Pope Francis, Catholics, and Christians in the news worldwide
Dennis_Seelbach said:
Wrong...It should be in the religion category !
exactly!!
PVW said:
DaveSchmidt said:
Put aside the thought process of arrival. Once you’ve arrived at atheism, how do you think about it? In what ways does the absence of God put your mind to the test? Do you wrestle with it the way many, many religious people wrestle with their beliefs?
A good question -- and I'd enjoy hearing your own response to it.
Atheism, at its core, is barren. There’s nothing to explain: We’re born, we live, we die, just like any other animal. WYSIWYG. Anything more raises the same “What’s the evidence?” question that drummerboy asks of religion. I eventually decided to take it straight, no chaser. It’s easy for me; I’ve spent 60 years in lucky lab-perfect conditions for atheism, free from hardship or persecution.
This keeps me humble in the face religion. Religion gives billions of people what they need. It’s wondrous and creative and sublime. It taps into all the highs and lows and contradictions of human experience, and the thought that has gone into it over the millennia is nothing short of awesome.
The thought that goes into my — and, if he’s true to his evidence-based standard, drummerboy’s — atheism is nil. So I direct that part of my curiosity, when the topic arises, into trying to understand religious beliefs. If a logical puzzle is posed, I assume it hasn’t slipped through the cracks of religious thinkers all this time until now, and investigate what’s been said about it.
With DB’s little catechism, I objected to the naïve idea that “homina homina” was the best that someone like Aquinas could do. (As expected, Aquinas’ answer, when I found it, made sense.) Not to mention the insulting presumption that it’s the best my religious friends and relatives can do. It was especially tart coming from someone who asked whether I’ve ever watched The Honeymooners, given how much he could learn from ol’ Ralphie boy.
DaveSchmidt said:
Atheism, at its core, is barren.
utterly ridiculous
maybe more later
p.s.you still don't get homina homina, nor the point of that post. If you have to pull out Aquinas as the counter, then I have proved my point.
It’s probably easier to convince someone to join a religion than it is to convince them to be an atheist .
The fear of the unknown, God, the Devil and perpetual third degree burns is enough to keep humans inline.
I agree with Dave, religion has been a blessing for millions of people. It’s a very personal experience, it works for millions of people and I think it’s necessary for some level of personal responsibility. It can promote ethics in children and adults if the rules are adhered to. Learning to forgive, being a part of a community gives people a sense of belonging. The one thing that sticks out for me is that golden rule, of doing unto others as you would have done unto you…but nowadays the golden rule seems to be “he who has gold rules”. Pastors dressed like pimps, wearing diamonds and pinky rings… flying around in expensive jets to “spread the word”….
The Christ has already come back over the millennium, we have witnessed mother Theresa, Gandhi, MLK jr in our lifetime, without any sound of trumpets from the clouds…
drummerboy said:
DaveSchmidt said:
Atheism, at its core, is barren.
utterly ridiculous
maybe more later
I hope so. I’ll be interested in your evidence.
p.s.you still don't get homina homina, nor the point of that post. If you have to pull out Aquinas as the counter, then I have proved my point.
Trope that consulting Aquinas is.
evidence you say?DaveSchmidt said:
drummerboy said:
DaveSchmidt said:
Atheism, at its core, is barren.
utterly ridiculous
maybe more laterI hope so. I’ll be interested in your evidence.
...
"what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."
as a wise man once said.
so, consider it dismissed.
Jaytee said:
The Christ has already come back over the millennium, we have witnessed mother Theresa, Gandhi, MLK jr in our lifetime, without any sound of trumpets from the clouds…
But, were you listening? Pinky rings and false prophets are obvious manifestations of the devil’s doings. God is harder to find in this day and age.
I’m not clear in what “point” was made, even with this explanation that was posted earlier -
drummerboy said:
yes, it was glib. But not arrogant, as the homina homina was not meant to pretend that no has ever put up a defense.
It was meant to indicate that the question causes the apologist to enter a state of paroxysm as they try to piece together an answer.
Have you ever actually seen The Honeymooners?
nohero said:
I’m not clear in what “point” was made, even with this explanation that was posted earlier -
drummerboy said:
yes, it was glib. But not arrogant, as the homina homina was not meant to pretend that no has ever put up a defense.
