180 Proof
1.5k
Or does your evasion of the question mean that you don't have any evidence or argument for these assertions?
— Enai De A Lukal
C'mon Frank Apisa show your "evidence or arguments" him/her like you showed me. :razz: — 180 Proof

And I thank you for that same reason, 180.

Enai De A Lukal
175
↪Frank Apisa
If you think I am wrong...easy enough to show me to be wrong.

I asked you a question, which you didn't answer. I'll ask again. What is your evidence/arguments for the following assertions-

There is NO way to KNOW if there is at least one god...or if there are none.

There is NO way to KNOW if it is more probable that there is at least one god than that there are none...,or vice versa.

One CANNOT get to any of those things through reason...or logic...or science...or math.

Or does your evasion of the question mean that you don't have any evidence or argument for these assertions? — Enai De A Lukal

Easiest assertion to show as wrong.

All you have to do is give one syllogism that shows any of those things...and my assertion falls to ruin.

But you cannot.

So, I laugh at the people who suppose they can logically come to "there is a god" or who pretend they are being scientific and logical when they come to "there are no gods"...and enjoy the pretense for its humor value.

I thank you good folk for entertaining me.

substantivalism
77
I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST (that the existence of gods is impossible);
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST (that at least one god is needed to explain existence);
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...

...so I don't.
— Frank Apisa

The first is direct personal admittance of ignorance and the latter comments a form of epistemologically successful deduction on your part. A respectable position to hold and for others rather frustrating as to hold any one position (theist, atheist, ignostic, agnostic) there must be a clear definition of the terms involved including the word god here. If such a concept proved to be incoherent then we would all be atheist, if it merely rebranded meaning wise to another readily existent thing/concept (universe) then perhaps we are all theistic, and if it falls along the line of a deistic/classical conception of god then an agnostic position would be perhaps most favored. In lieu of these situations we are all ignostics. — substantivalism

I say, "Screw the descriptors. State a position on the question as fully and accurately as one can."

I even dislike using "agnostic" these days...and try always to use "This is my position, which is an agnostic position."

Then I state the position:

I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST (that the existence of gods is impossible);
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST (that at least one god is needed to explain existence);
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...

...so I don't.

That is absolutely the truth for me.

If someone feels it is defective...I will live with that.

jorndoe
985
You zoomed in on the wrong word, ↪Frank Apisa. :) — jorndoe

Don't think so, Jorn.

But we will see where this goes.

180 Proof
1.5k
↪Frank Apisa :rofl: — 180 Proof

Laughter is good for you.

We are both getting lots of laughs.

A win/win situation.

Don't get that very often on the Internet.

Hope you are enjoying it as much as I.

jorndoe
984
Not on the question "Are there any gods or are there no gods."
— Frank Apisa

And hence, by your line of thinking, neither on ...

The Matrix (or Bostrom's thing perhaps)
Solipsism
Dream thought experiments
Intangible hobs that can control the weather
Applewhite's trans-dimensional super-beings
...

But that's fine I guess. — jorndoe

Guess whatever you like. Great thing about a guess is...it might be correct.

Unfortunately, inherent in "it might be correct" is..."it might be incorrect."

Economists are full of shit

Yeah, they are. And so are you and so am I and so it goes with all the humans on the planet.'

Everything we eat turns to shit.

The economy is NOT run by economists. There are myriad forces at work in making (or allowing) the economy to function...and your views of the situation are, to be charitable, naive.

180 Proof
1.5k
↪Frank Apisa :lol: — 180 Proof

We agree on that, 180. Your position is laughable.

Enai De A Lukal
170
↪Frank Apisa
There is NO way to KNOW if there is at least one god...or if there are none.

There is NO way to KNOW if it is more probable that there is at least one god than that there are none...,or vice versa.

One CANNOT get to any of those things through reason...or logic...or science...or math.

And your evidence/argument for these assertions is... ? — Enai De A Lukal

If you think I am wrong...easy enough to show me to be wrong.

Here is a C: Therefore there are no gods.

Give me the P1 and P2 to arrive at it.

Here is a C: Therefore there is at least one god.

Give me the P1 and P2 to arrive at it.

Here is a C: Therefore it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is one.

Give me the P1 and P2 to arrive at it.

Here is a C: Therefore it is more likely that there is at least on god than that there are none.

Give me the P1 and P2 to arrive at it.

