Saying the rosary doesn't work. Fact

Started by smelmoth, August 27, 2017, 04:37:43 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Avondhu star

Quote from: seafoid on September 04, 2017, 02:36:40 PM
People all over Galway were saying the rosary

https://youtu.be/fCVOusytfHw
Meanwhile below in Waterford they were sacrificing goats. I suppose they must pay penance for electing Halligan
Lee Harvey Oswald , your country needs you

omaghjoe

Quote from: LCohen on September 03, 2017, 09:38:51 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on August 30, 2017, 05:58:34 PM
Catholicism is a religious belief system, it didn't murder anyone, and murder is the no.1 wrong within it. People who identify as Catholic of course did murder but then so did atheists.

Atheists certainly have murdered. But have any done so in the name of atheism?

Can the same be said of Christianity and its various sects?

And is Christianity not supposed to provide some moral guidance?

More or less Stalin and esp Mao were hell bend on squashing religious belief thorugh genocide, you could probably throw Pol Pot into that one too.
You seem to have no bother embracing Britishness into your life despite everything that has been done in the name of Britain.

omaghjoe

Quote from: LCohen on September 03, 2017, 09:52:27 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on August 31, 2017, 05:28:48 AM

Doing so would more likely have a player who's head is in the right place, more likely to get maximum performance for the player and more likely to get maximum performance for the team. It a save assumption

Evidence?


omaghjoe

Quote from: LCohen on September 03, 2017, 09:43:38 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on August 30, 2017, 08:43:15 PM
Why is it any more inappropriate than a sports psychology session? How is the comparison irrelevant?

Sports psychology covers a multitude. Jury is out on a lot of it. The view of sensible people will be evidence lead. Stuff that doesn't work will be called out as horse shit.

The rosary will be subject to the same test. Stands to reason

No it wont because we are not machine but individuals so different things work for different people, usually when you put your faith in them. 

omaghjoe

Quote from: LCohen on September 03, 2017, 10:15:16 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on September 01, 2017, 08:59:49 PM
I believe Harte is well within his rights to try whatever method he sees fit as long as he and is players see value in it, there should be no exclusion to anything legal.

Is that the deal here? If it's legal then anything goes? What about morals/ethics? Have they any role in life, sport or indeed religion?

I'm not saying that the rosary is unethical. I would contend it's a waste of time but not unethical

Im sure in your own head you head a point there...

omaghjoe

Quote from: LCohen on September 03, 2017, 10:20:10 PM
Quote from: trileacman on September 03, 2017, 12:15:43 PM
As an aside I'm pretty agnostic but I've to laugh at the fervour in which vast swathes of pseudo-intellectuals imbrace atheism and science with a feeling of smug superiority over religious folk. It's evident daily on this board.

Religious attempts to rationalise the universe are just as valid your scientific attempts to do the same. 600 years ago the smartest people knew as an undeniable fact that the earth was the centre of the solar system and probably sneered at those with more antiquated notions. In 100 or 200 years there'll be another slew of pseudo-intellectuals who'll laugh at the ideas upon which many atheists today hang their existence on.

Who is moving knowledge on - science or religion?

Everyone on here is an atheist. Omaghjoe, Iceman and Fearon included
::) ::) ::)
Everyone on here is a person of faith otherwise you'd see the pointless futility of your own life

trileacman

Quote from: J70 on September 04, 2017, 12:59:56 PM
Or, as a declared agnostic, is it only god-existence/creation of the universe stuff, stuff where we're getting close to the limits of science, where the problem exists?

Pretty much.
Fantasy Rugby World Cup Champion 2011,
Fantasy 6 Nations Champion 2014

omaghjoe

Quote from: J70 on September 04, 2017, 12:59:56 PM
Quote from: trileacman on September 04, 2017, 12:15:16 AM
Quote from: J70 on September 03, 2017, 02:00:25 PM
What's with the "load of strangers" and "face value"?

Do you expect everyone to invent everything themselves from first principles?

Or must we only rely on people personally known to us, such as the priests teaching us about religion? (Although why is RELIGION not written off as the creation of total strangers?)

Do you avail of medical care? Do you fly? Do you first research, from the ground up, everything and anything that affects any aspect of you life, or do you put your trust in the accumulation of human knowledge and expertise, realizing that expertize must, by necessity, be spread across a multitude of disciplines and the people working on them?

No need to be so tetchy about this. There's a lot of questions there.

QuoteWhat's with the "load of strangers" and "face value"?

Please rephrase. I don't understand that question.

