My short time on Suscipe Domine
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-01-2014, 08:56 AM
RE: My short time on Suscipe Domine
(31-12-2013 08:54 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  The thing that bugs me about SD (and to a lesser extent, Fisheaters, which is where many of the SD people came from) is that they not only believe what they believe, they are absolutely certain that they are right and everyone else is wrong. They will not even admit the remote possibility that they could be wrong. Which makes it pointless to argue with them. I believe that atheism is "right", but I'm not absolutely certain of it. I could be wrong, and if presented with compelling evidence for the existence of God, I would change my belief (although it's still an enormous leap from there to the Christian God). But I'm not going to waste my time arguing with people who "know" that they're right -- at least not on the murky subject of religion. If a professional mathematician claims to know that a theorem is true and offers to demonstrate it to me, that would be a different sort of thing. I don't believe that sort of certainty is possible in religion, and am therefore annoyed by people who try to claim it.

But in math you start with axioms in order to demonstrate that a theorem is true. One could not say anything meaningful about any theorem without the axioms. You reject the axioms necessary to talk meaningfully about Catholicism.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-01-2014, 08:59 AM
RE: My short time on Suscipe Domine
(01-01-2014 08:36 AM)Jayne Wrote:  I am starting with a difference set of epistemological assumptions from you. Catholic dogmas are axiomatic propositions in my thought system. They can't be challenged by evidence because they are evidence.

This is OK if you're doing maths, because there's no claim that the axioms reflect external reality. As soon as you make *that* claim, the axioms become claims which should be tested to verify if they are true. It might be hard to do so, but they must be tested and discarded if found to be false. Otherwise if you do not test and discard, you are describing an *internally consistent* logic system which *may not correspond* with external reality.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like morondog's post
01-01-2014, 09:03 AM
RE: My short time on Suscipe Domine
(31-12-2013 09:07 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  The other thing will come to me, but what a trick to ask you your beliefs when you said you came to learn and then start bashing them, all the while holding the banhammer over your head. Disingenuous to the core, that bunch. And no wonder they stay in their little malevolent echo chamber -- they couldn't survive a minute in the real world, in the light of day.

That was not a trick. The person who asked about KC's beliefs was completely sincere in doing so. Other people responded to this in what I thought was an unfair way, but there was no trickery involved. SD is not a monolithic group and we have our individual approaches to things.

And please note that I am not staying in the "echo chamber".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-01-2014, 09:09 AM
RE: My short time on Suscipe Domine
(01-01-2014 08:28 AM)Jayne Wrote:  
(31-12-2013 05:53 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Surprisingly we agree on the new Pope. I dislike him almost as much as you do and for some of the same reasons. He is disingenuous and seems to be playing very loose with the stated dogma for photo ops and headlines. Granted we do disagree what would be an improvement but that's life isn't it.

I don't dislike him. While I am uncomfortable with some of what Pope Francis has said and done, he is still my pope. He has my loyalty and obedience.

My mistake, so you do not belong to the "Empty Chair" contingent over there? I did lurk at SD for a while and have read a good bit but I do apologise for assuming your position. Hard to keep peoples positions straight when you don't know them very well.

I remember reading a thread about something Francis said about Mary and most of the posters in that thread were having conniptions about it. Quite a few claimed he was the Anti-Christ (would not be the first Pope to have that tossed his direction) and I thought I remembered you in that group but I could be mistaken.

Either way it was wrong of me to strawman you, even if it was not intentional so you have my sincere apology.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Revenant77x's post
01-01-2014, 09:24 AM (This post was last modified: 01-01-2014 09:28 AM by Jayne.)
RE: My short time on Suscipe Domine
(31-12-2013 10:54 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  
Quote:How many people here think that you are wrong about what you believe?

I might suggest that the better question would be, how many of us are open to changing our understanding of the world in response to new evidence. Would you agree?

I do not agree. This question assumes that we have common assumptions about what constitutes evidence. We do not share epistemological assumptions. We give different answers to the question of "how does one know what is true". That is the level at which one must begin to question.
(I did watch the video, but I do not think that it addresses this aspect of things at all.)

Quote:It seems to me that you may be casting atheism as some sort of belief. Let me clear away that misinterpretation right away. A-theism is non- belief in any particular deity. You don't believe in Ball or Ganesh; in that sense you are an atheist as well. I just believe in one less deity than you do.

