Please don't attempt to offend me by calling my question stupid. Your last sentence is faulty logic as you do not know what my beliefs are and it also does not need the commas, as does the one before it.

“The only stupid question is the question that is never asked.”
― Ramon Bautista,

A good quote to live by.
Your question is not a stupid question based on its creation. It's stupid question conceiving an illusion leading to a stupid answer. We need to ask ourselves, "what is believing in something in an oblivious state, beyond afterlife, if there is no afterlife?" So, the question is not stupid, the contemplation of something which has no proof or explanation is. Reading answers from atheists, is also stupid, especially when they refer to numbered strings of words from the bible ending with a comma or a period as being called a "sentence". This question is intended "For those who believe in God", not for atheists who have an ax to grind, oblivious to terminology used by the people they oppose. Seems like the reason you supported Master Cedarwas with his comment, "Good comeback", was only to take advantage of his artillery to attack me.
Well then, enjoy the stone throwing coming from the same side, where your atheist friend answered a question intended "For those who believe in God".
Keep the faith, brother.
Yes, there is a comma after "faith".

This post was edited by antibiotic at September 10, 2017 10:32 AM MDT

Let me try and simplify the question for you as you appear to be having great difficulty in actually understanding it, perhaps I will try it in verse as anything with a number before it appears to be held in high esteem by your good self.

1 'The only stupid question is the question that is never asked.' I high degree of stupidity is shown by someone who can say 'Ask a stupid question and get a stupid answer.' only to reply later with the quot by Ramon Bautista cited at the beginning of this verse.


2 'what is believing in something in an oblivious state' Now I grant you that you personally may well go through life oblivious to reality but the actual question was asking you while alive (conscious), if you would 'still believe' in a sky fairy if he did not hold out the carrot of life ever after in La La Land.

3 'where your atheist friend answered a question intended "For those who believe in God".' I for one did not, nor have I seen any other who may consider themselves an atheist actually attempt to answer the question, they and myself replied to the question with a comment, neither a reply or a comment can be construed as being an answer to a question or even an attempt to answer the question, unless it is an actual answer it remains a comment.

4 'Yes, there is a comma after "faith".' Yes, there is a space between 'Cedar' and 'was'.

Go tell mommy and daddy Mr. antibiotic said you're wasting his time.
An atheist oblivious to terminology used by people he opposes. 
An atheist referring to numbered strings of words from the bible, ending with a comma or period, as sentences.
You don't impress me.
Go away, kid.

 

 

Well, if Mr. Antibiotic says something then it must be true, just a shame that your numbered sentences do not meet the requirement of truth, will you people never realize that the bible is the claim, it is not proof or even evidence for anything. Because you use a 'term' in one way, places no obligation on anyone else to use the same terminology. Whatever gave you the impression that I have any desire to 'impress' you?

You are correct, an afterlife would be proveable. ALAS, Sofar proofs in that direction have quite consistently turned out to be fallacious or even fraudulent.

I am aware of Pascal's wager.

But I'm about to be 72 next month.  If I were to "come to know positively" that there was no afterlife, I would not change any of the principles by which I live.

I am a "cradle" Catholic.  The life I have lived by knowing, understanding, and following the philosophy and theology of the Catholic church has been extremely fulfilling and rewarding.

Tom, you have my deepest sympathy as you have never experienced life other than what has been brainwashed into you.

Well, I appreaciate the sentiment, Master Cedar, but there is no need for sympathy---regardless of depth.

In my late twenties, Catholic principles became extremenly inconvenient for me to abide by.

I have a background in psychology, philosophy, and theology (among other things) and I set out---highly motivated and very eager---to achieve my goal of proving those Catholic principles both wrong and even completely untenable.

I failed miserably in my mission; but in the process, I discovered they were eminately reasonable and life affirming.

45+ years later, I understand more and more why they are so. 




This post was edited by tom jackson at September 10, 2017 8:04 PM MDT

What exactly would you consider those Catholic principles to be? I can think of many principles that I consider to be wrong and many that the Vatican falls far short of upholding but until such times that you explain these principles, then we could be talking at cross purposes.
The quote below is an example of what I mean by christian principles.

“...I therefore hate the corrupt, slaveholding, women-whipping, cradle-plundering, partial and hypocritical Christianity of the land... I look upon it as the climax of all misnomers, the boldest of all frauds, and the grossest of all libels. Never was there a clearer case of 'stealing the livery of the court of heaven to serve the devil in.' I am filled with unutterable loathing when I contemplate the religious pomp and show, together with the horrible inconsistencies, which every where surround me. We have men-stealers for ministers, women-whippers for missionaries, and cradle-plunderers for church members. The man who wields the blood-clotted cowskin during the week fills the pulpit on Sunday, and claims to be a minister of the meek and lowly Jesus. . . . The slave auctioneer’s bell and the church-going bell chime in with each other, and the bitter cries of the heart-broken slave are drowned in the religious shouts of his pious master. Revivals of religion and revivals in the slave-trade go hand in hand together. The slave prison and the church stand near each other. The clanking of fetters and the rattling of chains in the prison, and the pious psalm and solemn prayer in the church, may be heard at the same time. The dealers in the bodies of men erect their stand in the presence of the pulpit, and they mutually help each other. The dealer gives his blood-stained gold to support the pulpit, and the pulpit, in return, covers his infernal business with the garb of Christianity. Here we have religion and robbery the allies of each other—devils dressed in angels’ robes, and hell presenting the semblance of paradise.”

