Total Posts:34|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

My problems with Catholic school

1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,100
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2015 3:30:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I am going to Catholic school for high school. I'm typing this as I sit in lunch:

1. The theology textbook is an insult to my intelligence.

It's terrible. It took me one sentence to want to smash the damned thing. It's like telling anyone who isn't an ever-righteous Catholic that they are not moral people. Fvck this book.

I mean, that's my only problem so far, but it is fvcking annoying.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2015 3:52:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/16/2015 3:30:54 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
I am going to Catholic school for high school. I'm typing this as I sit in lunch:

1. The theology textbook is an insult to my intelligence.

It's terrible. It took me one sentence to want to smash the damned thing. It's like telling anyone who isn't an ever-righteous Catholic that they are not moral people. Fvck this book.

I mean, that's my only problem so far, but it is fvcking annoying.

I feel you.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
ClashnBoom
Posts: 886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2015 3:55:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/16/2015 3:30:54 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
I am going to Catholic school for high school. I'm typing this as I sit in lunch:

1. The theology textbook is an insult to my intelligence.

It's terrible. It took me one sentence to want to smash the damned thing. It's like telling anyone who isn't an ever-righteous Catholic that they are not moral people. Fvck this book.

I mean, that's my only problem so far, but it is fvcking annoying.

I have a book like that. It tries to disprove the theory of evolution.

But why are you in a Catholic school? And what did it say?
I will change my sig weekly. Week 4.

Fun fact of the week
Clumsy alien Jar Jar Binks was introduced in The Phantom Menace for comic relief, but he was initially a two-faced mercenary who was to betray Qui-Gon Jinn, a Jedi Master played by Liam Neeson.

Joke of the week:
Nerd 1: "Why can't you trust atoms?"
Nerd 2: : "Cause they make everything up!"
XLAV
Posts: 13,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2015 4:49:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
#AtheistProblems

Anyway, from experience all I can tell you is to act like a Catholic if majority of the population in your place is Catholic. The benefits of living a lie out-weights living the truth.
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,100
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2015 8:00:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/16/2015 3:55:52 PM, ClashnBoom wrote:
At 9/16/2015 3:30:54 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
I am going to Catholic school for high school. I'm typing this as I sit in lunch:

1. The theology textbook is an insult to my intelligence.

It's terrible. It took me one sentence to want to smash the damned thing. It's like telling anyone who isn't an ever-righteous Catholic that they are not moral people. Fvck this book.

I mean, that's my only problem so far, but it is fvcking annoying.

I have a book like that. It tries to disprove the theory of evolution.

But why are you in a Catholic school? And what did it say?

I'm at a Catholic school because my family is Catholic.

They said a few things that really pissed me off:

1. They said that all humans have a natural desire to "know" God, and they can't be happy without it. Then, it says God makes us so we naturally want to be with him.

There are two problems with this:

1. They generalize their experience of wanting God to an entire population.

2. They explicitly break the teaching of free will.

2. They said we can "know" God purely through reason.

No. They're not using reason right if they think they can just do that.

3. Science tries to disprove God.

Science never explicitly attacked God. Even evolution does not disprove God.

4. My teacher's definition of atheism: Anyone who doesn't "fully accept the grace of God."

By this definition, not only are atheists hard atheists, but so are agnostics, deists, apatheists, etc. Bullsh!t.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
TheChristian
Posts: 1,031
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2015 8:04:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/16/2015 3:30:54 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
I am going to Catholic school for high school. I'm typing this as I sit in lunch:

1. The theology textbook is an insult to my intelligence.

It's terrible. It took me one sentence to want to smash the damned thing. It's like telling anyone who isn't an ever-righteous Catholic that they are not moral people. Fvck this book.

I mean, that's my only problem so far, but it is fvcking annoying.

Ok you are bashing a benign, albeit inaccurate and flawed, but still benign in every way, religious belief.
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,100
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2015 8:19:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/16/2015 8:04:47 PM, TheChristian wrote:
At 9/16/2015 3:30:54 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
I am going to Catholic school for high school. I'm typing this as I sit in lunch:

1. The theology textbook is an insult to my intelligence.

It's terrible. It took me one sentence to want to smash the damned thing. It's like telling anyone who isn't an ever-righteous Catholic that they are not moral people. Fvck this book.

I mean, that's my only problem so far, but it is fvcking annoying.