Atheism can be used in two different senses. It can mean lack of belief in gods or it can mean belief in lack of gods. I have seen these two forms referred to as weak atheism and strong atheism respectively. A person, such as myself, who believes in a deity cannot be called an atheist in a meaningful way. You are just playing with words.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-01-2014, 09:31 AM
RE: My short time on Suscipe Domine
(01-01-2014 09:24 AM)Jayne Wrote:  
(31-12-2013 10:54 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  I might suggest that the better question would be, how many of us are open to changing our understanding of the world in response to new evidence. Would you agree?

I do not agree. This question assumes that we have common assumptions about what constitutes evidence. We do not share epistemological assumptions. We give different answers to the question of "how does one know what is true". That is the level at which one must begin to question.
Quote:Evidence has a clear definition. It is fact that can be verified by others. If it cannot be, then it is not evidence.

Quote:It seems to me that you may be casting atheism as some sort of belief. Let me clear away that misinterpretation right away. A-theism is non- belief in any particular deity. You don't believe in Ball or Ganesh; in that sense you are an atheist as well. I just believe in one less deity than you do.

Atheism can be used in two different senses. It can mean lack of belief in gods or it can mean belief in lack of gods. I have seen these two forms referred to as weak atheism and strong atheism respectively. A person, such as myself, who believes in a deity cannot be called an atheist in a meaningful way. You are just playing with words.

Yes, it is wordplay, but it is wordplay with a point. The point is that you do not believe in other gods, e.g. Baal, Jove, Mithras, and so on. Why do you reject these gods? When you have determined why you reject all of those, you will have some understanding of why I reject yours.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Chas's post
01-01-2014, 09:51 AM
RE: My short time on Suscipe Domine
(31-12-2013 10:59 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  
(31-12-2013 05:26 PM)Jayne Wrote:  Where I come from people are more into exorcising demons. But maybe you do exercise demons here. I'll watch out for that. Smile

OH, you saw that, too. I couldn't stop laughing.....
[...]
So of course, being a visually-oriented person, this idea of "exercising demons" gave me a preposterous mental picture of someone taking a gaggle of demons out for a ride, or a walk, or a romp at the dog park.

Silly, yes. Oh well...

That's what it made me think of too. I couldn't tell if it was intentional or not, but it was pretty funny either way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-01-2014, 09:59 AM
RE: My short time on Suscipe Domine
(31-12-2013 11:06 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  But at the same time most Catholics I've known don't follow all the church's teachings -- many for example use birth control, or have had IVF, or support the death penalty. . I think that's the most telling thing about the Catholic church today. The majority were indoctrinated cafeteria Catholics, without a clue about what being Roman Catholic actually means.

I would go so far as to suggest if most Catholics understood the church they'd leave it for another religion that better aligns with their core beliefs.

You are almost ready to be a traditional Catholic. Now that you have got this part, there are just a few more beliefs to work on.
Big Grin

For the record, I accept everything that the Catholic Church teaches and have a pretty good knowledge of it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-01-2014, 10:12 AM
RE: My short time on Suscipe Domine
(01-01-2014 08:56 AM)Jayne Wrote:  But in math you start with axioms in order to demonstrate that a theorem is true. One could not say anything meaningful about any theorem without the axioms. You reject the axioms necessary to talk meaningfully about Catholicism.

In mathematics we try to build logical systems on as small a number of axioms as possible. This reduces the chance we have introduced unnecessary self-contradiction into the system and makes our system as comparable as possible with other related systems that have similar but non-identical sets of axioms.

I have almost no knowledge of Catholicism. I was variously brought up in Baptist, Church of Christ and Christian and Missionary Alliance congregations. I found myself questioning my axioms, so to speak, and reducing my set of axioms relatively late in life.

When you point to all of Catholic dogma as axioms to your system of epistemology - can you point to the specific list? I gather the list is long and that much of the list is in fact derived rather than axiomatic, for example specific dogmas may have been derived from Biblical sources. Do you feel that none of the dogmas can be removed from your set of axioms without altering your epistemological framework? Do you feel that at least some can be accepted as derived rather than axiomatic?

Or by referring to axioms were you referring to a smaller set of beliefs such as the existence of God as being "properly basic" or some similar formulation?

In any case, you're most welcome here. We accept all kinds as you have seen. Even Calvinists Wink

I saw KC's thread on SD, and the link back to a post on this forum. I think you said there was some excessively hurtful material in that thread. I wasn't involved in the linked thread and haven't so far spotted derision I could specifically connect to you, but I wish you and your family all the best.

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Hafnof's post
01-01-2014, 10:22 AM
RE: My short time on Suscipe Domine
(01-01-2014 02:01 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(01-01-2014 01:49 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  SD has no standards.

I thought SD meant standard deviation.

It can.
I'm working on an interesting use for it, for a hobby, (sports stats).

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: