You could be wrong you know.
Excuse me? I could be wrong about what information I was given in Catholic school from 1956 through 1968? Wrong about what I was told by my parents who went to different Catholic schools from 1920 through 1934? I suppose that it is remotely possible. Somehow, I don’t think that my experience has less accuracy than yours. (And, for the nth time: I am not denying your experience, only noting that other people had different experiences and that the conflict between those experiences indicates, if nothing else, that the RCC was not monolithically encouraging any suppression of information, given that at least three people attending at least seven schools over 26 years across five decades came away with an education that included the information you say was suppressed.)
It’s largely your desire to claim a distinction in some situations and ignore it in others that has created this conflict, I gather. As I understand it, you’re claiming it’s okay to call Christians ignorant because it’s not technically an insult (and people who insist on seeing it as such are ignorantly - or stupidly, I’m unclear which - missing the point). Since you seem aware of this distinction, I’m unclear on how you saying to a disagreeing poster: “if you’re just too stupid to…” doesn’t comprise an insult. Does the leading “if” make it a hypothetical, thus technically not an insult (and people who insist on seeing it as such are ignorantly - or stupidly, I’m unclear which - missing the point)?
I’m uncertain, but I think this is one long sentence:
PRR, could you please rewrite that in a reasonablly concise and straightforward way so that I can understand what you were wanting to communicate? If not, at least I tried.
I am always ignorant of many things and sometimes stupid – old and gray and full of sleep and nodding by the fire. I admit it. I don’t think that my stupidity is the source of my problem with the “sentence” quoted above. It suggests something written by a butterfly in heat.
At least twice you have mentioned being “too stupid to live.” That is a really bizarre expression for a teacher to be using. Just an observation.
To address the OP more directly, I do not think mainstream believers are stupid or ignorant. I think indoctrination is a difficult mental barrier to break free of. I know catholics (who just happen to be the religious members I’m most familiar with) who, while not partaking in any of the pomp and circumstance surrounding their religion, still cannot imagine being anything but catholic.
They report that they realize it’s silly to align themselves with something so unlikely; they acknowledge that it’s based on nothing we know to be true in this world. They realize it goes against their cognizant skills to continue to espouse any degree of confidence in the existence of god, but they simply cannot walk away from it.
There is some sort of comfort derived from the belief that no matter what, something is watching over them. They’re afraid their families will disown them; some actually believe that a family member will suffer severe, irreversible mental anguish (even death!) should they find out their children or siblings no longer believe. These friends would feel so much guilt that it simply wouldn’t be worth it to disassociate with their faith.
I apologize for misquoting you. That was indeed someone else. I’ll gladly address your questions but first let me be clear on your position.
You didn’t say it per se? Here’s the statement I responded to
bolding mine
How else should I interpret that statement?
So, my questions to you and others who seem to have embraced this idea are spelled out in post #79 namely;
Where’s the evidence for this particular doctrine?{or concept if you prefer}
Do you just accept it because you heard it somewhere and it appealed to your emotional dislike for religion and spiritual beliefs?
Did you read it in a book and it just felt right so you concluded it must be true?
Is there some reliable scientific or sociological study on this that I missed?
I’m not asking you to rephrase and repeat or ask me questions. Please address these and when I’m clear on your position I’ll be glad to answer your questions.
I just want to take issue with Kal’s “religion lite” position. The stance of the mainstream denominations is clearcut and has as little to do with the legislate-belief-and-social-behavior crew as is possible.
It’s much like feeling a small-government pragmatic-libertarian conservative is somehow supporting the likes of Dobson, Falwell, Robertson, & Co. by holding true to his conservative beliefs.
Or my making the absurd claim that “atheists don’t believe in freedom or politeness, because they’re not physical objects capable of being tested with instruments. Therefore all atheists are actually freedom-haters.” Pretty bizarre, IMO. Just like her position.
I’m not sure what it is you don’t understand. As per my previous post, it is obvious to me that if a person believes god talks to anyone at all, then it is possible that he talks to people who have fundamental differences in their take on religion, god, right/wrong, good/bad, etc. I don’t need a doctrine to come to this conclusion. How do you know god didn’t tell the hijackers to crash the planes? Is it possible he had a conversation with them and told them to do it? Could this be another example of “god working in mysterious ways”? Could 9/11 have somehow been good for us in the long run, regardless of how ugly the incident appeared at the time?