Ok you are bashing a benign, albeit inaccurate and flawed, but still benign in every way, religious belief.

The belief that only a specific group of people can be moral is not benign.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2015 8:39:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/16/2015 8:00:02 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 9/16/2015 3:55:52 PM, ClashnBoom wrote:
At 9/16/2015 3:30:54 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
I am going to Catholic school for high school. I'm typing this as I sit in lunch:

1. The theology textbook is an insult to my intelligence.

It's terrible. It took me one sentence to want to smash the damned thing. It's like telling anyone who isn't an ever-righteous Catholic that they are not moral people. Fvck this book.

I mean, that's my only problem so far, but it is fvcking annoying.

I have a book like that. It tries to disprove the theory of evolution.

But why are you in a Catholic school? And what did it say?

I'm at a Catholic school because my family is Catholic.

They said a few things that really pissed me off:

1. They said that all humans have a natural desire to "know" God, and they can't be happy without it. Then, it says God makes us so we naturally want to be with him.

I agree that not all people have a desire to "know" God, but I do think all people, just by virtue of human nature, have a desire to access the spiritual, to feel some transcendence in their lives. For some, they can feel that through religion. Others can do it through meditation and introspection. But, there is some truth to the statement that all people seek something more than the mundane.

2. They said we can "know" God purely through reason.

No. They're not using reason right if they think they can just do that.

Lol.

3. Science tries to disprove God.

Science never explicitly attacked God. Even evolution does not disprove God.

Very true.

4. My teacher's definition of atheism: Anyone who doesn't "fully accept the grace of God."

By this definition, not only are atheists hard atheists, but so are agnostics, deists, apatheists, etc. Bullsh!t.

Yeah, she's just wrong.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2015 10:06:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/16/2015 8:00:02 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 9/16/2015 3:55:52 PM, ClashnBoom wrote:
At 9/16/2015 3:30:54 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
I am going to Catholic school for high school. I'm typing this as I sit in lunch:

1. The theology textbook is an insult to my intelligence.

It's terrible. It took me one sentence to want to smash the damned thing. It's like telling anyone who isn't an ever-righteous Catholic that they are not moral people. Fvck this book.

I mean, that's my only problem so far, but it is fvcking annoying.

I have a book like that. It tries to disprove the theory of evolution.

But why are you in a Catholic school? And what did it say?

I'm at a Catholic school because my family is Catholic.

They said a few things that really pissed me off:

1. They said that all humans have a natural desire to "know" God, and they can't be happy without it. Then, it says God makes us so we naturally want to be with him.

There are two problems with this:

1. They generalize their experience of wanting God to an entire population.

I'm not going to argue the validity of this doctrine, but if I could put this into context:
There are plenty of people who hate the concept of God, and I am sure that the guy who penned this doctrine was aware of the existence of atheists. However, the idea is that at least on a subconscious level human beings desire that state of being which (allegedly) can only be truly experienced by being in a relationship with God, and that certain things human beings desire can only be truly satisfied by God, though material things which bring pleasure can temporarily satisfy. Human beings have lived their lives outside of the presence of God, and so they are used to fulfilling themselves through material stuff, though these things are substandard substitutes for what God can provide. All people who are genuinely in God's presence (and thus experience the true, bare nature of God) would feel four things: fear, guilt, awe, and desire (a desire to be in the presence of God while being in right-standing with God).

2. They explicitly break the teaching of free will.

It really doesn't. Assuming that the people in question believe in free will and aren't calvinistic about this, it doesn't violate free will any more than any other human desire (such as the desire for food, protection from the elements, or sex) does.

2. They said we can "know" God purely through reason.

No. They're not using reason right if they think they can just do that.

3. Science tries to disprove God.

Science never explicitly attacked God. Even evolution does not disprove God.

Science is not a living entity. Therefore it cannot attack anything. It is (at least according to this Catholic source) the scientists who interpret evidence who attack God.

4. My teacher's definition of atheism: Anyone who doesn't "fully accept the grace of God."

By this definition, not only are atheists hard atheists, but so are agnostics, deists, apatheists, etc. Bullsh!t.

It's simply a different definition than the one conventionally used, and it technically makes sense.
"a" = "without" "theos" = "G/god". Thus, an atheist is a person who is without God according to this definition, which is based on the technical meaning of atheist.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2015 10:17:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/16/2015 10:06:00 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 9/16/2015 8:00:02 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
However, the idea is that at least on a subconscious level human beings desire that state of being which (allegedly) can only be truly experienced by being in a relationship with God, and that certain things human beings desire can only be truly satisfied by God, though material things which bring pleasure can temporarily satisfy.

