Catholic And Gay

[Ice_nine]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1323367103' post='2347413']
Somewhat like making a claim that god and Jesus exist and that there is a heaven and an objective set of moral.
Your arrogant hypocracy amuses me much.
[/quote]

Hey I had more respect for you until you kept talking. Then respect dwindled. It's not just your atheism. There are a number of people who don't share in my religion on here (Hasan and J-lol are the more active ones I can think of, not sure if they're athetist/agnostic or whatever) that I enjoy reading and who can actually engage me. Your words just some pseudo-intellectual self-inflated nonsense. I can't deal with fundies of any ilk, and your arguments follow the same structure of that hard-right fundamentalist Christians.

And I could even accept crappy arguments. I never know wtf dairy-girl is talking about for example, but here's what she doesn't do, she doesn't claim her beliefs, logic, or opinions are fully represented a group of nearly a billion people like you do. I know plenty of atheists, I've talked to them, THEY'RE NOT ALL LIKE YOU AND DON'T COME TO THE SAME CONCLUSIONS THE SAME WAY THAT YOU DO. Even Kia ora, a fellow atheist, called you out and asked you "not to generalize us."

I don't see how it's arrogant of me to posses a set of beliefs and use that to try to better the world, and myself. It WOULD be arrogant if I said "this is what all Catholics think and why they think it" merely based on my solitary experience. That's the key difference that you're not getting. And if you can't even get that VERY SIMPLE fact, I doubt you can navigate through much more complex issues. Just calling it like I see it.

But if I amuse you I'm a seasonally-employed clown so i guess it fits. Maybe I don't exists though, and this is all just a dream, and you've constructed all of this in your head.

[stevil]

[quote name='Ice_nine' timestamp='1323370351' post='2347450']
I don't see how it's arrogant of me to...
[/quote]
It is arrogant of you to suggest I cannot speak of my beliefs (not based on fact) whereas your entire worldview is based on belief.

[stevil]

[quote name='Ice_nine' timestamp='1323370351' post='2347450']
I don't see how it's arrogant of me to posses a set of beliefs and use that to try to better the world, and myself. It WOULD be arrogant if I said "this is what all Catholics think and why they think it" merely based on my solitary experience. That's the key difference that you're not getting. And if you can't even get that VERY SIMPLE fact, I doubt you can navigate through much more complex issues. Just calling it like I see it.
[/quote]
So the generalisation that I stated (and which you took much offense to was
"All Atheists think like me on this matter. None of us believe there are any objective morals."
Another poster showed me a blog by an Atheist stating that he did believe in objective morals. I then retracted my statement.
Up until that point I had been speaking from the "I"
So, I really don't see your problem.

[brianthephysicist]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1323368151' post='2347426']
I know I said I'm out of this thread, but I just wanted to come back for a moment to say that I actually mostly agree with this, and I've argued so in the past; without God, the only logical position I currently perceive concludes in a sort of nihilistic hedonism.
I don't think you would put it that way, Stevil, because nihilistic hedonism sounds pretty ignoble, but I think that's the logical conclusion if your position. If there is no God, I think Nietszche was right.
A good number of people disagree with my position on this, lots of people whose opinions I put a lot of weight in, but [b]ultimately I haven't been convinced that an objective moral system is rational without recognizing a god figure.[/b]
[/quote]

Most conversations on morality that I run across these days are begun with 2 assumptions: secular and morally relativistic. If you can get rid of the secular assumption, moral relativism tends to fall easily. But moral relativism can still be refuted from a completely secular worldview. I recommend reading some works by Peter Kreeft; here's a decent one to get you started if you're interested

[url="http://www.peterkreeft.com/audio/05_relativism/relativism_transcription.htm"]http://www.peterkreeft.com/audio/05_relativism/relativism_transcription.htm[/url]

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1323029239' post='2344467']
I don't subscribe to the concept of morals. I have an opinion, but that is my opinion, it is built on my upbringing, culture, environment, education, discussion with others and thoughtful contemplation.
I don't expect my opinions to be an objective morality base upon which everyone must obey.

