Jump to content

Beliefs, Religion and Faith.


Assume Nothing

Recommended Posts

Okay, but nobody is sure that they'll go to heaven. We don't even actually know if heaven or hell exist.

Nice straw man. Part of the reason I've stayed away from the thread thus far....

 

I didn't intend to use any straw man fallacies, could you point it out for me?

You made up an imaginary point to argue to, that's the point of a straw man. He was talking about church doctrine - and instead of actually debating that you switched to a preferable point to argue - the existence of heaven or hell.

 

Which is what happens all the time with this debate, which is why I largely stay away.

polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 411
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Not when the point he's making is an explanation of church doctrine. Basically all you're doing is saying "you can't prove that" to every point he brings up, which doesn't make for a useful or constructive discussion.

polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not when the point he's making is an explanation of church doctrine. Basically all you're doing is saying "you can't prove that" to every point he brings up, which doesn't make for a useful or constructive discussion.

 

Well, if you can't prove your discussion points then they're not valid points, are they? I don't think...

PM me for fitocracy invite

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not when the point he's making is an explanation of church doctrine. Basically all you're doing is saying "you can't prove that" to every point he brings up, which doesn't make for a useful or constructive discussion.

 

Well, if you can't prove your discussion points then they're not valid points, are they? I don't think...

He's not trying to prove heaven/hell exists. Your inability to grasp this is exactly why this debate is pointless.

polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Okay, but nobody is sure that they'll go to heaven. We don't even actually know if heaven or hell exist.

Nice straw man. Part of the reason I've stayed away from the thread thus far....

 

 

 

I didn't intend to use any straw man fallacies, could you point it out for me?

 

there isnt any, though its curious that duffy hasnt been called out on his numerous appeal to authority fallacies throughout his posts, along with more flip-flopping than a bus of tourists at Ibiza.

 

for example

Fundamentalist Christians = take the words in the Bible literally. You can see the various problems with this. If not, I suggest reading the short pamphlet on Fundamentalism written by Eugene LaVerdiere. It goes through why fundamentalism is a pastoral, social, theological, and personal problem.

 

Catholicism = inerrancy of the Bible: "the Bible solidly, faithfully and without error teaches the truth which God wanted put into sacred writings."(one has to ask if the bible is without error it can be taken anything but literally) In other words, whatever was written down, through this writing God intended to help us attain eternal life.(Sharpshooters fallacy) (Dei Verbum paragraph 11, from the Second Vatican Council). straight appeal to authority

 

And I say Catholicism because it's one of the most longstanding (which means if truth is proportional to age as this person asserts then zoroastrianism is more that twice as true as catholicism) , organized religious institutions out there, and it's Catechism is extremely detailed arguement from complexity and... well, non-contradictory (so, well founded). both of the last 2 are unproven assertions

 

I can continue with just about any post if neccessary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not when the point he's making is an explanation of church doctrine. Basically all you're doing is saying "you can't prove that" to every point he brings up, which doesn't make for a useful or constructive discussion.

 

au contraire, pointing out glaring flaws in arguements is essential to constructive arguments, and the most fundamental of flaws is not being able to back the arguement up with proof.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course he'll appeal to authority, he's explaining the Catholic doctrine. If that's unacceptable behavior in a debate, then I don't know what the hell is meant to be acceptable.

 

The argument from complexity is about intelligent design, it has nothing to do with what he said. And I don't see how what he's saying is a sharpshooter fallacy, since he said all that's written in the Bible is meant to help us attain eternal life. He didn't point at one verse and claim that's what the Bible's all about.

 

Also, obfuscator already explained where the straw man fallacy was on the previous page:

 

Okay, but nobody is sure that they'll go to heaven. We don't even actually know if heaven or hell exist.

Nice straw man. Part of the reason I've stayed away from the thread thus far....

 

I didn't intend to use any straw man fallacies, could you point it out for me?

You made up an imaginary point to argue to, that's the point of a straw man. He was talking about church doctrine - and instead of actually debating that you switched to a preferable point to argue - the existence of heaven or hell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not when the point he's making is an explanation of church doctrine. Basically all you're doing is saying "you can't prove that" to every point he brings up, which doesn't make for a useful or constructive discussion.

 

au contraire, pointing out glaring flaws in arguements is essential to constructive arguments, and the most fundamental of flaws is not being able to back the arguement up with proof.