Sure, that's the argument, but it's wrong. I would agree that people desire a spiritual dimension to their lives, but a desire "spiritual dimension" does not imply a desire for a "relationship with God." Atheistic Buddhism is a great example of what I am talking about.

Human beings have lived their lives outside of the presence of God, and so they are used to fulfilling themselves through material stuff, though these things are substandard substitutes for what God can provide.

Sure, I agree it's not good to fulfill ourselves in materialistic ways. It's not even genuinely fulfilling. But why is god necessary for fulfillment? The Buddha, for instance, did not believe in god, yet was fulfilled. Many spiritual people exist who--at the same time--deny or are unsure of god's existence, yet feel fulfilled.

All people who are genuinely in God's presence (and thus experience the true, bare nature of God) would feel four things: fear, guilt, awe, and desire (a desire to be in the presence of God while being in right-standing with God).

Why is an omnibenevolent god to be feared? That just seems irrational. But, beyond that, how is this not just self-delusion or the result of inculcation into a doctrine?

3. Science tries to disprove God.

Science never explicitly attacked God. Even evolution does not disprove God.

Science is not a living entity. Therefore it cannot attack anything. It is (at least according to this Catholic source) the scientists who interpret evidence who attack God.

How is reporting facts attacking God?

4. My teacher's definition of atheism: Anyone who doesn't "fully accept the grace of God."

By this definition, not only are atheists hard atheists, but so are agnostics, deists, apatheists, etc. Bullsh!t.

It's simply a different definition than the one conventionally used, and it technically makes sense.
"a" = "without" "theos" = "G/god". Thus, an atheist is a person who is without God according to this definition, which is based on the technical meaning of atheist.

It's not the technical meaning. It is an archaic meaning that has largely fallen into disuse. You're right that this definition was once used, but that was back in the Medieval ages when Jews were hanged for being atheists. Now, the term no longer has that meaning.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
TheChristian
Posts: 1,031
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2015 10:38:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/16/2015 8:19:29 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 9/16/2015 8:04:47 PM, TheChristian wrote:
At 9/16/2015 3:30:54 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
I am going to Catholic school for high school. I'm typing this as I sit in lunch:

1. The theology textbook is an insult to my intelligence.

It's terrible. It took me one sentence to want to smash the damned thing. It's like telling anyone who isn't an ever-righteous Catholic that they are not moral people. Fvck this book.

I mean, that's my only problem so far, but it is fvcking annoying.

Ok you are bashing a benign, albeit inaccurate and flawed, but still benign in every way, religious belief.

The belief that only a specific group of people can be moral is not benign.

It is benign unless it causes any form of harm to another human or group.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2015 11:35:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/16/2015 10:17:00 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 9/16/2015 10:06:00 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 9/16/2015 8:00:02 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
However, the idea is that at least on a subconscious level human beings desire that state of being which (allegedly) can only be truly experienced by being in a relationship with God, and that certain things human beings desire can only be truly satisfied by God, though material things which bring pleasure can temporarily satisfy.

Sure, that's the argument, but it's wrong. I would agree that people desire a spiritual dimension to their lives, but a desire "spiritual dimension" does not imply a desire for a "relationship with God." Atheistic Buddhism is a great example of what I am talking about.

We should decide upon what a "spiritual dimension is" before continuing this part of the conversation.

Human beings have lived their lives outside of the presence of God, and so they are used to fulfilling themselves through material stuff, though these things are substandard substitutes for what God can provide.

Sure, I agree it's not good to fulfill ourselves in materialistic ways. It's not even genuinely fulfilling. But why is god necessary for fulfillment? The Buddha, for instance, did not believe in god, yet was fulfilled. Many spiritual people exist who--at the same time--deny or are unsure of god's existence, yet feel fulfilled.

Again, what is the spiritual?

All people who are genuinely in God's presence (and thus experience the true, bare nature of God) would feel four things: fear, guilt, awe, and desire (a desire to be in the presence of God while being in right-standing with God).

Why is an omnibenevolent god to be feared? That just seems irrational. But, beyond that, how is this not just self-delusion or the result of inculcation into a doctrine?

Omnibenevolent and just. Such a being would punish perpetrators of sin. Also, the sheer magnitude of such a being's superiority would rightfully incite terror, even if such a being did no harm to us.

3. Science tries to disprove God.

Science never explicitly attacked God. Even evolution does not disprove God.

Science is not a living entity. Therefore it cannot attack anything. It is (at least according to this Catholic source) the scientists who interpret evidence who attack God.

How is reporting facts attacking God?

4. My teacher's definition of atheism: Anyone who doesn't "fully accept the grace of God."

By this definition, not only are atheists hard atheists, but so are agnostics, deists, apatheists, etc. Bullsh!t.

It's simply a different definition than the one conventionally used, and it technically makes sense.
"a" = "without" "theos" = "G/god". Thus, an atheist is a person who is without God according to this definition, which is based on the technical meaning of atheist.

It's not the technical meaning. It is an archaic meaning that has largely fallen into disuse. You're right that this definition was once used, but that was back in the Medieval ages when Jews were hanged for being atheists. Now, the term no longer has that meaning.

Okay, besides atheist what would you call a person who is without God?
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
YYW
Posts: 36,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2015 2:37:37 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/16/2015 3:30:54 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
I am going to Catholic school for high school. I'm typing this as I sit in lunch:

1. The theology textbook is an insult to my intelligence.

It's terrible. It took me one sentence to want to smash the damned thing. It's like telling anyone who isn't an ever-righteous Catholic that they are not moral people. Fvck this book.

I mean, that's my only problem so far, but it is fvcking annoying.

That doesn't mean that you shouldn't read it.
Tsar of DDO
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,100
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2015 2:39:27 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/17/2015 2:37:37 AM, YYW wrote:
At 9/16/2015 3:30:54 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
I am going to Catholic school for high school. I'm typing this as I sit in lunch:

1. The theology textbook is an insult to my intelligence.

It's terrible. It took me one sentence to want to smash the damned thing. It's like telling anyone who isn't an ever-righteous Catholic that they are not moral people. Fvck this book.

I mean, that's my only problem so far, but it is fvcking annoying.

That doesn't mean that you shouldn't read it.

I read it.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
YYW
Posts: 36,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2015 2:40:49 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/17/2015 2:39:27 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 9/17/2015 2:37:37 AM, YYW wrote:
At 9/16/2015 3:30:54 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
I am going to Catholic school for high school. I'm typing this as I sit in lunch:

1. The theology textbook is an insult to my intelligence.

It's terrible. It took me one sentence to want to smash the damned thing. It's like telling anyone who isn't an ever-righteous Catholic that they are not moral people. Fvck this book.

I mean, that's my only problem so far, but it is fvcking annoying.

That doesn't mean that you shouldn't read it.

I read it.

Read it. Know it. Come onto DDO to tell us why it's wrong.

You can read that for the same reason I read conservative pulp fiction...
Tsar of DDO
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,100
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2015 3:37:00 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/16/2015 10:06:00 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 9/16/2015 8:00:02 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
4. My teacher's definition of atheism: Anyone who doesn't "fully accept the grace of God."

By this definition, not only are atheists hard atheists, but so are agnostics, deists, apatheists, etc. Bullsh!t.

It's simply a different definition than the one conventionally used, and it technically makes sense.
"a" = "without" "theos" = "G/god". Thus, an atheist is a person who is without God according to this definition, which is based on the technical meaning of atheist.

The problem is that when they refer to people as "atheists" - they specifically mean the denial of the God (strong atheism). But their definition is wider, despite their usage. They have to make a choice between their definition and usage. Since they use "atheism" in the process of bashing the strong belief that there is no god, they implicate the other positions and the more impressionable children match them all together. Thereby, they engage in hypocrisy.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2015 10:28:39 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/16/2015 8:00:02 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 9/16/2015 3:55:52 PM, ClashnBoom wrote:
At 9/16/2015 3:30:54 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
I am going to Catholic school for high school. I'm typing this as I sit in lunch:

1. The theology textbook is an insult to my intelligence.

It's terrible. It took me one sentence to want to smash the damned thing. It's like telling anyone who isn't an ever-righteous Catholic that they are not moral people. Fvck this book.

I mean, that's my only problem so far, but it is fvcking annoying.

I have a book like that. It tries to disprove the theory of evolution.

But why are you in a Catholic school? And what did it say?

I'm at a Catholic school because my family is Catholic.

