Catholic Traditon vs Science - are we looking deep enough

[Chuck_H]

Thanks for correcting my assumption about the language it is in, as I had done a brief search regarding it online, but hadn’t found the specifics.

Good to know that you don’t hate them.
Do you find any of those guys’ talks or writings enlightening at any of their points? There has got to be some things you have found in there that had you questioning your beliefs or thinking critically.

When I started this journey (2008 belief solidification) I started with Beyond Belief ( web site that had talks from the Beyond Belief seminar) and listened to all of the talks. As the talks went on It became obvious that this was all old rehash of the atheists of the Enlightenment from the 17 and 18 hundreds. The biologists like PZ Meyers were reacting to ID fundamentalism, Sam Harris is just being Sam Harris, what can I say. Neill Degrasse was simply being a toady to Sam Harris and that was embarrassing since I had high regard for Neill’s Nova segments.

All in all, what I came away with was an image of teenagers rebelling against a parent. They knew it all and didn’t need the old man any more.

Then I proceeded to the ASA talks and listened to Francis Collins and Kenneth Miller. They seemed to be a little past the teenage stage and had learned to focus on the real culprit, the ID and YE false science.

What it all taught me was that it takes a careful approach to weed out what is reaction and what is truth and to accept paradox. No religion can accurate reflect God, being human it will be broken and only in that brokenness can you see the work of God. Most atheism is a reaction to why it is not perfect forgetting it never was and never will be until this is all over. Look for paradox and you find truth.

 

[veritashunter]

Many philosophers would differ with you on that.

I don’t care about what the etymologies of the words are. Etymologies do not define what a word means in today’s language. I don’t doubt for a second that a word in a language’s development can be of religion origin.

You are playing definition games and on semantics here. Your try (or that of those you cite) at arguing away the existence of good and evil is inconsequential. It may not fit your black and white definition of good and evil, but they can definitively be defined in a practical manner. I totally understand and can imagine in my head the proposed idea that without a supreme being, there would be no absolute reference point to arbitrate, but I think it is structuring the argument with a false premise that there can be no other practical reference points that humans can access.

There need not be a supreme being for a system of morality to be developed, by the definition of “morality - conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct.” What makes something right or virtuous I suppose is the important issue here. That can be up for debate, but in philosophical ideas that I like, it often comes down to the very thing that you said is categorically NOT a moral action which is “an unrightful and unreasonable infringement upon one’s free will”. If you want to argue that that cannot be judged as a bad thing absolutely, well be my guest, but I will continue to look at that what you described there as being the best guide we have for judging what is good or bad, and it can only improve as our knowledge of the world increases.

If you have no God who is arbitrating what is absolutely universally right, then, no, you may not be able to come up with an absolute system, well, at least, from the perspective of having definitive punishment for all possibly committed immoral actions. But what you can have is a very practical system, built WITHIN the confines of human reality, of what can be the judge of what is “an unrightful and unreasonable infringement upon one’s free will”.

I think the non-agression principle is a good start on this. It has been derived in many different ways, with some individuals thinking of it as being more intrinsic to human nature than others who just think of it as a preference.

Oh, but there definitely is a consequence. Even purely utilitarian stances can find areas were these are bad for certain purposes, so there most definitely are consequences, though not eternal damnation consequences.

Universally, it might be like crushing a bug under one’s foot, but, locally, I think there will be some consequences, and as society has advanced, general agreement has been reached on many issues, irrespective of religious identity. I’m not claiming that there are no gray areas there, but I’m also not buying it that the consequence of having no God is rampant chaos and lawlessness. Sure, people CAN do anything they want, but this doesn’t imply that there will not be consequences for those actions, decided upon by the voting of their peers, regarding how unreasonable their infringement is. I think there is an equilibrium that can be reached that is not anywhere near chaos, and would be the most optimal system, with the least amount of suffering.

