Atheist Sez, Catholic Sez

[Randy_Carson]

Correct.

Was your departure from the Anglican communion relatively recent and, since this is more to the topic of the thread, what was the argument or point which sealed the deal for you?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Well in an effort to bring this discussion into another topic,

If incest is wrong why did god force it to happen? While there are multiple examples of incest in the bible the main points I am looking at are Adam and Eve and Noah and his family. With Adam and Eve by creating only two people god forced them to either have parents have children with their own children or siblings to have children. If incest really is a sin then why didn’t god create enough people to start with so he wouldn’t be forcing people into a sin? Similar question with Noah and his family why not create more people to live on Earth with Noah and his family instead of forcing them to re-populate through incest?

Genesis 7:6-8
6 Noah was six hundred years old when the floodwaters came on the earth. 7 And Noah and his sons and his wife and his sons’ wives entered the ark to escape the waters of the flood.

As for the accounts of Adam and Eve and the wives of Seth and Cain, we read:

Genesis 5
3 When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth. 4 After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters. 5 Altogether, Adam lived a total of 930 years, and then he died.

Now, assuming that this creation account is literally true (a position I do not believe, btw), then Adam’s sons married Adam’s daughters. This theory holds that the genetic mutations that create problems for modern human inbreeding had not yet multiplied to the point that such difficulties would occur. After all, Adam was made by God, and if he was genetically strong enough to live for 930 years, he was a better physical specimen than any of us!

However, it may also be possible that while Adam and Eve were the FIRST of our species to receive a human soul (as opposed to an animal soul), they may not have been the last.

 

[Helpful_Atheist]

Genesis 7:6-8
6 Noah was six hundred years old when the floodwaters came on the earth. 7 And Noah and his sons and his wife and his sons’ wives entered the ark to escape the waters of the flood.

As for the accounts of Adam and Eve and the wives of Seth and Cain, we read:

Genesis 5
3 When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth. 4 After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters. 5 Altogether, Adam lived a total of 930 years, and then he died.

Now, assuming that this creation account is literally true (a position I do not believe, btw), then Adam’s sons married Adam’s daughters. This theory holds that the genetic mutations that create problems for modern human inbreeding had not yet multiplied to the point that such difficulties would occur. After all, Adam was made by God, and if he was genetically strong enough to live for 930 years, he was a better physical specimen than any of us!

However, it may also be possible that while Adam and Eve were the FIRST of our species to receive a human soul (as opposed to an animal soul), they may not have been the last.

Well I’m not talking genetic issues, I mean if we’re talking literally about a man who lived 930 years than sure anything is possible, but I mean morally. The bible says incest is morally wrong so these people were forced to commit incest in order to populate the earth so what I am getting at is what is your opinion of god essentially forcing people to commit a sin?

 

[SilverShadow22]

Incest is an option possible only when there is another option. If the only other people on earth are your siblings, and there’s no one else to choose, then it can’t possibly be wrong, you can’t know that it is wrong, and there’s no non-sibling to choose from, therefore no contrast to make. Just like animals don’t know any better, but instinctively choose outside the gene pool if there’s the option, so also the only human beings on earth aren’t sinning when they take to spouse the only other human beings on earth.

It is a sin because it destroys the relationships between people - because you ought to be safe from the sexual desires and advances of your family and household.

In the beginning, this doesn’t really apply. You can think of it as a time of primal innocence, when certain later rules didn’t apply - because they couldn’t.

The other reason against incest is the genetics, which, closer to the time of perfection, would also not have applied.

 

[Helpful_Atheist]

Incest is an option possible only when there is another option. If the only other people on earth are your siblings, and there’s no one else to choose, then it can’t possibly be wrong, you can’t know that it is wrong, and there’s no non-sibling to choose from, therefore no contrast to make. Just like animals don’t know any better, but instinctively choose outside the gene pool if there’s the option, so also the only human beings on earth aren’t sinning when they take to spouse the only other human beings on earth.

It is a sin because it destroys the relationships between people - because you ought to be safe from the sexual desires and advances of your family and household.

In the beginning, this doesn’t really apply. You can think of it as a time of primal innocence, when certain later rules didn’t apply - because they couldn’t.

The other reason against incest is the genetics, which, closer to the time of perfection, would also not have applied.

What I am saying is god could easily have created multiple groups of starting families not just two people, by only making two people to start with he forced them to commit incest instead of making enough people where incest wouldn’t have been an issue.

 

[cornbread_r2]

She might have? She could have? Common sense?

Right. If there are ways that Maria could have learned of the shoe by ordinary means, then that case cannot be counted as an example of non-local consciousness. As I understand it, that’s no different than the standard used by the Catholic church when determining if an event is miraculous or not: i.e. if there is a possible naturalistic explanation, then the event is not judged to be supernatural.

Look, I’m not here to defend this ONE PARTICULAR CASE because I don’t have any reason to accept the article we’re analyzing as true any more than you have to believe the original story nor do I have the ability to verify either account personally. (Neither do you). I’ll note these objections and continue to keep an open mind. However, there are hundreds if not thousands of NDE cases to consider, so while I’ll grant that many (possibly even this one) have plausible natural explanations, would that be equally true of them all?

Yes, it’s possible that they all have mundane natural explanations. It’s also possible that some of them have extraordinary natural explanations – are true manifestations of non-local consciousness – without being supernatural events. I don’t think that has been demonstrated yet, but it exists as a possibiity.

For the skeptic, the answer MUST be yes. It HAS to be yes.

But for the theist, NDE’s are an interesting topic of conversation but not the bedrock support of his faith.

Are you equating skepticism of NDEs with atheism? If you aren’t, then why the reference to theists? If you are, then, again, your failure to include possible non-supernatural explanations for NDEs from consideration has led you into an apparent false dichotomy.

One final question: Would you agree that verifiable NDEs are worthy of further study as opposed to non-verifiable NDEs?

(Verifiable NDEs are those like the case of Maria’s shoe which can be checked out whereas non-verifiable NDE’s are claims of seeing lights, meeting angels, etc.)

Sure, why not?

 

[cornbread_r2]

She might have? She could have? Common sense?

Right. If there are ways that Maria could have learned of the shoe by ordinary means, then that case cannot be counted as an example of non-local consciousness. As I understand it, that’s no different than the standard used by the Catholic church when determining if an event is miraculous or not: i.e. if there is a possible naturalistic explanation, then the event is not judged to be supernatural.

Look, I’m not here to defend this ONE PARTICULAR CASE because I don’t have any reason to accept the article we’re analyzing as true any more than you have to believe the original story nor do I have the ability to verify either account personally. (Neither do you). I’ll note these objections and continue to keep an open mind. However, there are hundreds if not thousands of NDE cases to consider, so while I’ll grant that many (possibly even this one) have plausible natural explanations, would that be equally true of them all?

Yes, it’s possible that they all have mundane natural explanations. It’s also possible that some of them have extraordinary natural explanations – are true manifestations of non-local consciousness – without being supernatural events. I don’t think that has been demonstrated yet, but it exists as a possibiity.

For the skeptic, the answer MUST be yes. It HAS to be yes.

But for the theist, NDE’s are an interesting topic of conversation but not the bedrock support of his faith.

Are you equating skepticism of NDEs with atheism? If you aren’t, then why the reference to theists? If you are, then, again, your failure to include possible non-supernatural explanations for NDEs from consideration has led you into an apparent false dichotomy. Believe it or not, there are atheists who would have no problem whatsoever accepting the existence of non-local consciousness without it impacting their disbelief in deities. Monism is a very big tent.

One final question: Would you agree that verifiable NDEs are worthy of further study as opposed to non-verifiable NDEs?

(Verifiable NDEs are those like the case of Maria’s shoe which can be checked out whereas non-verifiable NDE’s are claims of seeing lights, meeting angels, etc.)

Sure, why not?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Right. If there are ways that Maria could have learned of the shoe by ordinary means, then that case cannot be counted as an example of non-local consciousness. As I understand it, that’s no different than the standard used by the Catholic church when determining if an event is miraculous or not: i.e. if there is a possible naturalistic explanation, then the event is not judged to be supernatural.

Sure, but the guys who wrote the article were not able to PROVE how Maria knew of the shoe. They simply speculated on what might have been possible. Okay, fair enough. But that is not the same as PROVING that Maria learned of the shoe via the means they said she “could have” seen it.

AT BEST, the the authors have called this one account into question. They have NOT disproved it. And there are thousands more that will require careful research.

I don’t see this as a big win for you. :nope:

Yes, it’s possible that they all have mundane natural explanations. It’s also possible that some of them have extraordinary natural explanations – are true manifestations of non-local consciousness – without being supernatural events. I don’t think that has been demonstrated yet, but it exists as a possibiity.

Wow. That kinda makes my whole point. NDE’s - if true, and I know that is a Big, unproven “if” - may put a hole in the naturalist view of the afterlife.