I recognise the law as the authority but in a democratic society the law gives me the opportunity to influence and challenge.
I feel the law ought to intervene with regards to achieving a functional society, hence we shouldn't go around killing each other or seeking vigilante justice.
On matters that don't impact significantly on society, I feel the government should not intervene. I am also strongly against discrimination based on gender, race, culture, sexual orientation, skin colour, ethnicity, physical state (e.g, health or disorders), religious belief...
Although I believe people in society should be allowed to affiliate and/or teach religious belief, I am strongly against religious teaching, or organisations imposing discrimination.

In particular I don't see gay marriage or euthanasia as moral or immoral, I see these as a personal choice of the people who which to take part in these events.
[/quote]
At least you are honest in supporting murder of the weak...because that is what euthanasia is.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Ice_nine' timestamp='1323283785' post='2346618']
haha God bless y'all for trying but, you're only beating a dead horse, bringing the horse back to life, killing it, and then beating it up again
[/quote]
It's like something out of a Bruce Campbell movie.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='brianthephysicist' timestamp='1323376748' post='2347501']

Most conversations on morality that I run across these days are begun with 2 assumptions: secular and morally relativistic. If you can get rid of the secular assumption, moral relativism tends to fall easily. But moral relativism can still be refuted from a completely secular worldview. I recommend reading some works by Peter Kreeft; here's a decent one to get you started if you're interested

[url="http://www.peterkreeft.com/audio/05_relativism/relativism_transcription.htm"]http://www.peterkree...anscription.htm[/url]


[/quote]
Thanks, I'll give that a read.
Since that conclusion I have is largely irrelevant to my own beliefs, I'm not particularly attached to it, so I welcome reading on both sides of the discussion.

[Ice_nine]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1323375176' post='2347494']
It is arrogant of you to suggest I cannot speak of my beliefs (not based on fact) whereas your entire worldview is based on belief.
[/quote]

lol I didn't suggest that silly. You can speak on an internet forum all you like and say whatever you want. Just don't get mad if someone calls it ridiculous

And I didn't see you retract your statement about the generalization, but let's be fair, it's something you've done more than once.

I still think you sound like you just dropped acid almost every time you post. But hey rock on man. Don't let me stop ya

[MithLuin]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1323330815' post='2347222']
There is no objective right or objective wrong about it.
In my subjective opinion It is unnecessary for a government to impose a rule to restrict such a thing.
[/quote]

In my opinion, it is completely unnecessary for a government to allow such a thing.

[stevil]

[quote name='MithLuin' timestamp='1323393069' post='2347616']

In my opinion, it is completely unnecessary for a government to allow such a thing.
[/quote]
And in my opinion it is unecessary and inappropriate for a government to restrict such a thing.
So we have opposing views, one of oppression and one of freedom of choice, doesn't it seem strange that if there is objective morality that we have differing opinions on the role of government implementing rules and what actions society should allow members to partake in?

[stevil]

One question I have is if Christians believe their god is all powerful and chose to give people free will, then why would this god want its followers to impose laws on others to restrict their available choice?
If god is all powerful then god him/herself could stop people doing things that he/her doesn't want them to do.
If god wants people to make decisions then isn't restricting those choices against god's will.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1323396235' post='2347655']
One question I have is if Christians believe their god is all powerful and chose to give people free will, then why would this god want its followers to impose laws on others to restrict their available choice?
If god is all powerful then god him/herself could stop people doing things that he/her doesn't want them to do.
If god wants people to make decisions then isn't restricting those choices against god's will.
[/quote]
[quote]One question I have is if Christians believe their god is all powerful and chose to give people free will, then why would this god want its followers to impose laws on others to restrict their available choice?
[/quote]
Free will doesn't mean everything is right. In fact it seems to imply, at least subtly, that some things are wrong. It would kind of be meaningless to say we have free will unless that actually entailed the ability to discriminate between right actions and wrong ones.

