Comment author: PhilGoetz 26 April 2010 10:08:05PM *  4 points [-]

I went to church once or twice a week every week for 15 years, and I know what I'm talking about. Every belief I listed is a belief that most Catholics either believe, or are unaware of due to a poor theological education; and in each case you protest either on the basis of the few who disagree, or on the basis of ignorance (Peter is regarded as the first pope, "On this rock I build my church"; look up "apostolic succession", it's actually very important to Catholic doctrine), on the basis of not reading what I wrote (I specifically said "under certain conditions" because I am familiar with the rarely-invoked conditions for infallibility) or with irrelevance or incoherence (flood, disobedience to the Pope).

Comment author: ZeroBlacktip 26 April 2010 10:46:54PM 0 points [-]

Yes, but the point of this paper was rational discussion. People who refuse to research their own religion are not rational, yes? So why are we including them as candidates for rational debate? Call me a cynic, but I would rather debate with a reasonable Xtian that has a solid theological grounding than argue with an unreasonable one who hasn't bothered to learn his bible.

And rock is a metaphor, as well as a play on words for his name. Doesn't make him the pope, could just be saying that his faith needed to be emulated. Jesus was sort of known for metaphor, but not for supporting rigid belief structures designed to bilk their followers.

Comment author: PhilGoetz 26 April 2010 07:24:24PM *  8 points [-]

Because Atheist means P = 1. And isn't using the correct terms important?

I call myself an atheist, and I don't believe that P = 1.

"Atheist => P = 1" is a slander that theists seek to tar atheists with. The irony is that the situation is exactly opposite: P = 1 is not the atheist belief, but is the theologically required Christian belief.

Even if it were P = 1, why do you take atheists to task for claiming to be certain that there is no god; yet not take Catholics to task for claiming to be certain that there is one God who created the world in 6 days, created one man and one woman, destroyed most of humanity in a great flood, for no reason restricted himself later to being the god of just the Jewish nation, decided several thousand years later that he needed to send his Son (what? don't ask) to die to "pay" (huh? don't ask) himself for everyone's sins, decided for no reason to suddenly not restrict himself to the Jews, and also to just then reveal that people who didn't follow a particular doctrine would suffer agony for all eternity, appointed Peter the head of a single Church with a direct line to God under certain conditions, inspired the choice of a particular set out of hundreds of possible texts as scripture, and requires them to obey the Pope?

Comment author: ZeroBlacktip 26 April 2010 09:02:43PM -6 points [-]

So lets assume that Being a fundamentalist Christian is P=1, and being a fundamentalist atheist is P=0. Keeping in mind that I didn't use the term P=1 originally, and even in context it was not set down as a binary equation (I was assuming that the 1 meant you were sure there is no god, not an immutable belief in the fact, while .75 meant you might lean heavily towards no god but had some doubts).

Yes, P = 1 is the theologically required Christian belief. However, and I've never even been Catholic, your post is rife with Atheist propaganda about Catholicism that shows you did not do your research before condemning an entire group of people. I'm not even sure how I ended up on the Xtian side of this debate, except I dislike fundamentalism of any stripe. I do take Atheists to task for their beliefs as often as I take Xtians to task for their beliefs. However, this is a site dedicated to Rationality. Which means if you're going to say "yes I'm sure", I expect you to have proof, no matter what side of the debate you're on. If you're not sure whether or not god exists, you're an agnostic. If you are sure (G=0), then you are an athiest. If you believe God exists, you could be any religion, not just Xtian. But for some reaosn Xtian's get picked on, because they're not as scary as Muslims but just as fervent. But lets get to you statements.

To begin with, the type of 4000 year old Earth, 6 day creation, no evolution debate is a Protestant belief, not Catholic. In fact, in 1950 Pope Pius XII said it was fine to discuss Human Evolution: "The Church does not forbid that...research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter." Source: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html

Whether or not god created the universe, according to the bible (Where he created it twice, read Genesis 1, or just accept that it was a book written by people.) He certainly didn't create only two people. To answer the statement that only Adam and Eve were created by God AND that he resitricted himself Later to being god of just the Jewish nation, I bring you, Genesis 4:15-17

15 Then the LORD said to him, "Not so! If any one slays Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold." And the LORD put a mark on Cain, lest any who came upon him should kill him. 16 Then Cain went away from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, east of Eden. 17 Cain knew his wife, and she conceived and bore Enoch; and he built a city, and called the name of the city after the name of his son, Enoch.

Now wait, Cain, brother of Abel, went to the land of Nod, and found a wife. That sure does imply that, biblically, there were more people on Earth than Adam and Eve. Dangerous people too, since Cain was worried about being killed by them enough to ask God for protection. So, biblically, even if God created Adam and Eve, not everyone is a child of God. Which is good, because part of the horrifying great commission is to convert nonbelievers. The Biblical God is the God of the descendants of Adam and those who follow him.

Flood tales are rife in any ancient theology, including being in Gilgamesh. What a surprise they're in the bible too, mentioning that God protects his people. Shocking. There probably was a great flood at some point, but I'm linking to Wiki out of spite: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_stories

Jesus still hasn't been reconciled by the Abrahamic religions (Another reason why god chose to protect them. Abraham trusted God, biblically. Seeing as God also gave human free will, biblically, why would he protect people who didn't trust him?)