And obviously there is middle ground between knowledge and "blind guessing". — Enai

Not on the question "Are there any gods or are there no gods."

You should also consider answering jorndoe's question about other entities whose existence is dubious- surely you don't take this same agnostic position with respect to dragons and underpants gnomes and so on? And if not, why the special pleading wrt theistic deities but not other fictional entities?

Here is my agnostic position (which I have given at least a dozen times in the forum:

I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST (that the existence of gods is impossible);
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST (that at least one god is needed to explain existence);
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...

...so I don't.

Are you actually saying there is not enough unambiguous evidence about those things upon which to base a meaningful guess?

180 Proof
1.5k
↪Frank Apisa Projection on this forum, Frank, is pathetic. In these many months you've not so much as scuffed one of my arguments while I've blown down your infantile "I know nothing" houses of cards every time with barely a whisper. Like the Donald, you seem to forget there is, in this case, reams of written evidence (mine, others & yours) of your incorrigible (or disingenous) confusions & non sequiturs. You're the one "guessing" (gassing), sir. :mask: — 180 Proof

I have no problem with you living in your land of fantasy, 180.

Best to think of my laughing as laughing WITH you even though you know I am laughing AT you. What the hell, in your fantasy land, it should be a snap for you.

And...if you want to pretend your blind guesses about the REALITY are more than blind guesses...so much the better. Comedy is best if the comedian plays it straight.:wink:

180 Proof
1.5k
But make sure you don't tangle ass with someone who can actually show you to be the blind guesser you are.
— Frank Apisa
Well, you're definitely not one of them, ... so I'm still waiting. :victory: :smirk: — 180 Proof

If you want to blindly guess there are no gods...and pretend it is something more than a blind guess...do so, 180. I enjoy a laugh as much as the next guy...and I thank you for providing it.

But there is no reasoning or logic invo[lv]ed...just guesswork.
— Frank Apisa
Like a broken record you keep repeating this "guesswork" with "no reasoning or logic involved", but repetition doesn't make it so and only reminds me/us that your 'agnostic confusion' is not even false. Rodeo clownin' you has become a guilty pleasure, Frank. :sweat: — 180 Proof

No reasoning or logic involved in any of the guesses about whether there are gods or not. Strong atheists and theists share that quality...making blind guesses and having "faith" that those blind guesses are correct.

I figured you didn't have the guts for a real conversation. Go pick on some theists...be the bully. But make sure you don't tangle ass with someone who can actually show you to be the blind guesser you are.

Banno
8.7k
Look up the definition of a word in the dictionary.

Then look up the definition of each of the words in that definition.

Iterate.

Given that there are a finite number of words in the dictionary, the process will eventually lead to repetition.

If one's goal were to understand a word, one might suppose that one must first understand the words in its definition. But this process is circular.

There must, therefore, be a way of understanding a word that is not given by providing its definition.

Now this seems quite obvious; and yet so many begin their discussion with "let's first define our terms". — Banno

We have disagreed on so much, Banno, allow me this moment to agree wholeheartedly with what you are saying here.

One of the problems I have with descriptors is the meaning or definition of the descriptor. "I am an atheist" means so many different things to different people, it makes very little sense to use it. "I am a liberal"; "I am a conservative; "He is not honest"; "She is fair"...and the like have that same problem. It is almost useless to use them except in casual conversation. Here in a forum dedicated to "Philosophy" (also ambiguous to many) we should be more explicit.

Maybe more later. I'm just listening in an learning for the moment.

Banno
8.7k
I gave it.
— Frank Apisa

Where? I must have missed it — Banno

Previous page.

You didn't miss it. You are trying to be cute...and pretend my response was not coherent.

It was coherent. What it wasn't, Banno, was the kind of thing you want to argue against.

Like in my comment above...you want to argue with the weak.

Can't help you there. But if you want to have a discussion with someone who is willing to give respect when it is given in return...we can talk.

EricH
165
I am NOT talking about anything “supernatural.
— Frank Apisa

I could be missing something here, but your definition of the word "god" does not correspond with the definition used by pretty much every other human being on this planet.

Maybe some of the pantheists out here would agree with you - but not being a pantheist I can't speak for them. — EricH

You are correct, you cannot speak for them.

By the same token I cannot speak for "pretty much every other human being on this planet."

But I can speak for myself...and I have.

I suspect most people who want to assert that there are no gods do not want to talk with people who DO offer a coherent "definition" of gods...but rather prefer to debate people who offer incoherent, babbling notions of gods with robes, sandals, rules, fury, rewards, and (most of all) punishments.

Atheists, in general, want to argue with theist the way bullies want to pick on people smaller and weaker than themselves.

That I cannot help you with.

Banno
8.7k
↪Frank Apisa

...so, where is there a coherent presentation of what it is to be God? — Banno

Banno
8.7k
↪Frank Apisa

...so, where is there a coherent presentation of what it is to be God? — Banno

I have no idea of "what it is like to be God.

I was asked for a coherent definition of what I mean by gods...I gave it.

180 Proof
1.5k
↪Frank Apisa :sweat: :ok:

If you see something IRRATIONAL ...

I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST (that the existence of gods is impossible);
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST (that at least one god is needed to explain existence);
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...

...so I don't.
— Frank Apisa
Try to "reason", Frank, then you might "know or "see" ... https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/391861 — 180 Proof

There is NO way to KNOW if there is at least one god...or if there are none.

There is NO way to KNOW if it is more probable that there is at least one god than that there are none...,or vice versa.

One CANNOT get to any of those things through reason...or logic...or science...or math.

Theists blindly guess one way...and most atheists blindly guess the other way.



But there is no reasoning or logic invoved...just guesswork.

jorndoe
975
Of course not.
— Frank Apisa

What about, say, The Matrix (or Bostrom's thing perhaps)? Solipsism? Dream thought experiments? Intangible hobs that can control the weather? (Heck, Applewhite's trans-dimensional super-beings?)

With the garage dragon, Sagan alluded to a simple back-pedal-procedure by which existential claims can be (counter)evidence-immunized. Seems rife in religious apologetics, reducing their epistemics to being on par with the above, despite their continuous insistence on existential claims.

It takes ... something to unabatedly continue declaring such claims true. (And thoroughly declaring agnosticism in such matters doesn't seem quite right.) — jorndoe

Let's stick to the question of "Are there any gods involved in the REALITY of existence?"

My response is:

I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST (that the existence of gods is impossible);
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST (that at least one god is needed to explain existence);
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...

...so I don't.

That is an agnostic position on the question, Jorn. If you see something irrational about anything in it, let's discuss it.

Banno
8.6k
↪Frank Apisa So you would be happily agnostic as to the existence of, say, four-sided triangles? — Banno

Of course not.

Is that the level on which you want to discuss this?

I do not want to take up your time if you think I am a simpleton...or an unworthy discussion partner.

180 Proof
1.5k
If you want to discuss this issue, let's do so.
— Frank Apisa
We've already discussed it for months now. We don't even disagree actually because your assertions are incoherent (not even false) and don't address my arguments substantively. It'd help 'our discussion' if you'd carefully read what I've written on this topic (here and elsewhere) and respond accordingly, but you haven't and still won't (or can't). I now only respond to your 'agnostic confusion' in order to edify - provoke - others who might be as confused, though not as incorrigibly, as you clearly are, Frank. — 180 Proof

If you would prefer to divert to that kind of shit, 180...do it with a fellow amateur, not with me.

Banno
8.6k
↪Frank Apisa
I agree, in the absence of evidence there is no reason to claim that god exists; nor any reason to suppose that he does not.

But I don't think we need stop at that. We can ask if there is a coherent notion of god.

This, of course, puts the ball in the theists court; it is up to them to present a description of god that is consistent and tenable. But we can go a step further and say that if an agnostic is going to claim that god is possible, then they also should be able to present an account of what god is, that is consistent and tenable.

And in the absence of such an account, atheism seems the reasonable conclusion. — Banno

The first part of what you said there sounds very fair to me, Banno...

...although we might have to discuss what "consistent and tenable" means. We can do that!

That last part sounds gratuitous to me.

In the absence of this "consistent and tenable" thing...the reasonable conclusion I see is "the theists are not being successful." Nothing more.

The "atheist" part means assigning a descriptor to that lack of success...and the descriptor "atheist" carries lots of baggage. I doubt, for instance, we could conclude, AS DO SOME ATHEISTS, that therefore NO GODS EXIST.

180 Proof
1.5k
Oddly worded comment. Give it another try and I'll respond.
— Frank Apisa
But you already have! Thanks, Frank. :smirk: — 180 Proof

If by "theism is not true" you mean that the assertion, "There is a god" is not true...

...then there is no way I could possibly have answered it. I have no idea if the assertion, "There is a god" is true or false...just as I have no idea if the assertion, "There are no gods" is true or false.

If you want to discuss this issue, let's do so. If you are just messing around...let's not.

#1:

What do I mean when I use the word “god” ...?

I mean an entity of agency…something that existed BEFORE this thing we humans call the universe came into being…and which caused or helped to cause it to “come into being.”
Well, in so far as the universe's earliest measurable era had a planck radius and was an acausal quantum event (i.e. a random vacuum fluctuation re: Noether's Theorem, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, Hartle-Hawking No Boundary, etc), causal agency such as "creator g/G" does not obtain. Evidence of "creation" - higher than minimal entropy - must be observable (directly or indirectly) like every other events / physical transformations in the universe and yet there is no such evidence whatsoever; therefore, this entails that there is no - never was a - "creator g/G". Theism - Abrahamic, Vedic, Greco-Roman, Norse, etc - is not true. — 180 Proof

Okay...if you and the others say so.

Although I prefer to be more circumspect.

I am NOT talking about anything “supernatural.” Anything that exists…is, by definition, a part of existence. If ghosts or spirit beings exist, but we humans cannot sense them in any way…they are part of what exists and are a part of nature.
It doesn't matter whether or not g/G is "supernatural" but whether or not any such g/G is defined as intervening - causing changes - in nature; and if so, because nature is scienfically observable and therefore changes in nature are scientifically observable, then the claims of believers or scriptures that some g/G has intervened - caused changes - in nature entails observable (direct or indirect) evidence - and yet there is none whatsoever. — 180 Proof

Okay, if you say so. But I prefer to be more circumspect.

As for things like, "...because nature is scienfically observable and therefore changes in nature are scientifically observable..."...well, I prefer to be more circumspect. Some humans seem to think that things can only exist if humans can detect them/it. Those humans may be all wet.

Jury is still out as far as I am concerned.

Again, theism is not true. — 180 proof

Oddly worded comment. Give it another try and I'll respond.

See above.

180 Proof
1.5k
I have several "definitions" (explanations of what I mean when I use the word...) "god."
— Frank Apisa
Just (say) three will do. Don't be coy, Frank, do tell. — 180 Proof

No problemo! Each subtly different.

#1:

What do I mean when I use the word “god” in questions like “Do you think it more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one?”

I mean an entity of agency…something that existed BEFORE this thing we humans call the universe came into being…and which caused or helped to cause it to “come into being.”

I am NOT talking about anything “supernatural.” Anything that exists…is, by definition, a part of existence. If ghosts or spirit beings exist, but we humans cannot sense them in any way…they are part of what exists and are a part of nature.

I suspect there may be LOTS of things that do exist…that humans are incapable of detecting in any way. We are, after all, just the currently dominant species on a nondescript hunk of rock circling a nondescript star in a nondescript galaxy among thousands of billions of galaxies.

#2:

What I mean when I use the words “God” or “gods.”



Predicates:

It is my opinion that what we humans call “the universe” may well not be everything that exists. All these hundreds of billions of galaxies each containing hundreds of billions of stars…may be just a tiny part of something incomprehensibly larger.

Secondly, even here is this thing we humans call “the universe” there may well exist entities that are not discernable to human senses in any way.

Thirdly, I posit that anything that exists (whether we humans know or do not know it exists) is a part of nature. IT EXISTS. The notion of supernatural (meaning outside of what exists) makes no sense to me.

Okay…with those predicates in mind…when I use the words “God” or “gods” I am talking about any entity (or entities), whatever its make-up or characteristics, that pre-existed this thing we humans call “the universe” and was the cause of its creation or instrumental in its creation in some meaningful way.

The notion, we need to revere, honor, and worship any God or gods that do exist does not enter the picture. (I am not saying such a GOD could not exist.) The need for omnipotence or continued involvement in not involved in what I mean. (I am not saying that could not be the case.)

#3:

My definition of "god."

An entity that created or caused to be created what we humans now consider “the Universe.”

jorndoe
973
Is this comment directed to the word "define" or to the word "god?" It started as though to the former...but ended as though to the latter
— Frank Apisa

Both. And...

dictionaries truly do not "define" words (my sense of "define") but rather tell us how the word is most often used
— Frank Apisa — jorndoe

Okay...then I will respond to the part that deals with the word "god."