They said a few things that really pissed me off:

1. They said that all humans have a natural desire to "know" God, and they can't be happy without it. Then, it says God makes us so we naturally want to be with him.

There are two problems with this:

1. They generalize their experience of wanting God to an entire population.

2. They explicitly break the teaching of free will.

The problem, I think, is that American Catholicism is, by and large, garbage compared to the British Catholicism which produced the likes of J. R. R. Tolkien and Christopher Dawson. If you want a good exploration of the above idea, I HIGHLY recomment Dawson's The Age of the Gods. Dawson is widely considered to be the greatest Catholic historian of the 20th century, and his was his first great work. In it, he explores the history and cultural development of emergent civilizations from the stone age to the iron age, and explores the early roots of religiosity, civilization, and customs. It's a monumental work, and the sort of thing that Catholic institutions SHOULD be spotlighting instead of, from what you're describing, seems like third rate trash. He comes to a much more nuanced conclusion: that there is an instinct to personalize the things which as power over us, and that begins with nature. It is this instinct which leads cultures across the globe to a similar conclusion: deification.

As he says in the book:

"Wherever and whenever man has a sense of dependence on external powers which are conceived as mysterious and higher than man's own, there is religion."
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,100
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2015 11:34:09 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/17/2015 10:28:39 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 9/16/2015 8:00:02 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 9/16/2015 3:55:52 PM, ClashnBoom wrote:
At 9/16/2015 3:30:54 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
I am going to Catholic school for high school. I'm typing this as I sit in lunch:

1. The theology textbook is an insult to my intelligence.

It's terrible. It took me one sentence to want to smash the damned thing. It's like telling anyone who isn't an ever-righteous Catholic that they are not moral people. Fvck this book.

I mean, that's my only problem so far, but it is fvcking annoying.

I have a book like that. It tries to disprove the theory of evolution.

But why are you in a Catholic school? And what did it say?

I'm at a Catholic school because my family is Catholic.

They said a few things that really pissed me off:

1. They said that all humans have a natural desire to "know" God, and they can't be happy without it. Then, it says God makes us so we naturally want to be with him.

There are two problems with this:

1. They generalize their experience of wanting God to an entire population.

2. They explicitly break the teaching of free will.

The problem, I think, is that American Catholicism is, by and large, garbage compared to the British Catholicism which produced the likes of J. R. R. Tolkien and Christopher Dawson. If you want a good exploration of the above idea, I HIGHLY recomment Dawson's The Age of the Gods. Dawson is widely considered to be the greatest Catholic historian of the 20th century, and his was his first great work. In it, he explores the history and cultural development of emergent civilizations from the stone age to the iron age, and explores the early roots of religiosity, civilization, and customs. It's a monumental work, and the sort of thing that Catholic institutions SHOULD be spotlighting instead of, from what you're describing, seems like third rate trash. He comes to a much more nuanced conclusion: that there is an instinct to personalize the things which as power over us, and that begins with nature. It is this instinct which leads cultures across the globe to a similar conclusion: deification.

As he says in the book:

"Wherever and whenever man has a sense of dependence on external powers which are conceived as mysterious and higher than man's own, there is religion."

I've read Dawson before.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2015 11:50:22 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/17/2015 11:34:09 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 9/17/2015 10:28:39 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 9/16/2015 8:00:02 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 9/16/2015 3:55:52 PM, ClashnBoom wrote:
At 9/16/2015 3:30:54 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
I am going to Catholic school for high school. I'm typing this as I sit in lunch:

1. The theology textbook is an insult to my intelligence.

It's terrible. It took me one sentence to want to smash the damned thing. It's like telling anyone who isn't an ever-righteous Catholic that they are not moral people. Fvck this book.

I mean, that's my only problem so far, but it is fvcking annoying.

I have a book like that. It tries to disprove the theory of evolution.

But why are you in a Catholic school? And what did it say?

I'm at a Catholic school because my family is Catholic.

They said a few things that really pissed me off:

1. They said that all humans have a natural desire to "know" God, and they can't be happy without it. Then, it says God makes us so we naturally want to be with him.