You're completely missing the point.

 

His point was not that you can prove baptism is an inherently good thing.

His point was that in the catholic church baptism is considered to be a good thing, because according to catholic doctrine, it is important for heaven.

 

Thus answering that point by saying "but heaven doesn't exist" is a straw man.

polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not when the point he's making is an explanation of church doctrine. Basically all you're doing is saying "you can't prove that" to every point he brings up, which doesn't make for a useful or constructive discussion.

 

au contraire, pointing out glaring flaws in arguements is essential to constructive arguments, and the most fundamental of flaws is not being able to back the arguement up with proof.

You're completely missing the point.

 

His point was not that you can prove baptism is an inherently good thing.

His point was that in the catholic church baptism is considered to be a good thing, because according to catholic doctrine, it is important for heaven.

 

Thus answering that point by saying "but heaven doesn't exist" is a straw man.

It's not directly responding to the point he was making, granted, but it was an advancement of the debate and I guess that can be viewed as a straw man. However the fact that the existence of the basis for baptism (according to him) is dubious, it's a valid point to make.

RIP TET

 

original.png

 

"That which does not kill us makes us stronger." - Friedrich Nietzsche

Link to comment
Share on other sites

is definitely not the same God as the Catholic God.

Saying that, do you believe that your deity is the only deity?

I believe there is only one deity, and this deity is most accurately described by the Catholic Church.

 

As for Nom, I believe the Earth was formed billions of years ago. I'm not a creationist. This doesn't mean the creation stories do not serve a purpose.

What purpose do they serve then in your opinion? They are all about how your God created the world in 7 days, after all.

It seems like you are still taking the Bible literally even though I've said so many times that it should not be taken literally, especially the creation stories.

[hide]How the creation stories function:

- most generally, they explain/validate political/social/cultural realities

- characterizations of God and humankind

- defining key relationships between God and humans, humans and humans, and humans and the land

- possibly etiologies of

  • clothing
  • why snakes crawl and mutual hostility between them and humans
  • marriage
  • frustration in work
  • subordination of women (attraction to men; pain in childbirth)
  • human shame about body

- ideology of becoming one flesh: marriage, sex, offspring

- transcendent vs imminent (dealing with God)

- God as an anthropomorphic being

[/hide]

Additionally, the seven day schema which you referred to serves as an organizational tool that contains symmetry (between creation of environment and inhabitant), again, not to be taken literally.

 

Not only this, as said earlier, baptism is the only sure way we know we can get into heaven (emphasize on 'we know').

Wait, what? Point 1, you said anyone could get into heaven, even if they weren't a Christian. Also your entire point here relies on heaven actually existing. Point 2. That statement carries as much weight as me saying 'the only way you will be reborn after death is if you were dunked underwater as a baby'. I do agree with Obsfucator with the whole being baptized as a baby thing though.

I seem to be repeating myself over and over again. If you read back a few posts, you'd see that I clearly state it's possible for a non-Christian to get into heaven. The Church does not claim there is no other way besides baptism. They claim it is the only known way; yet, they clarify that God is not governed by God's own sacraments, so God has the final say. As for the entire point here relying on heaven actually existing, the very fact that someone asks about heaven assumes the fact that, in the discussion, it does exist. If someone asked, "What would happen if the world flipped on it's axes?", a scientist wouldn't say, "It can't." They would assume it could and go on from there; that's implied when answering a question.

I am struggling to see how religion is in your life Duff. You follow all of the morals, but the religion part of it is believing that a deity gave it to us? I follow pretty much identical morals with no deity.

 

I also said this earlier (I think even to you); part of what the Church does is interprets the Bible and provides correct teaching to the people of this earth. I don't believe in abortion, yet so many people do; why? Because the Church has an adamant position on it (namely that it's morally wrong). One thing the Church does is it takes basic morals that it has interpreted from the Bible and that have been acknowledged throughout it's history through Tradition and applies them to modern day.

 

A lot of people don't want to be part of the Church because of how strict it is. I know from your statement you do not follow all that the Church teaches; rather, you do not believe in all the Church's teachings. I do (or I do my best to, though I sometimes fail). And that is partly why religion is in my life.

pMcEU.png

| My Tumblr |

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heh, numerous appeals to authority?