I have several "definitions" (explanations of what I mean when I use the word...) "god."

None of them are what you suggest is, "...contradictory, unidentifiable, unshowable or just anything/whatever."

The fact that there are several "definitions" of a word is not unusual...or is it debilitating to conversation or discussion. As a "for instance"...if a person starts a conversation identifying as "an atheist" or "a liberal" or "a conservative"...you still have a way to go before figuring out what is meant...but you CAN converse and discuss with some notions in mind.

I am not a fan of the "what do you mean by god" question from people who use the descriptor "atheist." We can talk about that if you want, but it would be a diversion from the thread, so let's avoid it here.

jorndoe
972
I'm interested in what you mean by "define."
— Frank Apisa

I suppose, defining x could be predicating x that x is (uniquely) identifiable?
Otherwise, the only option may be to show x (which would be existential proof at least).
In the case here, x is used in so many ways as to become contradictory, unidentifiable, unshowable or just anything/whatever. — jorndoe

Is this comment directed to the word "define" or to the word "god?" It started as though to the former...but ended as though to the latter

substantivalism
75
I'm interested in what you mean by "define."

How do YOU define...define?

It is difficult to define something if your impressions of what define means differs from mine, for instance.
— Frank Apisa

Are you being jokey/sarcastic, pedantic, or really wondering about the grammatical/language/philosophy that goes into a proper definition? Though, if you have been following the frustrating conversation this person seems to want to not either give up understandable definition of what he means by god or propose a definition which we have words that specifically already describe said concept; consciousness, emotions, wonder, existence, reality, universe, etc. You can call these things god but that doesn't change the concepts its being substituted name wise for. — substantivalism

I am not being a wise-ass...nor am I joking.

I am genuinely interested in the position you are taking (I suspect I oppose it), but just as you have concerns with what a person means when using the word "god" in one of these discussions, I have concerns about what a person means when using the word "define" in a comment like "define god."

Many people might suggest using the "definition" given in a dictionary, but dictionaries truly do not "define" words (my sense of "define") but rather tell us how the word is most often used.

So...really, what do YOU mean by "define"...and when I find that out, I will give you my "definition" of what I mean when I use the word "god"...and we can discuss your position.

You're playing a semantics game like calling the universe god and not defining what you mean by god or merely just having the word "god" be a place holder for other terms. Maybe when I say god I mean that chair across from me but that is both useless and meaningless to do, so why are you doing it? — substantivalism

I'm interested in what you mean by "define."

How do YOU define...define?

It is difficult to define something if your impressions of what define means differs from mine, for instance.

Basically there is an intelligence to collectives that is not possessed by any specific individual but is derived from the interaction of their personal guesses/ perceptions. — Benj96

Okay. You do seem convinced of that. I am not.

But, it has no practical purpose for me in my life at the moment, so I'll leave it be.

Benj96
171
Has it been tested?
— Frank Apisa

It has. Numerous times with replicable results — Benj96

Sounds like fantasy to me.

IF what follows is the question proposed, are you saying that the guesses would lead us to "valid information" on the truth of the situation?

Are there any sentient beings living on any of the planets circling the nearest 25 stars to Sol?

And are you also suggesting that because 95% of Americans guess that a GOD exists...that represents "valid information" on the truth of whether or not a GOD actually does exist?

Due to probability a player is just as likely to overestimate as to underestimate the quantity in the jar. And due to this the more players that player, even if they are all wrong, the more accurate the calculation of the real answer gets. I find this remarkable. It's as if by understanding a simple rule of maths you can transform a whole lot of wrong into a single piece of right. — Benj96

I wonder if this is so...or if it is just something you are supposing is so.

Has it been tested?

There is something gnawing at me saying, "The general thesis here may be all wrong in many cases."

Even in variations on the example you gave, I doubt there is a bell curve resultant that aims at the correct answer.

Have you indication that it is so...or is it just something that randomly occurred to you?

Enai De A Lukal
155
↪DoppyTheElv not sure which quote you're referring to (Hume or 180 Proof), but yes, that's the gist of it- facts are contingent, existence claims are claims of fact, and anything that can be by the same token can not be. So as Hume says, there is an "evident absurdity" in an a priori argument purporting to establish an existence claim- a claim of fact- because such an effort is doomed to failure by its very nature. As far as logic and deductive arguments go, you can only get out what you put in, and so any argument with purely a priori or definitional premises but a factual conclusion (like that some X exists) is bound to be invalid. And so it is with e.g. the ontological argument for the existence of God. — Enai De A Lukal

I still do not understand for certain what you are saying, but it sounds a lot like: If you assert "there are no gods"...no burden of proof arises.