QuoteDo you expect everyone to invent everything themselves from first principles?

No I don't. I expect people to respect the beliefs of others and not sneer at them with a sense of glib superiority because they've seen a 10 minute video on youtube about the creation of the universe. The majority of people who believe in the big bang theory have only a passing knowledge of it and are oblivious to the numerous contradictions and inaccuracies it possesses. They believe it because it's a popular theory and people they perceive to be smarter than them espouse it. That's pretty much how the religions that they denigrate work.

QuoteOr must we only rely on people personally known to us, such as the priests teaching us about religion? (Although why is RELIGION not written off as the creation of total strangers?)

You see this is the atheism fervour I was referring to. Where did I say that religion is not to be written off as the creation of total strangers? Where did I say that people must rely on people personally known to us? If you can find examples of where I support "RELIGION" then point them out to me.

QuoteDo you avail of medical care?
Yes

QuoteDo you fly?
Yeah but it's shite.

QuoteDo you first research, from the ground up, everything and anything that affects any aspect of you life, or do you put your trust in the accumulation of human knowledge and expertise, realizing that expertize must, by necessity, be spread across a multitude of disciplines and the people working on them?

I trust others but there's a difference in trusting the knowledge of others and hijacking pieces of information to deride the beliefs of others. Beliefs instilled in them the same way as your beliefs where instilled in yourself.

Ok, so you don't like it when your friends sneer at the beliefs of others because your consider your friends' opinions as ill- considered as the opinions they're deriding.

As an aside, I would question why you are friends with such people if they anger you so?

But getting back, just who IS allowed to comment on religious belief then? Because religion makes claims about a lot of things, quite possibly everything at some point, and no one can be an expert in and counter all those areas.

And where do you draw the line?

Can we sneer at Ken Ham and his Noah's Ark museum in Kentucky and call it out for the anti-intellectual freak show that it is? Can we condemn anti-homosexual bigotry based, supposedly, on some biblical verses, possibly bolstered with unsupported or discredited psychological opinion? Or, as a declared agnostic, is it only god-existence/creation of the universe stuff, stuff where we're getting close to the limits of science, where the problem exists?

Persisting with the God of the gaps things is a nonsense J70 especially when it is started off life as a derogatory term for people of weak faith. Its what drove you to reject faith in the first place as a youngster so I guess if I felt the same way I'd be clinging to it too.
Faith comes from within that all I can say.
Why do you believe that only the empirical realm exists, in fact what is your rationale for believing that it exists at all? instinct?
Why do you belief in a solely material and naturalistic cosmos esp when massive holes have been blown in it by quantum mechanics and relativity? Not to mention the existence of our good selves.

LCohen

Quote from: omaghjoe on September 04, 2017, 10:25:56 PM
Quote from: LCohen on September 03, 2017, 09:38:51 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on August 30, 2017, 05:58:34 PM
Catholicism is a religious belief system, it didn't murder anyone, and murder is the no.1 wrong within it. People who identify as Catholic of course did murder but then so did atheists.

Atheists certainly have murdered. But have any done so in the name of atheism?

Can the same be said of Christianity and its various sects?

And is Christianity not supposed to provide some moral guidance?

More or less Stalin and esp Mao were hell bend on squashing religious belief thorugh genocide, you could probably throw Pol Pot into that one too.
You seem to have no bother embracing Britishness into your life despite everything that has been done in the name of Britain.

You are not even contending that these people were atheists who murdered in the name of atheism. You have offered no argument here

LCohen

Quote from: omaghjoe on September 04, 2017, 10:49:34 PM
Quote from: LCohen on September 03, 2017, 09:52:27 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on August 31, 2017, 05:28:48 AM

Doing so would more likely have a player who's head is in the right place, more likely to get maximum performance for the player and more likely to get maximum performance for the team. It a save assumption

Evidence?



So no evidence then?

LCohen

Quote from: omaghjoe on September 04, 2017, 10:53:28 PM
Quote from: LCohen on September 03, 2017, 09:43:38 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on August 30, 2017, 08:43:15 PM
Why is it any more inappropriate than a sports psychology session? How is the comparison irrelevant?

Sports psychology covers a multitude. Jury is out on a lot of it. The view of sensible people will be evidence lead. Stuff that doesn't work will be called out as horse shit.

The rosary will be subject to the same test. Stands to reason

No it wont because we are not machine but individuals so different things work for different people, usually when you put your faith in them.

If there was independent empirical evidence that saying the rosary did not work would you put your faith in it?