 

There is no fallacy when the authority is the one who defines everything that I'm explaining in the first place. That's like saying I can't refer to a textbook when I'm answering questions on the material from the textbook.

 

And Locke_Superbus, I was suggesting someone look more into Catholicism if they were interested in other religions because of how well defined and organized it is. I never said they couldn't look to Zoroastrianism . And you made the absurd assumption that I said the age of an institution is proportional to the truth in it.

 

Honestly, it seems like you just looked at basic definitions of some fallacies and tried forcing them into one of my posts.

pMcEU.png

| My Tumblr |

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, it's fine as a new point, sure - but it's still a straw man when it's addressed towards the previous point (which it was).

 

 

It was not. It was intended as a continuation into other discussion points. Hence the "Okay". I probably made that pretty unclear, my fault.

 

So as a new topic of discussion... Do you believe in heaven/hell? And if so, what is your basis (or is your basis simply faith)?

PM me for fitocracy invite

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Erm... I don't think I've ever heard of someone believing in heaven/hell without believing in a god or greater being.

 

I wish I had that book, because it would provide a lot of insight into this discussion. It should be here by Wednesday.

 

If I remember correctly, a part of it deals with our yearning for ultimate happiness, and how no one on this earth has truly achieved complete happiness, yet we all strive for it. I think that is one simple explanation for why people would think there has to be something afterwards - something that satisfies this ultimate desire for perfect happiness.

 

I'll definitely write more on the subject once that book comes in. :)

 

EDIT: Oh, and of course, I believe in heaven/hell because Sacred Scripture and Tradition have always believed these to exist. I don't believe in them simply because I'm told they exist, though. I just find that there should be something after life, and it makes sense that it has to do with being in God's presence (which I believe will result in ultimate, eternal happiness).

pMcEU.png

| My Tumblr |

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are a series of arguments that I find to be extremely convincing. I'll expand on these arguments once I have their exact wording in front of me (I want to get them right). Be patient with me. :grin:

 

I was raised Catholic in a very Catholic family. But I've taken huge steps towards reinforcing those beliefs I was taught as a child through my own research and learning. So I don't believe in God just cause I'm told to. :P In case you were thinking that.

pMcEU.png

| My Tumblr |

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are a series of arguments that I find to be extremely convincing. I'll expand on these arguments once I have their exact wording in front of me (I want to get them right). Be patient with me. :grin:

 

I was raised Catholic in a very Catholic family. But I've taken huge steps towards reinforcing those beliefs I was taught as a child through my own research and learning. So I don't believe in God just cause I'm told to. :P In case you were thinking that.

 

I've done a lot of research as well, but I never found anything that made me question whether a deity actually might exist. Do you have any examples before you get that book thing?

 

Also, do you claim to know that a deity exists, or do you just believe so?

 

 

And this is super duper extremely off topic but I've been intensely curious as to what you look like IRL. Uh... yeah... Aren't I sweet? >_> <­_< >_>

PM me for fitocracy invite

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As much as I want to try, I have a feeling I'll make a mistake. :\ If I'm lucky, it'll come in tomorrow (along with my Texas Instruments calculator!).

 

As for your second question, I am thoroughly convinced that God exists. I'm pretty sure that that is the different from claiming that I know God exists. Being convinced/believing is different than claiming you know, yes?

pMcEU.png

| My Tumblr |

Link to comment
Share on other sites

my mistake, i keep forgetting sarcasm and snark dont work properly on the internet.

 

when duff said

 

"And I say Catholicism because it's one of the most longstanding , organized religious institutions out there, and it's Catechism is extremely detailed and... well, non-contradictory (so, well founded)."

 

the implication behind the longstanding clause is that age and truth are correlated, which is utterly fallacious, and if he didnt want to imply it then he wouldnt have written it. As for the non-contradictory part, thats just bunk, the doctrine of limbo is a perfect example of this, one pope says its correct because hes the pope and therefore infallible, then the latest pope says its not correct because hes the pope and therefore infallible. they cant both be right, which calls into question on what grounds they can claim to always have the 'correct' interpretation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can see where I may have been misleading. You act like a guy like me can't make mistakes unknowingly (if he didnt want to imply it then he wouldnt have written it). I did not mean for people to interpret what I said as meaning truth and age are correlated. Plainly, I meant that, since the Catholic Church has been around for so long and is rather prevalent in today's society, it would be a good idea to look into that it, especially because it's teachings are so well defined. Just think of it as me suggesting someone look into buying a computer made by Microsoft first instead of a computer made by a relatively new company.

 

The history of the Church is filled with mistakes. There were dozens of popes that were not fit for the position. The modern Church has acknowledged this. But I assure you that the Catechism of the Catholic Church is not contradictory. Your example of contradictory spans over time, while I meant 'non contradictory' as in it's teachings now - compared to fundamentalist Christianity (which was why this subject came up), which is very contradictory in that one part of the Bible taken literally clearly contradicts another part of the Bible taken literally. Again, you will not find a spot in the Catechism that contradicts another point in the Catechism; that is what I meant by non contradictory.

 

Humans are flawed. Also, it's taken many mistakes and many arguments for the Catholic Church to get where it is now. It will continuously improve upon itself by better fleshing out its teachings, and that only comes with time.

pMcEU.png

| My Tumblr |

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But I assure you that the Catechism of the Catholic Church is not contradictory.

 

from http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c1.htm#I AKA the offical vatican website.

 

 

IV. HOW CAN WE SPEAK ABOUT GOD?

 

39 In defending the ability of human reason to know God, the Church is expressing her confidence in the possibility of speaking about him to all men and with all men, and therefore of dialogue with other religions, with philosophy and science, as well as with unbelievers and atheists.

 

40 Since our knowledge of God is limited, our language about him is equally so. We can name God only by taking creatures as our starting point, and in accordance with our limited human ways of knowing and thinking.

 

41 All creatures bear a certain resemblance to God, most especially man, created in the image and likeness of God. The manifold perfections of creatures - their truth, their goodness, their beauty all reflect the infinite perfection of God. Consequently we can name God by taking his creatures" perfections as our starting point, "for from the greatness and beauty of created things comes a corresponding perception of their Creator".15

 

42 God transcends all creatures. We must therefore continually purify our language of everything in it that is limited, image-bound or imperfect, if we are not to confuse our image of God--"the inexpressible, the incomprehensible, the invisible, the ungraspable"--with our human representations.16 Our human words always fall short of the mystery of God.

 

43 Admittedly, in speaking about God like this, our language is using human modes of expression; nevertheless it really does attain to God himself, though unable to express him in his infinite simplicity. Likewise, we must recall that "between Creator and creature no similitude can be expressed without implying an even greater dissimilitude";17 and that "concerning God, we cannot grasp what he is, but only what he is not, and how other beings stand in relation to him."18

 

 

 

so basically "we think that humans can understand god and explain him to others, but we think humans cant possibly understand god or explain him to others because he is incomprehensible. We shall nevertheless claim to know what this thing is, what it wants and what it does even though we just said we cant possibly know. we shall say that we can know these properties of god because he is similar to what he makes, but however similar he is he is even more different so we really cant know his properties. hes also a cubic sphere, the colour 4 and a car made of blue. also mystery as we havent met our daily quota of that word today."

 

[/snark]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly, your paraphrase is completely wrong. And frankly, I don't like your attitude at all. It's people like you who think the Church is a joke that piss me off, and I have no respect at all for said people.

 

Those passages are hardly contradictory at all. And I may just be guessing, but seeing as that is Part I Section I Article I, I bet you just started at the beginning and tried to look for the first instance in which you could claim there were contradictions.

 

I glean from those passages that 1) The Church is confident that we can (we have the ability to) speak about Him and of Him because of our intellect 2) Our knowledge of God is limited, and so will all our explanations/ideas/descriptions: "Our human words always fall short of the mystery of God...Admittedly, in speaking about God like this, our language is using human modes of expression; nevertheless it really does attain to God himself, though unable to express him in his infinite simplicity.

 

I still am dumbfounded at how you came to the conclusions you did from these passages. I dunno how I'm going to keep up an intellectual conversation with you...

pMcEU.png

| My Tumblr |

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me get this straight... The catholic church goes against it's own doctrine? Duff, you said that you don't believe in abortion because the church condones it due to it being against morals ( as well as the bible I assume). However, you say that the catholic church does not condone gay marriage, even though in the bible God blatantly massacred the homosexuals and said "don't do this." He also says don't do that in one of the books of the law. Maybe I missread something?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.