― Frederick Douglass, Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass

If you know what Christian principles are, you can tell who is applying them correctly.

But you can't do that from the outside---you have to learn Christian principles---then when you understand them, you can tell who is acting according to them or who are just adopting them as a cloak to hide their "evil" deeds.

The quote above is his diatribe (a forceful and bitter verbal attack against someone or something) on slavery and he was of course speaking from experience.

If you think there are specific Christian principles against which he is railing (to utter bitter complaint or vehement denunciation), feel free to list them and I will be glad to comment on them.

Please don't take offense at my posting of definitions---I sometimes feel the need to put out the precise sense in which I am using a word which has acquired different meanings.

Really Tom is the 'no true Scotsman' the best you can do?
Perhaps something is wrong for I do not see any definitions from you other than Diatribe' and 'railing' neither of which were required but I would appreciate a hard and fast definition as to what you consider your Roman Catholic principles to be.

Would you consider it good Roman Catholic principles for the Vatican to make all RC bishops in Germany swear to protect Hitler's 3rd Reich? 

Would you consider it good Roman Catholic principles for the Vatican controlled Zentrum Party (the Catholic Center party) while having the deciding vote to allow the 'enabling act' which gave Hitler legitimate rule over Germany?

Would you consider it good Roman Catholic principles for Roman Catholic Franciscan monks to run Nazi style concentration camps in Croatia, where non Catholics were butchered in the hundreds of thousands and Jews were deported to Germany where they were shown some mercy, in as much as they at least were killed before they were put in the ovens, unlike many of the non Catholics in Croatia?

Would you consider it good Roman Catholic principles for the Vatican not to excommunicate any member of the Nazi party other than Goebbels who was excommunicated for the terrible sin of marrying outside of the Catholic faith?

These are just a few Catholic principles that I find impossible to condone and these were all within a decade, I have many more covering centuries but I think this little lot should give you some reason to reflect on your so holy Catholic principles.

Is equating my response to an example of "no true Scotsman" the best you can do? 

Sounds like you prefer to emulate the style of Frederick Douglass.  That's fine if it makes you feel like you accomplish something by doing that.

perhaps you do so because you---for some unknown reason unassociated with reality---think that I am on the defensive here.

It is you who does not understand Christian principles and therefore cannon identify whether or not they are being appropriately followed or totally misinterpreted and rationalized.

Are you an atheist, or just anti-Catholic?

Then perhaps you would care to enlighten me as to EXACTLY what your so called Christian principles are, this is the second time I have asked you for an explanation of them. No I do not think you are stupid enough to even attempt to defend the indefensible, you prefer to simply ignore it. That is unless your 'It is you who does not understand Christian principles and therefore cannon identify whether or not they are being appropriately followed' is your way of saying that they were indeed good Catholic principles, you then go on to say 'or totally misinterpreted and rationalized', I would love to hear how it is possible to 'misinterpret' the deaths of millions, or perhaps you think they all committed suicide, I think you may have some serious problems if you go through life not being rational.

As you do not wish to 'gladly comment' on the good Catholic principles employed by the Vatican in relation to Nazi Germany, perhaps you would care to comment on the good Catholic principle of protecting child abusers and rapists from criminal charges while allowing them to continue their sick practice in other locations.

What I am is not what we are discussing here, it is your good Catholic principles that are being discussed, where I view it from makes not the slightest difference as to your good Catholic principles.

I'm sure your frustrated that you can't make me agree that this whole issue is my problem rather than yours.

Let's just assume I am stupid for a moment.  (That would be difficult for most people, but it's usually an amusing exercise and probably worth a  try.)  Since you are so clearly aware of "the good Catholic principles employed by the Vatican in relation to Nazi Germany,"  simply list the principles that guided the Vatican to do what they did (from most important to least important principle) and I will be glad to address the each of them individually. Oh, and please include a brief summary of the applicable circumstances extant at the time.  Your understanding (for want of a better word) of where there decision processes went wrong would also be useful. 

And no, I could not go through life not being rational---but if you know where I might find a "How To" guide, please post the link.

I'll assume you are an ex-Catholic who is now an atheist.   Your style of attack is quite similar to that of those that come by their perspective by that route.

If you think that I am going to even attempt to look for your good Catholic EXCUSES then I am afraid you have another think coming, This is the second time you have said that you would address points and have yet to do so, this is the third time that I have asked you for what you consider your good Catholic principles to be and what do you do, you ask me to find them for you, what is wrong, could you not find them either? 

As you appear to be unwilling to address the good Catholic principles that were employed between the Vatican and the Nazis and you appear unwilling to address the good Catholic principle of pedophilia rampant within the your organization, then perhaps you would care to address the good Catholic principles that led to the attempted liquidation of Serbian Krajina, the greatest act of genocide in Europe since World War II. but I very much doubt if you will. 

So now you consider it an attack when someone calls bullsh!t on your good Catholic principles, the very same good Catholic principles that you have so far failed to define, the same good Catholic principles that you cannot or will not comment on after twice having said that you would, all you can now do is play the age old 'persecution card' by claiming that I am attacking your good Catholic principles. Well I have news for you, I am not attacking your good Catholic principles simply because you have failed to provide me with any good Catholic principles, you are however correct in that I am on the attack, I am attacking the very things that you and every other Catholic should be attacking, GET RID OF THE BAD CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES but of course that would leave you no Catholic principles at all but even that would be better than what you have at the moment. Now if I am wrong in saying that there are no good Catholic principles to be had then I await your correction, but it is your job to supply them, not mine to run round on a wild goose chase looking for them.

I asked you to find them for me, because you allege that they were not followed in the examples you post.

If an answer is wrong, simply look at what is given, and see where the mistake is made.

So far, you just assert that good Catholic principles were not adhered to and yet you cannot name any of those principles, much less show how they weren't followed.

And hey, one the subject of chasing wild geese, you might enjoy that great song by Frankie Lane from the 50's---The Wild Goose.

And I am curious---Shouting and bold-face type?  to what purpose?

'because you allege that they were not followed in the examples you post', I allege no such thing, I state factually what was done and assume it was within your good Catholic principles because as you put it with your 'no true Scotsman fallacy', 'If you know what Christian principles are, you can tell who is applying them correctly. But you can't do that from the outside---you have to learn Christian principles---then when you understand them, you can tell who is acting according to them or who are just adopting them as a cloak to hide their "evil" deeds'. So for the fourth time of asking, exactly what do you consider your good Catholic principles to be? 
You also state that 'So far, you just assert that good Catholic principles were not adhered to and yet you cannot name any of those principles, much less show how they weren't followed', is it then fair to assume that your good Catholic principles were indeed followed in the cases I have cited and if they were not good Catholic principles that were followed then why did the Vatican do nothing about the failure to follow good Catholic principles?
So far you have failed four times to even mention one good Catholic principle, you have after saying ' feel free to list them and I will be glad to comment on them' totally failed to comment on,
1) The good Catholic principle that led to the Vatican legitimizing Hitlers rule in Germany.
2) The good Catholic principle for the Vatican to make all RC bishops in Germany swear to protect Hitler's 3rd Reich.
3) The good Catholic principle for the Vatican not to excommunicate any member of the Nazi party.
4) The good Catholic principle of protecting child abusers and rapists from criminal charges while allowing them to continue their sick practice in other locations.
5) The good Catholic principle that led to the attempted liquidation of Serbian Krajina

As you appear either unwilling or unable to comment on the above perhaps you would be willing to comment on the good Catholic principle that lead to the discovery of nearly 800 bodies of children in a septic tank in a Home, run by the Bon Secours nuns in Tuam Ireland during excavations between November 2016 and February 2017. The 'Home' had been run by the 'holy order'  from 1925 to 1961 who no doubt were following good Catholic principles.

You seem to be under the impression that you control this dialogue.  It might be easier if you would realize that it's not going to work that way.

You are the one who apparently doesn't have any idea of what "good Catholic principles" are, nor are you interested in finding any of them out.

Consequent ignorance is a lack of due knowledge in a person.  Since the human intellect cannot be placed in possession of its object by an external agent that takes it there, I'm doubtful that I am ever going to be able to help you.

But don't worry---I won't abandon you on here.

'You are the one who apparently doesn't have any idea of what "good Catholic principles" are, nor are you interested in finding any of them out'. If that is the case can you explain to me and others who may read this exactly why I have already asked you four times for an example of a good Catholic principle, if as you claim I am not 'interested in finding any of them out'?

You have absolutely no interest in Catholic principles. 

You simply want me to say something so that you can attempt to shoot it down.

The problem is, you will think your shot hit the target and and you will have mistaken the noise of the gun going off as proof that it hit.

A tasty salad---glad you enjoyed it---to bad you didn't understand it.  It's another way of saying that "one can bring a horse to water, but one can't make him drink."

I don't indulge people who have no real interest in "good Catholic principles." 

If you had any interest at all in Catholic principles of any sort, you could easily have Googled them.

After you have done that, and have shown the sine qua non that proves to me that you are not looking for a skeet shoot, I will correct the errors you make.

'It's another way of saying that "one can bring a horse to water, but one can't make him drink' is another way to say that you claim to have good Catholic principles (your trough of water) that you are hiding from others who have asked you to share them.

You hypocrisy is astounding, you accused me of attempting to 'control this dialogue' yet is is you who expects me to jump through hoops in order to ascertain exactly what you consider your good Catholic principles to be. You also expect me to prove to you as an essential condition that I am genuine, just who the sweet fcuk do you think you are? You have contributed absolutely nothing to this dialogue other than spout nonsense and revert to Latin in a futile attempt to make yourself appear intelligent, while hiding behind your screen of holy smoke and mirrors.