LCohen

#131
Quote from: omaghjoe on September 04, 2017, 10:57:07 PM
Quote from: LCohen on September 03, 2017, 10:20:10 PM
Quote from: trileacman on September 03, 2017, 12:15:43 PM
As an aside I'm pretty agnostic but I've to laugh at the fervour in which vast swathes of pseudo-intellectuals imbrace atheism and science with a feeling of smug superiority over religious folk. It's evident daily on this board.

Religious attempts to rationalise the universe are just as valid your scientific attempts to do the same. 600 years ago the smartest people knew as an undeniable fact that the earth was the centre of the solar system and probably sneered at those with more antiquated notions. In 100 or 200 years there'll be another slew of pseudo-intellectuals who'll laugh at the ideas upon which many atheists today hang their existence on.

Who is moving knowledge on - science or religion?

Everyone on here is an atheist. Omaghjoe, Iceman and Fearon included
::) ::) ::)
Everyone on here is a person of faith otherwise you'd see the pointless futility of your own life

So do you believe in Thor etc? If not, why not?

Is my life futile? In what way does God the creator or god the overseer make my life not futile?

Esmarelda

I completely get omaghjoe's view that everything in the universe shouldn't necessarily be viewed empirically. That's fine. The existence of God needn't necessarily be evidence-based.

However, having accepted that, what I don't get is how this acceptance strengthens the argument for the existence of a creator. If I accept that there may be a God for these reasons, where do I go from here? To say that "it comes from within" is a bit vague and wishy-washy for me, and I don't mean that disrespectfully. If that approach was used in any other walk of life I don't expect it would be taken too seriously.

Ultimately, as these discussions tend to always go, it seems that it boils down to blind faith (again that's not meant to be disrespectful). In my experience, those that believe usually cite important points in their life where they feel that God got involved somehow and their faith stemmed or grew from that point; it seems to confirm their faith. I'm not sure how it confirms their belief in a specific faith but that's another day's work.

I consider myself an atheist but maybe I'm actually agnostic as I don't rule the possibility of a creator. However, I suspect that if I had a life-changing event as mentioned above that I would rank the intervention of God at the bottom of the list of "what just happened". Easy for me to say of course.

J70

Quote from: omaghjoe on September 04, 2017, 11:11:06 PM

Persisting with the God of the gaps things is a nonsense J70 especially when it is started off life as a derogatory term for people of weak faith. Its what drove you to reject faith in the first place as a youngster so I guess if I felt the same way I'd be clinging to it too.
Faith comes from within that all I can say.
Why do you believe that only the empirical realm exists, in fact what is your rationale for believing that it exists at all? instinct?
Why do you belief in a solely material and naturalistic cosmos esp when massive holes have been blown in it by quantum mechanics and relativity? Not to mention the existence of our good selves.

If "faith" comes from within, I'm clearly lacking something then Joe, aren't I? As are many other people.

And the god of the gaps issue clearly addresses the fact that various cultures over the millennia have attributed cause and effect for a multitude of stuff to whatever god(s) they believed were pulling the strings. Why do we dismiss the beliefs of the ancient Romans or Egyptians or, more recently, pre-christian Native Americans, or various modern day faiths other than our own, but draw the line when it comes to our own particular religion? Why is this ok, but questioning the actual existence of god(s) is so problematic? Is there a different set of judgement/assessment rules required for the latter?

On the general perception/reality stuff, we've discussed that a few times before. I do not have the time to get sucked into a week-long back and forth with you rehashing the same stuff. Its already there on the board for anyone who is interested.

LCohen

Quote from: Esmarelda on September 05, 2017, 10:27:49 AM
I completely get omaghjoe's view that everything in the universe shouldn't necessarily be viewed empirically. That's fine. The existence of God needn't necessarily be evidence-based.

So much of what was "explained" by gods has subsequently been proved empirically to have a rational scientific explanation. We should at the very least be deeply suspicious of any remaining matters that people attempt to "explain" by gods

The issue that I have with spiritualists is not that they believe, or that this belief is not rationally based or indeed that they choose to order their lives around these beliefs. The fact that all that guff originates within them and is not evidence based is amusing rather than harmful. The issue is when it crosses the line and becomes harmful. When these spiritual stirrings within in them manifest into declarations of how others should order their lives and matters of public policy then they have the habit of being harmful. There is then the sense of entitlement that faith, typically their personal faith should be afforded some special protections that other opinions should not. That is harmful to society as it stifles progress