There is nothing biblically about Jesus making Peter the pope. He did assign the apostles to the Great Commission of going forth and spreading his word, but even guys like Paul got in on that act later. The first official Pope was Anacletus.

Requires them to obey the pope? The Pope is only infallible sitting on his big chair. The pope is not God. Throught the history of Catholicism there have been hundreds of examples of not listening to the pope, especially when there were TWO popes. And if you think the church has problems now, read about the period between 860–1050. The pope is a man according to doctrine. Catholics can blame him all they like, and risk excommunication by disobeying him, but it's still an option. He's more like the king of an institution than a holy being.

However, thanks for proving my point. You listed a bunch of "facts" about Catholicism that either dealt with protestants, were folklore and tradition instead of doctrine, or were just incorrect. Don't forget that both sides have propaganda mills. Go to the source, and see what Xtians are supposed to believe. Then Take them to task. And anyway, am I not supposed to take both sides to task for irrationality? If you are being irrational, you are not excused because you are a fundamentalist. Go do your research.

Comment author: wnoise 26 April 2010 06:49:04PM 1 point [-]

(This is supposed to be a 4, but autoformat keeps changing it.)

Put a backslash (\) before the period (.).

2.

Comment author: ZeroBlacktip 26 April 2010 07:23:53PM 0 points [-]

Fixed. Thanks a lot.

Comment author: Peter_de_Blanc 26 April 2010 07:02:15PM 13 points [-]

However, as an Atheist as opposed to an agnostic, you have declared there is absolutely no higher being. If you are every bit as unwilling to examine your own beliefs as he is, you are no less fundamentalist

Why is it that if you say it'll rain tomorrow, people assume you mean p=0.75 or something, but if you say there's no god, people assume you mean p=1? Are we supposed to answer every question with, "I'm agnostic about that"?

Comment author: ZeroBlacktip 26 April 2010 07:21:42PM -8 points [-]

Because Atheist means P = 1. And isn't using the correct terms important? I also wouldn't say I need a cup of flour when I really needed 3/4 of a cup. If you're not sure, say you are "Without Knowledge", not you are "Without God." Is it so hard to admit you don't know? Even when I disagree with someone, I can admit I may know less than them, how else might I learn?

Of course, then I go and fact check, because they might be wrong too. But people can open paths you would never have looked down if you're willing to say "I don't Know" once in a while, instead of closing off conversation.

Comment author: ZeroBlacktip 26 April 2010 06:39:10PM *  -4 points [-]

No real beef with the main issue, but as for the Extra Credit Problems:

  1. I imagine I would weigh it depending on the group of friends I had with me, and previous experience with each of them in the field of guessing, geometry, even basic arithmetic. After I considered all that, I would then adjust my answer depending on each one's credibility.

  2. Think back on what I've done compared to what he's done. His emotional concern is actually irrelevant, because its entirely possible he has gotten upset for reasons such as the dishes are supposed to be done on a rotation, but he uses more dishes when he knows its your turn, while yours stay consistent. However, the reverse is possible. Depending on the situation, a renegotiation of housework may be necessary, so I would suggest an accurate tracking of use to work ratios.

  3. According to the question, there is no right answer, as you're both arguing opinions, and like the haircut, they cannot be resolved. However, this question is heavily biased. Are there no such things as rational Christians? Carl Sagan and Stephen Hawking have both made convincing arguments stating that a rational person should have difficulty declaring atheism (For Carl Sagan's especially well thought out and rational perspective, read "The Demon Haunted World"). He is wrong, but it is entirely possible you are biased, from the Dawkin's School of Atheist Fundamentalism. However, as you're the rational one, the burden of proof is on you, not him. We should always ask for rationality from our discussion partners, but it is irrational to demand a higher standard of them than of ourselves. If we are unwilling to consider that we may be wrong, how can we expect them to reciprocate?

It's a complicated idea, because his methodology is so fundamentally unsound. However, as an Atheist as opposed to an agnostic, you have declared there is absolutely no higher being. If you are every bit as unwilling to examine your own beliefs as he is, you are no less fundamentalist, and you are therefore both biased. A good skeptic should follow both the scientific and Socratic method's, being equally capable of proving his own hypothesis (in this case, that God does not exist), and of understanding his opponents argument as if it were his own. This is a case of universal absolutes, as opposed to the previous problem, which was about temporal difficulties. A non-fundamentalist atheist, I.E., a rational Atheist, must be willing to truly understand the other side's viewpoint, because otherwise they are as equally guilty as their religious fundamentalist counterpart. Or worse, as a religious person who has studied science and can legitimately argue against your claims is actually being more rational than you, who has chosen to do no research, and to consider nothing.

Sorry that was so long, but it was requested we search the questions themselves for bias. Is there actually any reason there can not be a Christian and an Atheist with an Equal level of Rationality? If so, why was this question worded towards a solely Christian extreme, portraying the Atheist as rational while the Xtian is not? Once again, for emphasis, from the way this question is worded, neither is rational, and both are being depressingly biased.

4. It is more likely Alfred's will be smaller, although here is a chance Betty may increase her estimate as well. They should both eventually stabilize, however, for no other reason than because they both know that Betty is more knowledgeable, so if she sticks to an answer, it has a better chance of being correct.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit