Irish Catholic forum desends into madness

General discussions
inedifix
Posts: 959
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2007 8:57 pm
Location: New Zealand

Post by inedifix » Thu Nov 20, 2008 10:48 am

Superstitious Fool wrote:Our (Catholic) position is that we start from a foundation of belief (or, as we call it, "revealed truth"), and then build a logical structure on it.

Would it be true to say that you start from an absence of empirical evidence for one position, which you take as proof of the opposite, and then build a logical structure on the opposite?

I can only speak for myself Michael, but my answer would be: no, not at all. I start from the observation of a purely natural world around me, and then build a logical structure on that. When the building process reveals time, and time again, that the initial observation appears to be correct, I accept that it probably was, but I don't give up building, or asking searching questions.

Wouldn't it be more true to say, that from the traditional Catholic's perspective, once the "truth" has been "revealed" no more questions are necessary, all the evidence you need is in? And that having assumed the unproven existence of truth you cannot see, touch, measure, or describe, that you affirm all other points of view to be false?

And they're not mischievous questions either...

I
“What we call chaos is just patterns we haven't recognized. What we call random is just patterns we can't decipher. What we can't understand we call nonsense. There is no free will. There are no variables. There is only the inevitable.” Chuck Palahniuk
CelticAtheist
Posts: 284
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:55 pm

Post by CelticAtheist » Fri Nov 21, 2008 9:59 pm

Superstitious Fool wrote:
Ygern wrote:If after a good deal of testing, none of you can prove its false, you have reason to believe that you might be on to something. Maybe.

Its a very cautious process, very frustrating, requires rigorous honesty and bucketloads of patience.

That sounds like how I re-became a Catholic after not being one for 19 years.


Looking forward to you justifying that brickload of a burden of proof you put on yourself.
CerebralCortex
Atheist Ireland Member
Atheist Ireland Member
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 12:08 pm

Post by CerebralCortex » Sun Nov 23, 2008 8:11 pm

Superstitious Fool wrote:
Ygern wrote:If after a good deal of testing, none of you can prove its false, you have reason to believe that you might be on to something. Maybe.

Its a very cautious process, very frustrating, requires rigorous honesty and bucketloads of patience.

That sounds like how I re-became a Catholic after not being one for 19 years.


What were you instead?
Superstitious Fool
Posts: 75
Joined: Tue Aug 12, 2008 10:41 pm
Contact:

Post by Superstitious Fool » Sun Nov 23, 2008 9:58 pm

What was I instead? At first I was indifferent; then a complacent agnostic; later an increasingly dissatisfied one. As for burdens of proof, I never concerned myself with "proof" if you mean something empirically demonstrable, because I saw no point; reason alone was to me clearly an inadequate tool. I went with the balance of probabilities (and still do).
Michael G
Ygern
Atheist Ireland Member
Atheist Ireland Member
Posts: 3003
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 1:02 pm
Location: Cork
Contact:

Post by Ygern » Sun Nov 23, 2008 10:02 pm

Superstitious Fool wrote: reason alone was to me clearly an inadequate tool. I went with the balance of probabilities (and still do).


I would be absolutely fascinated to hear in some detail what makes you regard the probability that God exists more likely than the probability that there is no God.
Superstitious Fool
Posts: 75
Joined: Tue Aug 12, 2008 10:41 pm
Contact:

Post by Superstitious Fool » Sun Nov 23, 2008 11:34 pm

Ygern wrote:
Superstitious Fool wrote: reason alone was to me clearly an inadequate tool. I went with the balance of probabilities (and still do).


I would be absolutely fascinated to hear in some detail what makes you regard the probability that God exists more likely than the probability that there is no God.

Neither is inherently more probable than the other. From my own observations, however, I was not convinced by logic alone and I was persuaded by intuition and comtemplation. I cannot attempt any logical argument.
Michael G
CelticAtheist
Posts: 284
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:55 pm

Post by CelticAtheist » Sun Nov 23, 2008 11:38 pm

Superstitious Fool wrote:What was I instead? At first I was indifferent; then a complacent agnostic; later an increasingly dissatisfied one. As for burdens of proof, I never concerned myself with "proof" if you mean something empirically demonstrable, because I saw no point; reason alone was to me clearly an inadequate tool. I went with the balance of probabilities (and still do).


The balance of probabilities is heavily against gods existence..
CerebralCortex
Atheist Ireland Member
Atheist Ireland Member
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 12:08 pm

Post by CerebralCortex » Mon Nov 24, 2008 12:09 am

Superstitious Fool wrote:What was I instead? At first I was indifferent; then a complacent agnostic; later an increasingly dissatisfied one. As for burdens of proof, I never concerned myself with "proof" if you mean something empirically demonstrable, because I saw no point; reason alone was to me clearly an inadequate tool. I went with the balance of probabilities (and still do).


But in truthfullness you did far more than that though wouldn't you agree? I mean I find it fascinating that you, through the above process, came all the way down to catholicism again. I could be forgiven for saying that you probably took to the belief you were most familliar with it i.e. the most accessible. From what you said I'm skeptical you ever really gave much thought to the idea that catholicism was wrong but as you said just maintained indifference for a while. Also the idea of keeping away from logic is so clichèd and speaks volumns to me.
ravinggobshite
Posts: 16
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 2:40 am

Post by ravinggobshite » Mon Nov 24, 2008 2:27 am

I'm lost :?
First you said this


Superstitious Fool wrote:
Ygern wrote:If after a good deal of testing, none of you can prove its false, you have reason to believe that you might be on to something. Maybe.

Its a very cautious process, very frustrating, requires rigorous honesty and bucketloads of patience.

That sounds like how I re-became a Catholic after not being one for 19 years.


Then you say :
Superstitious Fool wrote: As for burdens of proof, I never concerned myself with "proof" if you mean something empirically demonstrable, because I saw no point; reason alone was to me clearly an inadequate tool. I went with the balance of probabilities (and still do).


which directly contradicts your first statement and you give no reason why you think reason is an inadequate tool.

Then you go on to say:

Superstitious Fool wrote:Neither is inherently more probable than the other.


in which case if you went with the balance of probabilities as you stated above, you would be agnostic. In fairness you did qualify this by saying:

Superstitious Fool wrote: I was not convinced by logic alone and I was persuaded by intuition and comtemplation. I cannot attempt any logical argument.


In which case you are contradicting yourself again and you did not go with the balance of probabilities but just went with your intuition.

No offence intended but your not making much sense.
inedifix
Posts: 959
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2007 8:57 pm
Location: New Zealand

Post by inedifix » Mon Nov 24, 2008 3:22 am

Superstitious Fool wrote:I cannot attempt any logical argument.

I think that's it really Michael. You fault us because we insist on logic and evidence. We fault you because you require neither. Our stance results in a top down stripping away of superstition. Yours permits anyone to believe in anything.

I'd ask you this: if the seeds of Christian religion had not been sown, fertilized and nurtured in your young developing mind, mightn't you now reject Catholicism with the same intellectual rigor you would presumably reject Jainism, Scientology or Pastafarianism?

I
“What we call chaos is just patterns we haven't recognized. What we call random is just patterns we can't decipher. What we can't understand we call nonsense. There is no free will. There are no variables. There is only the inevitable.” Chuck Palahniuk
Post Reply