I have read some of their writings, but it wouldn’t hurt for you to bring up the specific examples you are using from them, so that I would have a point of reference. I could sit here and name off a bunch of famous philosophers that argued against the positions of those you mentioned, and while it might be ultimately constructive for someone who went and looked up all their books, it wouldn’t be conducive to furthering the discussion at hand within the assumed time frame for a thread like this.

 

[veritashunter]

Dear MMortal03:

Your arguments claim to be logical. But they are not…if you want the definition of “good” then take the time to lookmit up.

It isn’t a new term…it hasn’t changed in meaning…so take the time to read “all” of the great philosphers first before you try to apply “feeling” instead of logic.

Your posts are completely defensive and lack the classic linear logic that many atheists show in their writings.

There is not one point in “rhetoric and/or logic” that my previous posting lacked in this discussion. It was based on philosophy and fact…no less.

It was also not an attack upon your intelligence or person. In fact, I thought the PS joke about Marx might give you a laugh.

Whether you are an atheist, a pantheist, a polytheist, or a monotheist…when you place yourself above logic, rhetoric, and linear thought…in Philosophical debate…your opinions are no longer of consequence in a discussion based on those principles.

You stated that you had read a little philosophy…but you didn’t really seem to have the time for it, yet you expect me to quote exact phrasing…OK…I did so with Nietche.

And if you are going to engage in such a debate on a Catholic religious site then you need to know the philosphy and teachings of the Catholic Faith and those of greater Christianity.

If we are going to engage in intellectual arguments and debate we must be intellectually honest enough to do so without attacking the opposing debater (not necessarily myself).

This goes just as well for those who may feel fit to attack you. It does not serve the task at hand.

If we are all about Truth then let us see about it.

Yours in Christ,

Veritashunter

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Mmortal–I’ve read the foregoing discussion with great interest. I am a believer, yet I am compelled to say that your statements are full of logic, patience, and quiet thoughtful discourse. I wish I could say the same for the believers side of the spectrum which is all too often rude, and insulting, and meant to be just that.

The ironic thing is that most believers and most atheists get along quite well, and find a good deal of common ground. That always ends when one attempts discussion with extremes. Then it becomes a full court rant. Thanks for attempting to keep the conversation elevated to an intellectual discourse.

 

[BiblicalDavid]

No, not tough break. It is completely wrong of you to claim that atheists all have a hatred for people with belief in God. You may not have met any, but it is still a completely false insinuation to make that all atheists are hateful people. It could just be that the only people who you have met that explicitly told you they were atheists were the ones who wanted to be militant about it. There are mean and hateful people out there of all viewpoints, but in no way does being an atheist mean that you are a hateful person.

Bad things are done all the time, and none of it is right.

You talk as if you know this place well, with your 38 posts, many of them only in this thread. I have been around here for much longer than you have, and I was a Catholic for much of my life, including most of my time here. If you had read my previous posts within this thread, it would be completely clear to you, and it would answer your question as you why I am here. I’m not expecting fun, I am simply expecting people to be considerate and to use critical thinking skills. False beliefs about

Clearly misguided and I hold a high opinion of myself? I have produced logical argument after logical argument, many of which have not been touched and instead the topic is switched, and I always make it a point to not make these kind of discussions personal. I keep things as much to the logic and the argument as I can. I don’t hold myself in any exceptional regard, I just make the most logical arguments that I can.

Give me some examples of this from my posts. I have tried to be as even-handed and not prejudge anyone.

I am not a part of any “movement”. There are certain arguments for atheism that make the most sense to me. I do not subscribe to any atheist manifesto or creed. Furthermore, I do not try to force it on anyone unless they bring up the issue with me.

When we had slavery in America, I’m sure one of the South’s arguments was that “we have tried envisioning what society would be like without slavery, but we just can’t see it working. You guys need to give us every detail of how it would work, otherwise we can only assume that it will be doom, gloom, and the end of the world.”