It was meant to indicate that the question causes the apologist to enter a state of paroxysm as they try to piece together an answer.
Have you ever actually seen The Honeymooners?
the point was that the vast majority of Christians would most likely be utterly flummoxed (i.e. homina homina) in trying to resolve the contradiction posed.
sheesh
drummerboy said:
the point was that the vast majority of Christians would most likely be utterly flummoxed (i.e. homina homina) in trying to resolve the contradiction posed.
sheesh
Wasn’t that all already discussed in the replies, the first time you posted it? You just didn’t like the responses that undercut your premise.
drummerboy said:
the point was that the vast majority of Christians would most likely be utterly flummoxed (i.e. homina homina) in trying to resolve the contradiction posed.
I got it, and I objected, because in my opinion it shortchanged Christian thinking.
nohero said:
drummerboy said:
the point was that the vast majority of Christians would most likely be utterly flummoxed (i.e. homina homina) in trying to resolve the contradiction posed.
sheesh
Wasn’t that all already discussed in the replies, the first time you posted it? You just didn’t like the responses that undercut your premise.
undercut?
where?
must have missed it.
It’s truly amazing the huge number of philanthropic and/or educational projects founded by atheists’ bequests, in order for them to be remembered. The phenomenon is known as the legacy paradox. Brett Waggoner and Jesse Bering, Uni of Otago, NZ, did a huge study on it (I haven’t finished reading the New Scientist article yet 14 Oct 23); it’s all tied in with what’s known as the terror management theory, so there’s a compulsion to leave a positive legacy so ‘your soul can see the project unfold in your name’ ie people remembering/thanking you through several generations. Creating a kind of immortality.
Apparently there’s parallel research by Kimberly Wade-Benzoni at Duke Uni, North Carolina. She says it heightens group identity including nationalism, road safety, protecting families etc. And also allocation of resources.
I have to rush to an appointment. Back in a few hours.
Rudolf Carnap: a statement is meaningful if and only if it is empirically verifiable.
Karl Popper: how is THAT statement meaningful?
(this page now turns up high in google search results for Aquinas homina homina)
From the current UK Tablet, there is this insight into the Israel conflict….
Rudolf Carnap: a statement is meaningful if and only if it is empirically verifiable.
Karl Popper: how is THAT statement meaningful?
Rudolf Carnap: homina homina
DaveSchmidt said:
Atheism, at its core, is barren. There’s nothing to explain: We’re born, we live, we die, just like any other animal. WYSIWYG. Anything more raises the same “What’s the evidence?” question that drummerboy asks of religion. I eventually decided to take it straight, no chaser. It’s easy for me; I’ve spent 60 years in lucky lab-perfect conditions for atheism, free from hardship or persecution.
This keeps me humble in the face religion. Religion gives billions of people what they need. It’s wondrous and creative and sublime. It taps into all the highs and lows and contradictions of human experience, and the thought that has gone into it over the millennia is nothing short of awesome.
The thought that goes into my — and, if he’s true to his evidence-based standard, drummerboy’s — atheism is nil. So I direct that part of my curiosity, when the topic arises, into trying to understand religious beliefs. If a logical puzzle is posed, I assume it hasn’t slipped through the cracks of religious thinkers all this time until now, and investigate what’s been said about it.
With DB’s little catechism, I objected to the naïve idea that “homina homina” was the best that someone like Aquinas could do. (As expected, Aquinas’ answer, when I found it, made sense.) Not to mention the insulting presumption that it’s the best my religious friends and relatives can do. It was especially tart coming from someone who asked whether I’ve ever watched The Honeymooners, given how much he could learn from ol’ Ralphie boy.
Thanks for sharing.
I don't think I have a reply that's directly a response, but rather somewhat at a tangent (hopefully still somewhat interesting/relevant).
For myself, I did grow up in a religious tradition -- Catholicism -- and while I don't believe it's fact claims, I wouldn't call myself an atheist. Where I'm at is that I don't really see the atheist/theist labeling as being especially helpful, as they seem to be focusing on questions I think are unanswerable and, more to the point, actually not that important. I think what people do is more meaningful than what they claim. Here's a passage from my tradition I find very relevant:
Then the righteous will answer him and say, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? When did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? When did we see you ill or in prison, and visit you?’ And the king will say to them in reply, ‘Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me.’
(Matthew 25:37-40)
Does it matter, ultimately, if someone who clothes the naked and feeds the hungry calls themselves an atheist or a theist? Or on the reverse, does someone loudly proclaiming themselves a Christian tell us much about how they actually live their lives? I don't think so.
And in quoting the above approvingly, I'm expressing a belief that this passage is true in some sense. Do I think there's a single Deity somewhere that created the universe and incarnated itself as Jesus, died, and rose from the dead? No, not literally. But I still find it in some sense a true story. To ask otherwise I feel is a bit like asking if I believe in Hamlet or Moby Dick. No, I don't think they're documents of fact. But to claim disbelief seems like answering a question I'm personally not actually asking.
PVW said:
Does it matter, ultimately, if someone who clothes the naked and feeds the hungry calls themselves an atheist or a theist? Or on the reverse, does someone loudly proclaiming themselves a Christian tell us much about how they actually live their lives? I don't think so.
From an objective, outside perspective, I don’t think it matters, either. It matters only if you’re interested in knowing the person better, which is something.
Thanks, as always, for the insight.
DaveSchmidt said:
PVW said:
Does it matter, ultimately, if someone who clothes the naked and feeds the hungry calls themselves an atheist or a theist? Or on the reverse, does someone loudly proclaiming themselves a Christian tell us much about how they actually live their lives? I don't think so.
From an objective, outside perspective, I don’t think it matters, either. It matters only if you’re interested in knowing the person better, which is something.
Thanks, as always, for the insight.
I can't help but think that both of you must be kidding.
drummerboy said:
I can't help but think that both of you must be kidding.
You’re welcome to think whatever you’d like, drummerboy. That last time you were encouraged to make a positive contribution to the discussion, you declined.
drummerboy said:
DaveSchmidt said:
PVW said:
Does it matter, ultimately, if someone who clothes the naked and feeds the hungry calls themselves an atheist or a theist? Or on the reverse, does someone loudly proclaiming themselves a Christian tell us much about how they actually live their lives? I don't think so.
From an objective, outside perspective, I don’t think it matters, either. It matters only if you’re interested in knowing the person better, which is something.
Thanks, as always, for the insight.
I can't help but think that both of you must be kidding.
Do you read good works of literature that have meaning for you? They aren't "true" but they are true in the values many works of fiction can portray. I am moved by a painting and you walk up to it and only see canvas and paints arranged in forms, hanging at a certain level in a place called a museum, which is filled by deluded people.
So no, I don't think DaveSchmidt or PVW are kidding. Or that you are reading their responses with much empathy. No one is trying to use fancy language to get you to believe in the invisible man in the sky here.
dave said:
Do you read good works of literature that have meaning for you? They aren't "true" but they are true in the values many works of fiction can portray. I am moved by a painting and you walk up to it and only see canvas and paints arranged in forms, hanging at a certain level in a place called a museum, which is filled by deluded people.
So no, I don't think DaveSchmidt or PVW are kidding. Or that you are reading their responses with much empathy. No one is trying to use fancy language to get you to believe in the invisible man in the sky here.
"and you walk up to it and only see canvas and paints arranged in forms,
hanging at a certain level in a place called a museum, which is filled
by deluded people."
what an odd statement to make. do you actually think that is how I perceive art?
as for this, from pvw:
Does it matter, ultimately, if someone who clothes the naked and feeds the hungry calls themselves an atheist or a theist?
If that's all the person ever did, then yes, it probably doesn't matter. But of course that's not close to being an accurate description of theists in general, so what is being presented here is kind of a reverse straw man. It's simple to agree with, but tells us nothing about the real world.
drummerboy said:
But of course that's not close to being an accurate description of theists in general, so what is being presented here is kind of a reverse straw man. It's simple to agree with, but tells us nothing about the real world.
You might consider the possibility that your view of theists in general is as real as mtierney’s view of immigrants in general.
drummerboy said:
as for this, from pvw:
Does it matter, ultimately, if someone who clothes the naked and feeds the hungry calls themselves an atheist or a theist?