I doubt you would find many logicians who would agree.

If I have misunderstood your position, Enai, I apolgize.

Then, of course, there's also Tom Lehrer's The Vatican Rag.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvhYqeGp_Do — Ciceronianus the White

Absolutely loved it.

Day before yesterday, (because of a post in another forum) I had occasion to listen to Scott Joplin...and really enjoyed it. Rag is great...even this one.

Kev
45
↪Outlander Absolutely. When you remove the floating abstractions (namely the concept of capital) it's pretty hard to argue against capitalism. — Kev

Ahhh...unbridled capitalism is easier to argue against than you seem to suppose, Kev. Free Enterprise, which is subtly a different thing, is the thing that it is very hard to argue against.

Banno
8.6k
...neither of us would feel comfortable with eating meat on Good Friday.
— Frank Apisa

Indeed, ritual runs deep. So on Good Friday I make a point of eating a roast leg and watching Life of Brian. — Banno

Yup, I know several ex-Catholics who do that.

I have a Jewish friend who makes a habit of ordering ham on rye in deli's.

I respect his right to do so...and I respect your right to do what you do.

This thread has made me feel terrific. I'm not alone in my realization that the Church peddled nonsense to me and I accepted it for years...but although I have broken away completely, there still is that regard for some of the "rigmarole" of the institution despite my resentment of it.

Its religious teachings are nonsense...and little more than superstition, despite the fact that many of the teachings attributed to Jesus are as valid as the teachings of any reasonable and moral individual. Although I am a dedicated agnostic, I am still sure that if there are gods (or a single GOD) those entities or that entity will almost certainly be nothing like the caricature venerated and worshiped in Catholicism or Christianity in general.

But like a Jew who realizes the absurdity of "the God of Abraham" yet who still feels cultural and traditional alliance with fellow Jews who are religious ...there is that underlying sense of identity and camaraderie in me with/for certain Catholic sensibilities.

My sister and I were speaking of this earlier this year around Easter (she is an atheist) and we noted that neither of us would feel comfortable with eating meat on Good Friday.

Of all the bizarre things! But neither of us would...and I know honestly it has nothing to do with fear of a god punishing us for disobeying a rule of a church. It is a cultural reaction.

Indeed, social identity runs deep.

Thanks for sharing your stories.

Banno
8.6k
↪Ciceronianus the White ↪180 Proof ↪Frank Apisa

Perhaps we might all agree on the excellence of the philosophical contemplations of the apostates of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church? — Banno

Yes we can.

Although...it is funny that I am as agnostic as they come, but when certain people who call themselves "Christians" start to pick on the Catholics...my dander gets up (whatever that means.)

Ciceronianus the White
1.1k
↪Frank Apisa

I made my bones, so to speak, in a Church where the mass was said in Latin. I was a wine-pouring, patin-holding participant in the great Latin rite, and chanted away in that language with the best of them. I refer to the pallid, monotonous, grotesquely banal ceremony and liturgy which replaced it. — Ciceronianus the White

The new stuff is dull. I agree. Wholeheartedly. The Latin Mass got lots of heat back in the day, but when changed, it was missed almost immediately.

But a procession of Cardinals and Bishops can be inspiring. That was all I was saying.

Ciceronianus the White
1.1k
↪180 Proof

When believing in a doctrine comes to require not only an effort, but one that demands acceptance of unsubstantiated assumptions and the repeated performance of uninspiring ceremonies, it's hard to remain a believer. I'm just saying. — Ciceronianus the White

In my opinion, the ceremonies of the Catholic Church and, let's say, the British Royalty...are far from uninspiring. I think they inspire the hell out of people...which is the reason they are used with such effectiveness.

A procession of the Royal Guards or a procession of Cardinals and Bishops causes all sorts of emotions in me...some, admittedly very negative, but some enormously inspiring. A Mass or Requiem written by one of the masters is as moving to me as any other classical piece. The beauty of some cathedrals can move me almost to tears...as can much of religious art.

Those things I hold apart from my feelings about religion itself.