There is nothing that could be proved to you which would change your mind. You would just continue the tactic of moving the goal posts.

All I can tell you is that there are many atheists that treat others around them with respect and live good successful lives. If their numbers multiplied, this would do no harm to society. What prejudice would be caused by having more atheists around who are hard workers and treat others in a peaceful manner?

“If they be good workmen, they may be from Asia, Africa, or Europe; they may be [Muslims], Jews, or Christians of any sect, or they may be Atheists.” - George Washington

Atheism isn’t something unknown. There are many people who live atheistic lives already.

I don’t think anyone else is stupid. I just respond to the arguments. It is a complete exaggeration to say that all atheists would somehow think that. There have been many smart people on both sides of the spectrum. Nowhere am I claiming in this thread that anyone is stupid. That would only be divisive and destructive. It isn’t about judgment of intelligence in my posts, but judgment of the arguments.

What a completely hateful thing to say. Why would I want to move to China again? Remember that I’m the one who has been around here for much longer than you have, but you have the nerve to tell me to leave? Why does it always have to become personal when people get frustrated and can’t keep focused on the logic, the discussion, and the arguments only?

Now that was interesting to me. I am a kind of cut the intellectual garbage type person and there has been volumes of this type of garbage in these discussions. I have read a considerable share of the posts within this thread and could find no examples of a positive, successful outcome based on your clame that there is one. As well, you are also influence by your Christian upbring and are not a “pure” atheist. You stated that clearly by your “once was a Catholic but no longer” statement so you are not part of the “pure sample” population that I am looking for…ie. someone born from birth, never believing in God. You have actually turned on those beliefs based on some framework of “logic” that you have come up with.

I am not going to go into parsing your statements… sometimes getting someone in a burr and shaking their tree can be good for them. It appears I have accomplished that.

I think your intent is that people in this consider a world without God.

My intent is that you return to the Church and the Love of God.

The logic of the Spirit of God is the only True logic.

Sorry, I’ve been naughty.

Thanks for the information. You’ve made some interesting points.

When I go and visit the most Holy and Blessed Sacrament of Jesus Christ here on earth, in spite of my being a sinner, I will recommend him to you in spite of your current lack of interest.

Good luck in searching for whatever it is you are looking for. It is doubtful that I will ever understand it nor am I willing to take an adventure to the “world without God” to find out.

 

[reggieM]

I am a believer, yet I am compelled to say that your statements are full of logic, patience, and quiet thoughtful discourse. I wish I could say the same for the believers side of the spectrum which is all too often rude, and insulting, and meant to be just that.

Here are some good examples of Spirit Meadow’s kind and considerate posts – where she shows her ability to engage in “quiet and thoughtful discourse”

Well I would put it differently. Even a conservative on occasion gets a flash of intelligence.

I had to laugh when I read a post from the National Review that ultra conservative rag and even they thought Expelled was absolute garbage. The writer urged the creationist crowd to at least have the guts to put their arguments up front instead of trying to sneak them in the back door with this unmitigated trash. It was quite amusing. The first time I think I ever agreed with anything written there. The bit about nazism and eugenics was the worst. It’s I think even being sued now for plagerism. Stein is a dope of the first order.

Science goes on, while fundie Catholics and protestants waste their time and money arguing about creationism and ID. And of course don’t spend time fighting real problems in the world.Our fundie friends of course always miss the fact that their stubborn adherence to nonsense is always conterproductive. Too funny.

Yeah, you are right up there with the apostles no doubt.

Expelled is garbage plain and simple and the only people who tout it are those who’s faith requires a literal adherence to Genesis. Learn a tad of Catholic teaching and a bit of theology and then you won’t need to look so foolish claiming that evolution is a hoax.

Evolution is still true, and your’re faith is the problem. When you get that, you can move on and stop looking foolish by suggesting that your opinion is worth more than millions of dedicated experts. I find it works best if you put a finger in each ear, and recite the Hail Mary loudly to block out the truth.

Fraid not. I had no idea you existed until I came to this forum. You would have never have convinced me that thinking catholic people would be in association with the nutcases of the evangelical right in the Baptist world. Never!

LOL…the only people pushing vouchers are the unholy alliance we have grown to be so ashamed of, Right wing Catholics and Right wing Evangelicals.

No one ever said that a fundamentalist used either logic or reasoning to arrive at incorrect conclusions. I submit that you shame God by refusing to use your brain. Nothing like a closed mind. I’m sure that’s what he gave it to you for. Only those who can look at a frog and declare it bird shall be saved.

 

[mmortal03]

Dear MMortal03:

Your arguments claim to be logical. But they are not…if you want the definition of “good” then take the time to lookmit up.

It isn’t a new term…it hasn’t changed in meaning…so take the time to read “all” of the great philosphers first before you try to apply “feeling” instead of logic.

Your posts are completely defensive and lack the classic linear logic that many atheists show in their writings.

There is not one point in “rhetoric and/or logic” that my previous posting lacked in this discussion. It was based on philosophy and fact…no less.

It was also not an attack upon your intelligence or person. In fact, I thought the PS joke about Marx might give you a laugh.

Whether you are an atheist, a pantheist, a polytheist, or a monotheist…when you place yourself above logic, rhetoric, and linear thought…in Philosophical debate…your opinions are no longer of consequence in a discussion based on those principles.

You stated that you had read a little philosophy…but you didn’t really seem to have the time for it, yet you expect me to quote exact phrasing…OK…I did so with Nietche.

And if you are going to engage in such a debate on a Catholic religious site then you need to know the philosphy and teachings of the Catholic Faith and those of greater Christianity.

If we are going to engage in intellectual arguments and debate we must be intellectually honest enough to do so without attacking the opposing debater (not necessarily myself).

This goes just as well for those who may feel fit to attack you. It does not serve the task at hand.

If we are all about Truth then let us see about it.

Yours in Christ,

Veritashunter

Thanks Veritashunter for your calm statements. However, I think you have mistaken where I was coming from on a number of points, and you have furthermore misinterpreted my mood/disposition. I might be on the defensive in the sense that I am responding to more questions than I am asking, but I am not flustered or anything. Also, I would be the last person to consciously apply “feelings” to my posts in a topic like this.

I will get back to you soon and try to keep my comments in a more traditional, linear fashion when responding to you. If it seems as if I am jumping around on stuff, it is because I was limited for time at that particular moment. Soon I will have a little more time to spare.

 

[mmortal03]

When I started this journey (2008 belief solidification) I started with Beyond Belief ( web site that had talks from the Beyond Belief seminar) and listened to all of the talks. As the talks went on It became obvious that this was all old rehash of the atheists of the Enlightenment from the 17 and 18 hundreds. The biologists like PZ Meyers were reacting to ID fundamentalism, Sam Harris is just being Sam Harris, what can I say. Neill Degrasse was simply being a toady to Sam Harris and that was embarrassing since I had high regard for Neill’s Nova segments.

All in all, what I came away with was an image of teenagers rebelling against a parent. They knew it all and didn’t need the old man any more.

Then I proceeded to the ASA talks and listened to Francis Collins and Kenneth Miller. They seemed to be a little past the teenage stage and had learned to focus on the real culprit, the ID and YE false science.

What it all taught me was that it takes a careful approach to weed out what is reaction and what is truth and to accept paradox. No religion can accurate reflect God, being human it will be broken and only in that brokenness can you see the work of God. Most atheism is a reaction to why it is not perfect forgetting it never was and never will be until this is all over. Look for paradox and you find truth.

It would be quite interesting to sit down with you and re-watching Beyond Belief to hear your comments as it went along, because I have also watched it in its entirety, and came away with an entirely different perspective of it than you did.