If that's all the person ever did, then yes, it probably doesn't matter. But of course that's not close to being an accurate description of theists in general, so what is being presented here is kind of a reverse straw man. It's simple to agree with, but tells us nothing about the real world.
You can't think of any examples of people who loudly announce their religiosity who oppose aiding the vulnerable, or any people who claim no religion but who act generously and empathetically toward those in need?
drummerboy said:
dave said:
Do you read good works of literature that have meaning for you? They aren't "true" but they are true in the values many works of fiction can portray. I am moved by a painting and you walk up to it and only see canvas and paints arranged in forms, hanging at a certain level in a place called a museum, which is filled by deluded people.
So no, I don't think DaveSchmidt or PVW are kidding. Or that you are reading their responses with much empathy. No one is trying to use fancy language to get you to believe in the invisible man in the sky here.
"and you walk up to it and only see canvas and paints arranged in forms,
hanging at a certain level in a place called a museum, which is filled
by deluded people."what an odd statement to make. do you actually think that is how I perceive art?
as for this, from pvw:
Does it matter, ultimately, if someone who clothes the naked and feeds the hungry calls themselves an atheist or a theist?
If that's all the person ever did, then yes, it probably doesn't matter. But of course that's not close to being an accurate description of theists in general, so what is being presented here is kind of a reverse straw man. It's simple to agree with, but tells us nothing about the real world.
For what it's worth, of course I don't think that's how you -- or anyone -- enjoys an art museum.
We find ourselves at a hermeneutical impasse.
joanne said:
It’s truly amazing the huge number of philanthropic and/or educational projects founded by atheists’ bequests, in order for them to be remembered. The phenomenon is known as the legacy paradox. Brett Waggoner and Jesse Bering, Uni of Otago, NZ, did a huge study on it (I haven’t finished reading the New Scientist article yet 14 Oct 23); it’s all tied in with what’s known as the terror management theory, so there’s a compulsion to leave a positive legacy so ‘your soul can see the project unfold in your name’ ie people remembering/thanking you through several generations. Creating a kind of immortality.
Apparently there’s parallel research by Kimberly Wade-Benzoni at Duke Uni, North Carolina. She says it heightens group identity including nationalism, road safety, protecting families etc. And also allocation of resources.
looks like no-one considered this study in the light of the current discussion. Especially in the light of PVW’s and DaveS’s points about feeding the hungry and clothing the naked.
Think about the major non-profits that benefit community these days: Red Cross, St Vincent’s de Paul (St Vinnie’s), Feeding America, Salvation Army, American Heart Association, Direct Relief Foundation etc. Sure, a lot have beginnings in religious settings/values - that’s partly a function of the times in which they were established. (The best infrastructure for these kinds of organisations grew out of old monasteries, travelling pilgrims and faithful families, ethical communities that taught caring values in school) Not just Christian faith, either.
As open atheism became more accepted, non-religious ethicality became more accepted also. Because this is how good humans act.
joanne said:
looks like no-one considered this study in the light of the current discussion.
In one way it adds a charitywashing twist to PVW’s questions: Does it matter, ultimately, if someone feeds the hungry and clothes the naked with a posthumous bequest if he or she starved and stripped them while alive?
I understand that’s not what the research is about. Sure, for people who aren’t thinking about their legacy, it makes sense that encouragement to think about it could raise the likelihood of charitable giving. I wouldn’t discount, though, the ripples we spread through our tighter circles, if that’s where we’d rather concentrate our legacy.
A song about immortality and legacy that I don’t recall ever hearing before buying the album at a used record store today.
you are wrong about this — as per usual — I did this all by myself —
@jamie moved this thread onto the politics page way back at the beginning of Lent, when I started posting daily readings and Gospels, and he added the Biblical info.
My intent today was to resume to posting news about “Pope Francis, Catholics and Christians etc”. The thread wound up under “soapbox” after I changed the thread title.
I don’t think that, under the warfare reality happening in the Holy Land and Ukraine, etc, that separation of religion from politics is even possible— I defer to Jamie to make that call, however.