I went to school there, so this was my classmates who did it. Yeah, it shocked me. I come on this thread here and I see the exact same sentiment. Anti-Catholicism on campus wasn't exactly hard to find. You see it everywhere. You make it sound like this prejudice is rare, sadly it's not.