Do I think the christians are cheering on the muslims? No. But believing that it’s possible to talk to god allows those extreme examples of religious obsession the same privilege of “inside track” communication as those who believe god told them to work at a mission in Calcutta.
I’m not referring to the stance of any church, any denomination or any single religion. I’m talking about the concept of god. In my example, I’m speaking specifically of the muslim interpretation of god vs. the christian version of god, though my question would be the same if we were talking christian fundamentalist vs. catholic or protestant. Why is it bizarre to think he asked mortal men to take out the World Trade Center but not bizarre to believe he asked someone to open a soup kitchen in New Orleans?
Did you miss the last sentence of my post? Are you purposely avoiding answering direct questions directly?
I didn’t say I didn’t understand. You made a statement about religion lite being being a danger because it lends credibility with a wink and a nod, to the extremists. I’m asking very specifically if you have any evidence to back up that theory? Calling it obvious is meaningless? No need to explain it again. I’m just wondering where you got this idea.
Why is it bizarre to think Mom asked you to roast the dog for dinner but not bizarre to think Mom asked you to feed the dog his dinner?
Of course, I don’t know your mom, or whether or not you have a mom or a dog. But there’s nothing far-fetched in believing in a mom who might tell you to do one of those things but not the other.
It is self-evident. I can’t make you see something if you don’t grasp that concept.
What if your mom thought the best thing for you was to eat the dog? What if she truly believed it? This is not far-fetched. There are mothers in the Middle East who think it is the best thing for their child to engage in suicide missions. They believe god wants them to.
You’ve covered a lot of territory but i just want to address the atheist/religious and educated/less educated dichotomies.
As an atheist, you have undisputable logic on your side. As a super educated person you have undisputable credentuals on your side. This however is most likely to cause you to project yourself as superior, and given that there are a whole lot of other criteria for a “superior” to be admired, it shouldn’t be too hard for others that you challenge to focus on those area in which you lack.
For one, respect for other’s beliefs. I doubt Old Faithful is going to bother telling thousands of people what an idiot he thinks you are.
Given that we have already dealt with “hypothetical” insults in this thread, this was a particularly infelicitous choice of phrase.
Let’s leave anything that could be construed as an insult for the Pit.
[ /Moderating ]
So could you, you know.
I’m sorry, to be fair to myself, I had no intention of describing the OP as an idiot. I wouldn’t even say he was an idiot because I don’t believe he is one. However he did infer that his FIL was an idiot, and for the purposes of my argument or point, I needed to present a view that the OP was subject to being called an idiot by FIL before thousands of people (as well as jusst to the OP as described)which I doubted happened or likely. Whether that view is valid or not, I did not support the idea that the OP was an idiot. In fact, I’m very reticent in calling anyone an idiot.
I completely grasp the concept and happen to think it’s baloney. I’ve asked you repeatedly to offer any evidence or support for the statement I quoted and the section I bolded. You instead of answering direct questions simply call it self evident. I will take that to mean you’ve decided it’s true without any substantial research or evidence. That is, you made it up in your own head and called it self evident. In much the same way some believers look at the amazing diversity and wonder of our earth and the universe and conclude that God is self evident. {FTR I’m not one of those believers}
So congratulations. You’re now officially within the ranks of those who cling to beliefs without evidence. Which was my point from the beginning.
I already told you this doesn’t come from books. It’s a simple deduction that any six-year-old can make. Why do I have to have a cite for something that is commonly understood?
No, it’s not made up by me. It’s made up by the believers. If god can talk to some people, he can talk to all of us. Allowing that he talks to some “good” believers ALSO allows that he talks to people whose religion you don’t subscribe to. Why is this so difficult for you?
Take a deep breath and re-read what you asked for and what I wrote. It was there the first time (when you were busy misquoting me).
Hello? Do you honestly believe that every single one of the over 1 billion Muslims, every single one of the (not sure how many) Jews and every single Xian ‘blindly accepts dogma’? :eek: Surely not!
Many of the issues in debates like this seem to be caused by people clinging like limpets to the right to broad (and therefore fallacious) generalizations. Has GD ever had a thread describing and explaining fallacies?
Do you agree that it is illogical, unfair, and simplistic to characterize millions of people that way or do you actually believe it’s a valid debating point? And if the latter, how do you justify that line of thinking? 