applauding detach unparalleled stipulating canvasses,horizontal …

cyanide snowmen differentiable isthmus?…

Britney, I am quite prepared to be wrong and learn from my mistake if I have made one. However if I am wrong it would be helpful to tell me what you think Catholics actually believe in this case and why you hold to that position.

Further to the point that Korgan has already brought up I would like to add the following. From the “CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH” I submit the following in suport of why it seems to myself that the Catholics believe I am going to be condemed to eternal torment.

1. scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1037.htm

This section states that a willful turning away from God is a mortal Sin.

2.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c1a1.htm#I

Starting at paragraph 2123 this section describes athiesm from the Catholic point of view.
Paragraph 2125 once again states that the sort of athiesm I follow is a sin.

3.scborromeo.org/ccc/p122a5p1.htm#p1

This section concerns Jesus descending into hell after he died on the cross and before he rose again. I would like to bring your attention to paragraph 633. which states that the evil and the righteous lot are not identical. giving the parable of Lazuras as an example.

4.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lazarus

The parable of Lazuras and dives, please note the following quote:

“Both men died, and the beggar received his reward in the Hereafter, in Abraham’s bosom at the everlasting banquet, while the rich man craved a drop of water from Lazarus’ finger to cool his tongue as he was tormented with fire.”

So as far as I can understand my refusal to believe in God means that if I was to die still holding to that point of view means that I will spend eternity in hell being tormented. If you have something to add which may shed a different light on this situation please enlighten me.

Also please address some of the other points made in my previous post to you. Can you see why considering the Cathloic religion as stupid may not be a sin? Do you agree that morality can be approached from many different angles and is not a necessarily a simple question? Further that morality is different for everyone particullaly those with different beliefs?

If the part of my post you addressed is the only part of my post that you disagree with or can argue with then you are merely nitpicking. Even if you invalidate that part of my post it does not mean that the other parts and points I brought up are false or invalid.

Please excuse any spelling and or gramatical mistakes in this post as I’m a bit short on time and haven’t checked over it.

Cheers

Simon Bond

Simon’s statement about what Catholics think,

What about when Catholics tell me that becuase of my belief system I am going to be condemed to eternal torment from the moment I die. Not becuase of any particular evil I have commited but because I did not see enough evidence to believe in (their) God.

is actually supported by the first of the ten commandments. See here
for example, where it states, at least in this English translation,

…for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and fourth generation of those who reject me…

So, if as you say, you don’t think that way about Simon, then it would seem that you disagree with one of Catholicism’s most basic rules, and therefore you can’t be considered Catholic. Probably a good thing, since it seems like the Catholic god is a pretty vicious one (and by its own acknowledgement, jealous to boot). Maybe you should revisit your religious affiliation if you aren’t willing to accept what would be standard Catholic dogma in regard to Simon as well as in regard to other non-believers and believers in other gods.

Providence,

“So you have seen evidence but continue in disbelief? What is “enough evidence” to you? Seeing with your own eyes? By then, what’s the point?”

Firstly I would like to point out a misconception in your statement. Not enough evidence can include no evidence at all. No evidence is after all “not enough” to prove something. This being the case your assumption that I have seen evidence is clearly falacious. (In the “logically unsound” definition of falacious)

The second point I would like to make concerns the implied assumption in you statement that some evidence is synonymous with proof. (In the “evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth” definition of proof) With this I must disaggree. For the sake of this discussion let us assume that I have seen evidence that indicate the existance of God. The reason some evidence may not be enough is because of several factors.

Is there another explanation that would explain the evidence.

How does this evidence for, stand up against the evidence against.

What is the value of the evidence. Is it merely an indicator of likelyhood or closer to a proof.

Can the evidence be tested for validity.

Is the evidence subjective.

Am I viewing the evidence objectively.

How much of the concept does the evidence support. (i.e. the Existance of a God versus the existance of the Christian God. Just because the evidence may show that there is a God that doesn’t necessarily mean it has to be the God described in the bible.)

There is of course alot more to it than that, but I hope that will give you a general idea as to why having seen evidence for something a person might still disbelieve in that something.

To address the “What is enough evidence” question I must say that I pretty much aggree with Sid’s post above. There are plenty of things that would cause me to believe in God without having to see God with my own eyes. Though a personal appearance by the big fellow would certainly make it easy. I won’t go into a list of things that would cause me to change my beliefs but let you surmise what they could be based on the concepts indicated in Sid’ post. Let me also respond with a question of my own. What evidence would cause you to change your belief that God does exist?

In closing I would like to say that I find it interesting that in a post that was primarily concerned with the different ways one can view morality you jump straight to a rather insignificant part of the post. Did you take that particular statement in context with the rest of the post and see my point? Also I find your choice of handle interesting. I take it you mean it in the foreseeing care and guidance of God sense rather than having foresight, taking care and caution meaning of the word. For it seems to me that your views on evidence contained very little providence. I also hope you don’t consider youself to be the foreseeing care and guidence of God. I believe that would be very conceited. I do hope you were merely trying to bring attention to the concept in support of your belief in God.

Cheers

Simon Bond

“What is “enough evidence” to you?”

I’ve addressed the topic of sufficient evidence before here, at least with respect to Christianity. I’ll quote it here for your convenience:

excellent question. My guess is that the motivation behind asking such a question is to demonstrate that no amount of evidence would be enough to convince some people of the truth of the Bible. It goes to the falsifiability of a nonbeliever’s denial of Christianity. Striving to answer it should be important to all nonbelievers.

This is how I would answer the question. Convincing evidence would have to be repetitious and overwhelmingly non-contradictory. First of all, we would find no fossil evidence of any life on earth prior to 6,000 years ago, if Genesis is to be interpreted literally. That would be strong evidence indeed. Finding something like “Made by God, who’s word is the Bible” written in every different language (past, present, and future) on the top of every mountain and on the bottom of every sea would also convince me. Or maybe the same thing written across the face of the moon in a different language each night would work. Being able to directly interact with God; ask question, get answers would be more evidence. Or how about everyone being born with a different book of the Bible memorized. That would be more evidence and it would ensure that no translation mistakes never make their way into the Bible. Another effective method would be to have every person dream a different Bible story time they sleep.

The possibilities are endless, since the Bible-God is all powerful. If we found any evidence like that described above, I would be convinced and convert immediately (if necessary, it depends on whether the ‘doctrine of eternal security’ is valid. It would be nice to be able to ask God).

“Seeing with your own eyes? By then, what’s the point?”

I fail to see the point now.

So you have seen evidence but continue in disbelief? What is “enough evidence” to you? Seeing with your own eyes? By then, what’s the point?

Britney,

“But isn’t it also morally wrong to say that a religion is stupid????? I don’t think that God is happy with people spreading around that people who love him are stupid.”

I think the answer to your question (and assertion concerning God’s feelings) may be more complex than you realise.

Short answer: No

Long answer: Depends on the perspective of those involved. If you take the view that morality must come from God then possibly, it can be viewed as morally wrong to judge the stupidity of a particular religion. It is very important to realise however that not all people base their concept of morality on any form of the Christian doctrine. In this case the judgement of the followers of a particular faith or doctrine as stupid could even be considered as a moral imperitive.

From reading your post it seems to me that you have only considered these questions from the point of view as dictated by your own beliefs. You haven’t paused to to consider how people of either different faiths or beliefs may view these questions. From my point of view, God is a mythical figure. Therfore I believe he doesn’t give a flying fat rats arse about what I say (or think) about those who “love” him. I also don’t think that people believeing my beliefs to be stupid are commiting some moral sin.

Consider this, you consider (I’m assuming) that calling Catholics stupid is immorall. What about when Catholics tell me that becuase of my belief system I am going to be condemed to eternal torment from the moment I die. Not becuase of any particular evil I have commited but because I did not see enough evidence to believe in (their) God. They are judging my beliefs based on their beliefs. The same thing that you have decried above about some calling Catholics stupid.

If you guys can judge someone elses beliefs then it follows that other people can judge yours. It would seem to me that any other way smacks of hypocrisy and in my view would be immorall.

Cheers

Simon Bond