 

[mmortal03]

Mmortal–I’ve read the foregoing discussion with great interest. I am a believer, yet I am compelled to say that your statements are full of logic, patience, and quiet thoughtful discourse. I wish I could say the same for the believers side of the spectrum which is all too often rude, and insulting, and meant to be just that.

The ironic thing is that most believers and most atheists get along quite well, and find a good deal of common ground. That always ends when one attempts discussion with extremes. Then it becomes a full court rant. Thanks for attempting to keep the conversation elevated to an intellectual discourse.

Thank you for your kind words. I have found your contributions to this thread to also be very clear and helpful. Yes, let’s do try to keep the conversation elevated to an intellectual discourse!

 

[mmortal03]

Now that was interesting to me. I am a kind of cut the intellectual garbage type person and there has been volumes of this type of garbage in these discussions. I have read a considerable share of the posts within this thread and could find no examples of a positive, successful outcome based on your clame that there is one.

I never came here to start making those claims, but I could definitely mention some of them once I have more time to organize my thoughts about them. I think that they do exist, however, like I said, it might be more wise for me to point to some individuals who have already done the work, than to reinvent the wheel. More on that later, I guess.

As well, you are also influence by your Christian upbring and are not a “pure” atheist. You stated that clearly by your “once was a Catholic but no longer” statement so you are not part of the “pure sample” population that I am looking for…ie. someone born from birth, never believing in God. You have actually turned on those beliefs based on some framework of “logic” that you have come up with.

It is true that I am not a “pure” atheist from birth, however, I will also say that I never really believed in God once I became an adult. As Daniel Dennett describes it, I just believed in the belief in God. I tried to because I was supposed to, but it never really set in. I believe that I could have been raised just the same morally without the God part of it, as my parents didn’t really connect most of morality they taught me with the Bible or the Church.It wasn’t “don’t do this because God says so” it was “don’t do this, and here is a logical reason why”.

I have friends who were raised atheists, but with quite the golden rule type of morality. They aren’t some deviant libertine hedonists or something, they are fine people, kind and considerate.

I am not going to go into parsing your statements… sometimes getting someone in a burr and shaking their tree can be good for them. It appears I have accomplished that.

Whatever you need to do, sir.

I think your intent is that people in this consider a world without God.

Well, it is more about putting my current beliefs to the test, than convincing others. Yes, I think it might do others some good to put themselves in an atheist’s shoes and clear away any stereotypes, but that is up to them, and not my goal here.

My intent is that you return to the Church and the Love of God.

The logic of the Spirit of God is the only True logic.

No doubt you would!

Sorry, I’ve been naughty. Thanks for the information. You’ve made some interesting points.

Thanks, and I’m glad there will be no escalation, as it would only be detrimental to the thread.

When I go and visit the most Holy and Blessed Sacrament of Jesus Christ here on earth, in spite of my being a sinner, I will recommend him to you in spite of your current lack of interest.

Thank you for the thought.

Good luck in searching for whatever it is you are looking for. It is doubtful that I will ever understand it nor am I willing to take an adventure to the “world without God” to find out.

That’s what my family says to me as well. Understanding sometimes takes many repetitions of the same material until you “get it”, and not always is someone willing to go down that path. That is completely a personal decision. I decided to go down it, and found intellectual enlightenment. I can’t say what will happen with other individuals.

 

[Chuck_H]

It would be quite interesting to sit down with you and re-watching Beyond Belief to hear your comments as it went along, because I have also watched it in its entirety, and came away with an entirely different perspective of it than you did.

I don’t know your background so if this is wrong forgive me.

I may have one leg up on you when it comes to these types of conferences. Having sat through several years of genetics conferences I have listened to some bizarre ideas delivered with absolute certainty by men and women who were doing little more than whistling Dixie but with great aplomb and good public speaking mannerisms. Undoubtedly, I myself have shot BS with the same ability when I was seeking to make my tiny contribution look like Nobel stuff

This doesn’t mean that everyone was instantly disregarded. It took a while to see where there was circular logic and where there wasn’t.
A prime example is Paul Davies talk (The goldilocks universe). He was forced to go into a metaphysical construct that had platonistic overtones to avoid simply saying, “Well, it all seems like this was planned all along” But he did it soooooo welll!

His early statement that (if we say God made the rules of physics) then all of science is absurd) is ridiculous. It’s comparable to saying that since Playschool made this complex learning toy then children will get nothing out of working with it since all of the mechanics and principles were designed into it. He might be right if God left a manual to the universe and left us nothing to discover but it would appear that the universe was left here with no instructions but clear cut rules that allow learning and certainty in our discoveries.
What I could agree with was the possibility that theories are infinite and that no matter how many we discover there will always be more. The best “toys” are the ones we can use from day one on and never get old. It looks like “Dad” knew just what to get us.

 

[BiblicalDavid]

I never came here to start making those claims, but I could definitely mention some of them once I have more time to organize my thoughts about them. I think that they do exist, however, like I said, it might be more wise for me to point to some individuals who have already done the work, than to reinvent the wheel. More on that later, I guess.

It is true that I am not a “pure” atheist from birth, however, I will also say that I never really believed in God once I became an adult. As Daniel Dennett describes it, I just believed in the belief in God. I tried to because I was supposed to, but it never really set in. I believe that I could have been raised just the same morally without the God part of it, as my parents didn’t really connect most of morality they taught me with the Bible or the Church.It wasn’t “don’t do this because God says so” it was “don’t do this, and here is a logical reason why”.

I have friends who were raised atheists, but with quite the golden rule type of morality. They aren’t some deviant libertine hedonists or something, they are fine people, kind and considerate.

Whatever you need to do, sir.

Well, it is more about putting my current beliefs to the test, than convincing others. Yes, I think it might do others some good to put themselves in an atheist’s shoes and clear away any stereotypes, but that is up to them, and not my goal here.

No doubt you would!

Thanks, and I’m glad there will be no escalation, as it would only be detrimental to the thread.

Thank you for the thought.

That’s what my family says to me as well. Understanding sometimes takes many repetitions of the same material until you “get it”, and not always is someone willing to go down that path. That is completely a personal decision. I decided to go down it, and found intellectual enlightenment. I can’t say what will happen with other individuals.

I appreciate your comments, They are very thoughtful and interesting. Everyone has a different path or journey. That is part of the beauty and the condundrum of the free will.

Sounds like I am almost family then…

 

[buffalo]

Remember the title of the thread.

 

[veritashunter]

Dear MMortal03:

I must apologize to you for a little deliberate misdirection on my part.

One of the best ways to immediately measure the disposition of a debater is to inject some emotion into the conversation and to criticize one’s method. It is an old strategy and usually proves very helpful when reflecting upon one’s response.

I am very pleased to say that you “didn’t go for the bait”! This shows me that you are more patient and more well-considered in your convictions.

I do think you are greatly mistaken about God and the moral relevance of good and evil in relation to God from both a rhetorical and philosophical perspective. And, in denying God one is most prone to attack from Satan because with no recognition of God (who is the Creator and author of all that is good) there can be no recognition of the devil (who is the destroyer and great liar fully dispensed to teh condemnation of the souls of men). This is the grave miscalculation with grave consequences. (Pascal’s Wager immediately comes to mind.)

But, unlike many atheists, I see a sense of integrity in your response.

Sorry for the “exercise” but it is usually the best way to get a “read” on a person’s character qualities in a very short time.

I look forward to corresponding with you in the future.

And, in the meanwhile, you and your conversion (or reconversion) will be in my prayers to the Lord “our” God.

Yours in Christ,

Veritashunter

“Salem, hob, wa atmanna. IncshAllah!”
“Peace, love, and hope. God willing!”