[quote]If god is all powerful then god him/herself could stop people doing things that he/her doesn't want them to do.
[/quote]
Sure, if you want to take away free will.
[quote]If god wants people to make decisions then isn't restricting those choices against god's will.
[/quote]
No. God gives free will so that we have the ability freely to make the righteous choice in any given scenario. Again, as above, 'free will' loses any meaning if there is no essential difference between choices.

[stevil]

[quote name='Ice_nine' timestamp='1323391595' post='2347604']
I still think you sound like you just dropped acid almost every time you post. But hey rock on man. Don't let me stop ya
[/quote]
I do find it interesting, that our way of thinking, of rationalising the world is so different that it is so hard for us to understand each other.
I often see on Atheist forums, people hassle theists for their contradictions, lack of reasoning and logic, and I also see the same on theist forms with Theists hassling atheists (not just me) of contradictions, lack of reasoning and logic.
I know our word definitions are different as well as our epistemology and hence it is a difficult task to truly convey our points to each other.
But the reverse can also be said, it is a difficult task to try and listen to people from another worldview without jumping to conclusions based on your own presuppositions, preconceptions, word definitions and epistemology.

[stevil]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1323399025' post='2347698']
No. God gives free will so that we have the ability freely to make the righteous choice in any given scenario. Again, as above, 'free will' loses any meaning if there is no essential difference between choices.
[/quote]
I still don't understand though.
It god wants people to freely make choices, then wouldn't laws restrict those choices and thus be contrary to god's want?
How can god judge us if we haven't been given enough rope to hang ourselves?

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1323412215' post='2347837']
I still don't understand though.
It god wants people to freely make choices, then wouldn't laws restrict those choices and thus be contrary to god's want?
How can god judge us if we haven't been given enough rope to hang ourselves?
[/quote]
Maybe some laws are rather inadvisable because of what you're getting at, but certainly not all. We also have an obligation to protect the innocent, so one might argue that secular laws are intended to do that.
Certainly if I see an innocent person being attacked I would be performing a work of mercy to protect them. The unjust attacker has already chosen that evil, so if I physically stop him I am not impeding his ability to make that choice. Only the ability to carry it out. He is still guilty of that evil, morally speaking, even if I successfully stop him. At the same time it is an intrinsically just act to protect the innocent, so it's a good thing for the person I help, and it's also good for my own soul hopefully because I am practicing virtue, making morally good choices.

[Norseman82]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1323387491' post='2347565']
It's like something out of a Bruce Campbell movie.
[/quote]

Or "Day of the Dove"...

[stevil]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1323412936' post='2347845']
Maybe some laws are rather inadvisable because of what you're getting at, but certainly not all. We also have an obligation to protect the innocent, so one might argue that secular laws are intended to do that.
Certainly if I see an innocent person being attacked I would be performing a work of mercy to protect them. The unjust attacker has already chosen that evil, so if I physically stop him I am not impeding his ability to make that choice. Only the ability to carry it out. He is still guilty of that evil, morally speaking, even if I successfully stop him. At the same time it is an intrinsically just act to protect the innocent, so it's a good thing for the person I help, and it's also good for my own soul hopefully because I am practicing virtue, making morally good choices.
[/quote]
OK, it makes sense to help a person under attack by someone else.
But how does it make sense to create a law to stop gay people having sex or even getting married?

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1323414286' post='2347855']
OK, it makes sense to help a person under attack by someone else.
But how does it make sense to create a law to stop gay people having sex or even getting married?
[/quote]
My opinions on secular law are a bit scattered at the moment and I'm in the middle of a bit of a paradigm shift, you could say, so I'm going to leave this one for somebody else to answer if you don't mind.

[stevil]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1323414664' post='2347858']
My opinions on secular law are a bit scattered at the moment and I'm in the middle of a bit of a paradigm shift, you could say, so I'm going to leave this one for somebody else to answer if you don't mind.
[/quote]
That's fine, thanks for the dialogue so far.

[Nihil Obstat]

It's been my pleasure.