There are two problems with this:

1. They generalize their experience of wanting God to an entire population.

2. They explicitly break the teaching of free will.

The problem, I think, is that American Catholicism is, by and large, garbage compared to the British Catholicism which produced the likes of J. R. R. Tolkien and Christopher Dawson. If you want a good exploration of the above idea, I HIGHLY recomment Dawson's The Age of the Gods. Dawson is widely considered to be the greatest Catholic historian of the 20th century, and his was his first great work. In it, he explores the history and cultural development of emergent civilizations from the stone age to the iron age, and explores the early roots of religiosity, civilization, and customs. It's a monumental work, and the sort of thing that Catholic institutions SHOULD be spotlighting instead of, from what you're describing, seems like third rate trash. He comes to a much more nuanced conclusion: that there is an instinct to personalize the things which as power over us, and that begins with nature. It is this instinct which leads cultures across the globe to a similar conclusion: deification.

As he says in the book:

"Wherever and whenever man has a sense of dependence on external powers which are conceived as mysterious and higher than man's own, there is religion."

I've read Dawson before.

For school, or because it interested you?
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,100
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2015 12:38:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/17/2015 11:50:22 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 9/17/2015 11:34:09 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 9/17/2015 10:28:39 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 9/16/2015 8:00:02 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 9/16/2015 3:55:52 PM, ClashnBoom wrote:
At 9/16/2015 3:30:54 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
I am going to Catholic school for high school. I'm typing this as I sit in lunch:

1. The theology textbook is an insult to my intelligence.

It's terrible. It took me one sentence to want to smash the damned thing. It's like telling anyone who isn't an ever-righteous Catholic that they are not moral people. Fvck this book.

I mean, that's my only problem so far, but it is fvcking annoying.

I have a book like that. It tries to disprove the theory of evolution.

But why are you in a Catholic school? And what did it say?

I'm at a Catholic school because my family is Catholic.

They said a few things that really pissed me off:

1. They said that all humans have a natural desire to "know" God, and they can't be happy without it. Then, it says God makes us so we naturally want to be with him.

There are two problems with this:

1. They generalize their experience of wanting God to an entire population.

2. They explicitly break the teaching of free will.

The problem, I think, is that American Catholicism is, by and large, garbage compared to the British Catholicism which produced the likes of J. R. R. Tolkien and Christopher Dawson. If you want a good exploration of the above idea, I HIGHLY recomment Dawson's The Age of the Gods. Dawson is widely considered to be the greatest Catholic historian of the 20th century, and his was his first great work. In it, he explores the history and cultural development of emergent civilizations from the stone age to the iron age, and explores the early roots of religiosity, civilization, and customs. It's a monumental work, and the sort of thing that Catholic institutions SHOULD be spotlighting instead of, from what you're describing, seems like third rate trash. He comes to a much more nuanced conclusion: that there is an instinct to personalize the things which as power over us, and that begins with nature. It is this instinct which leads cultures across the globe to a similar conclusion: deification.

As he says in the book:

"Wherever and whenever man has a sense of dependence on external powers which are conceived as mysterious and higher than man's own, there is religion."

I've read Dawson before.

For school, or because it interested you?

School
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2015 12:48:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/17/2015 12:38:46 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 9/17/2015 11:50:22 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 9/17/2015 11:34:09 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:

I've read Dawson before.

For school, or because it interested you?

School

-.- So they give kids the viewpoint of the great historian, and then send them to theology class where there beat over the head with a hamfisted, absurd take on the same issues. To me, that seems like a recipe for making kids think that religion is irrational and backwards.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,100
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2015 1:05:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/17/2015 12:48:34 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 9/17/2015 12:38:46 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 9/17/2015 11:50:22 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 9/17/2015 11:34:09 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:

I've read Dawson before.

For school, or because it interested you?

School

-.- So they give kids the viewpoint of the great historian, and then send them to theology class where there beat over the head with a hamfisted, absurd take on the same issues. To me, that seems like a recipe for making kids think that religion is irrational and backwards.

Well I read Dawson for AP World History.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2015 1:07:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/17/2015 1:05:26 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 9/17/2015 12:48:34 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 9/17/2015 12:38:46 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 9/17/2015 11:50:22 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 9/17/2015 11:34:09 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:

I've read Dawson before.

For school, or because it interested you?

School

-.- So they give kids the viewpoint of the great historian, and then send them to theology class where there beat over the head with a hamfisted, absurd take on the same issues. To me, that seems like a recipe for making kids think that religion is irrational and backwards.

Well I read Dawson for AP World History.

So what did you learn in regular history? This is just odd to me; do teachers determine their own curricula or something?
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,100
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2015 1:22:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/17/2015 1:07:26 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 9/17/2015 1:05:26 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 9/17/2015 12:48:34 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 9/17/2015 12:38:46 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 9/17/2015 11:50:22 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 9/17/2015 11:34:09 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:

I've read Dawson before.