 

[jcrichton]

This is true, that is why I clarified things. However, I also said that I recall examples of it happening, as well, but just that the argument didn’t need for it to be happening for it to be a sound argument.

And it was wrong that they did that whether or not their was a law explicitly saying that it was wrong. But this doesn’t seem to be synonymous with the scenario of institutionalized prayer in school.

Thanks. No pressure.

…the example I offered on Blacks being allowed to vote, on the books (law of governnace), while simultaneously being kept, physically, from actualizing their right to vote has a pertinent connection to the issue of prayers in public schools: the law says we have the right to do so but there are elements (on both sides I may add) that circumvent the law. (Had I thought that this issue would arise I would have kept the news footage of the various incidents relating to school prayer…)

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Last paragraph has always intrigued me. The “selective” mindset of who is Automaton? On the one hand we are accused of being blind followers of God with no direction of our own but the accusing group is doing the same thing in the guise of "their own thing. " They impose their rules of “new and innovative” thought and reason as a solution to the errors of all religion. Yet fail to realise that their ideas are not really that new and some have spun out of the influnce of God believing peoples. It’s unavoidable but, once again, we are enjoying the intellectual tantrum of another, swearing up and down that he is more enlighted and “free thinking” that Catholics, Jews, Muslims or other sects. And he is going to fix our nonsensical problems because they are all based on some kind of superstition or bead counting. What a stinking , repulsive, short sighted, hypocritical disregard for history, other peoples beliefs, and the wisdom found in many of these religious faiths.

I have a driving question for mmortal… so I will ask again. What do you want? Why are you here? Can you give me a positive and enlighting example of your utopia of a world with complete athiesm?

I concur with your observations… as I’ve stated I’m a fan of SciFi… we can find anything in this genre… but if you truly follow it you will find that it is immersed in “religious” and “moral” teachings… these, though not presented as organized religion, are very much the foundations of the “liberated” world: “God is dead, ‘x’”

The values that are imposed are, for the most part, anti-Christian; yet, they continue to espouse them to the Christian values–otherwise these would loose complete sense of authority.

The same goes for the mind set of those who consider themselves “above” God because they believe that God was an invention founded on superstition and lack of intellectualism. Hence, their repertoire cannot but be dismissive of any thought other than that which directly supports them or in the least is “open-minded” enough to agree with their philosophy. I equate this mentality to the gay issue: some reverse psychology that claims that if anyone has an issue against it it is only because that person is gay and is too afraid to come out of the closet.

It is perverse: It takes away freedom of thought and calls it enlightenment.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

No you haven’t, you have just moved the reference point from something that is unknowable, to something that can be compared and debated.

I must be realy simple or quite incapable of expressing a clear thought… if you remove morality by imposing your own, as I would, as the next person would, as those in the immediate environment (as that old commercial: tell two friends and they tell two friends…) morality ceases to exist.

Quote:
You spouse yourself as a “free” “intellectual” thinker and you desire to place atheism as an apex to society’s growth…

I did say that it might be true that people need belief in God, or at least religion, to keep their actions in check. If that is the case, let’s create the least dependent on superstition and metaphysical one that we can to keep them satisfied.

…“superstition,” “keep them satisfied,” Is that not altruism at its best: allowing me to be satisfied through superstition–thanks!

Quote:
…when humans exclude a higher Being in their lives they themselves become that omnipotent being.

Is that bad that then those of us who are good can do the best we can at solving the problem objectively, using evidence of the world we live in?

You are describing a fantastic utopia where man’s ego and greed does not exists… where power and exploitation are none existent… where love conquers all because man is good or is it god?
Reality check: Power corrupts; Greed and Lust infest.

Quote:
,the moral compass being so disfunctional that one industry upon another has sought the means to strip…

I can also see that these things (speaking in as general of terms as you described them) are bad, but it isn’t because people are taking morality into their own hands, it is because they themselves are doing immoral things.