For school, or because it interested you?

School

-.- So they give kids the viewpoint of the great historian, and then send them to theology class where there beat over the head with a hamfisted, absurd take on the same issues. To me, that seems like a recipe for making kids think that religion is irrational and backwards.

Well I read Dawson for AP World History.

So what did you learn in regular history? This is just odd to me; do teachers determine their own curricula or something?

I don't know what their regular history is...and no, not really. They have a curriculum director, and the AP courses have to lead up to the AP testing.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2015 3:26:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/16/2015 11:35:48 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 9/16/2015 10:17:00 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 9/16/2015 10:06:00 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 9/16/2015 8:00:02 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
However, the idea is that at least on a subconscious level human beings desire that state of being which (allegedly) can only be truly experienced by being in a relationship with God, and that certain things human beings desire can only be truly satisfied by God, though material things which bring pleasure can temporarily satisfy.

Sure, that's the argument, but it's wrong. I would agree that people desire a spiritual dimension to their lives, but a desire "spiritual dimension" does not imply a desire for a "relationship with God." Atheistic Buddhism is a great example of what I am talking about.

We should decide upon what a "spiritual dimension is" before continuing this part of the conversation.

The growth of one's spirit. A concern with the transcendental experiences of human life.

All people who are genuinely in God's presence (and thus experience the true, bare nature of God) would feel four things: fear, guilt, awe, and desire (a desire to be in the presence of God while being in right-standing with God).

Why is an omnibenevolent god to be feared? That just seems irrational. But, beyond that, how is this not just self-delusion or the result of inculcation into a doctrine?

Omnibenevolent and just. Such a being would punish perpetrators of sin. Also, the sheer magnitude of such a being's superiority would rightfully incite terror, even if such a being did no harm to us.

Omnibenevolence is benevolence to all. You cannot be omnibenevolent and punish people, because punishment is not benevolence.

Additionally, isn't is kind of sadistic for God to deliberately create imperfect people, and then punish them for their imperfections?

Science is not a living entity. Therefore it cannot attack anything. It is (at least according to this Catholic source) the scientists who interpret evidence who attack God.

How is reporting facts attacking God?

^ This

Okay, besides atheist what would you call a person who is without God?

Agnostic or Agnostic Atheist or a non-theist.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,100
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2015 1:59:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
My math teacher just called me a masochist...I don't have a problem with that but I thought it was interesting to note
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2015 3:36:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/22/2015 1:59:32 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
My math teacher just called me a masochist...I don't have a problem with that but I thought it was interesting to note

Why did your teacher call you that? Does he/she know of your irreligion?
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,100
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2015 4:13:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/22/2015 3:36:01 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 9/22/2015 1:59:32 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
My math teacher just called me a masochist...I don't have a problem with that but I thought it was interesting to note

Why did your teacher call you that? Does he/she know of your irreligion?

He does not...lol
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2015 7:18:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/16/2015 3:30:54 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
I am going to Catholic school for high school. I'm typing this as I sit in lunch:

1. The theology textbook is an insult to my intelligence.

It's terrible. It took me one sentence to want to smash the damned thing. It's like telling anyone who isn't an ever-righteous Catholic that they are not moral people. Fvck this book.

I mean, that's my only problem so far, but it is fvcking annoying.

Stick it out. These nuns don't have sex often, so they have all that pent up sexual energy, just waiting to be unleashed. It's so easy to seduce a young sexy nun.

Citation- my vast array of pornographic films featuring catholic school girls and nuns
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,100
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2015 7:25:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/22/2015 7:18:57 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 9/16/2015 3:30:54 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
I am going to Catholic school for high school. I'm typing this as I sit in lunch:

1. The theology textbook is an insult to my intelligence.

It's terrible. It took me one sentence to want to smash the damned thing. It's like telling anyone who isn't an ever-righteous Catholic that they are not moral people. Fvck this book.

I mean, that's my only problem so far, but it is fvcking annoying.

Stick it out. These nuns don't have sex often, so they have all that pent up sexual energy, just waiting to be unleashed. It's so easy to seduce a young sexy nun.

Citation- my vast array of pornographic films featuring catholic school girls and nuns

1. I'm gay.

2. There are no nuns...lol
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King