Your logic is flawed. People believe that they are moral; hence, whatever they do is morally correct.

Less government and no God IS better. I don’t see the necessary if and only if connection to these atrocities you speak of and these two things.

This is why it makes no sense for us to continue this argument. You have selective reasoning and refuse to accept reality:

Once the various industries gained their “freedom” from God and the government airplanes began to drop from the skies at decreasing intervals, brazen and destructive takeovers stripped employees of their prosperity, billions of dollars were siphoned into “don’t know” land… yeah, no God and even less government works just right for the US.

It isn’t moral ambiguity that these things are occurring because of, it is just on different moral lines that they are. I am with you that people can have bad moral compasses and do bad things. Who do you think should be responsible for practically enforcing against what you find in these examples to differ from your morality in each of these situations?

A society that that killing its babies and then supports an industry that claims that it’s best to use the tissue of the just killed human babies for laboratory testing while performing marriage ceremonies for dogs, cats and other animals, in effect treating animals with higher respect than the children of man, is a society with ambiguous moral values, at best.

Nice that you mention Africa, because above you also mentioned genocide. You must also take a relative position on what is happening there in the name of a religion now in Darfur. You and I can both see that what is being done there is wrong, and both of us are coming from a relative position on it. Your interpretation of your religion’s moral code, and my interpretation of my non-religiously derived moral code both say it is wrong. There is no way to prove that mine is derived from something false, and yours from something true, as there is no way to prove that the God that yours supposedly comes from exists. It is just as relative in the practical sense as any other. Religious people can’t use the argument that theirs is absolute truth, because they can’t prove that their gods exist and therefore that their system of morality really came from their gods.

…to claim something does not make it so; people bent on genocide and rampant abuse of power are not doing so due to any religious belief, lest theirs is a god of hatred and destruction.

…you reject God’s existence while clinging to a “logic” (a belief system in itself) which hinges upon a myriad of chances, “just so” conditions for life’s emergence from the haphazard of chaos turned to order turned to chaos turn to order…

I don’t have a necessary problem with authority I just suggest that we should question it and not blindly adhere to it because it says to. Your thinking different than me doesn’t pain me, as I don’t doubt that you do your own thing. Bad logic pains me, though, which is why I try my best at being as logical as possible. What also pains me is people (especially children) who haven’t been allowed to freely question these things, and fall prey to such absolutes from one specific authority, when there are so many other possible alternatives. I would like to avoid guilt when there should be none, and harmful actions in the name of a particular dogma, when there should be none. These are, of course, relative concerns.

Again… your logic is based on unproven factors; yet, you believe that evolution actually happened just as scientists claim it happened (no blind faith there); you reject God because He did not reveal Himself to you as you’ve commanded Him (logically, that’s not egocentrism); you are concerned with children not being allowed to freely question things, yet you can only conceive my determination to believe in God as some sort of hindrance to my natural development (when you label me as an automaton, do you not see yourself playing “god?”)…

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[mmortal03]

The same goes for the mind set of those who consider themselves “above” God because they believe that God was an invention founded on superstition and lack of intellectualism.

I would argue that this happens on both sides, regarding the anti-intellectualism read. As far as the superstition side, probably not, though, becuase you can’t be superstitious of something that is not there.

Hence, their repertoire cannot but be dismissive of any thought other than that which directly supports them or in the least is “open-minded” enough to agree with their philosophy.

This is inevitable in the setting of a debate, as sides have been taken, and until you get to the crux of it, it will often just seem as if each side is manipulating their own separate set of variables, instead of each side manipulating the same set of variables.

Also, it would be kind of difficult to “sort of” be an atheist. In other words, you “sometimes” believe in, or live your life taking into consideration possible metaphysical stuff. Therefore, it is something quite different to debate with an atheist coming from a theist perspective, than debating with a theist from a different religion. In the former case, using the qualities of your god as components of your argument just doesn’t fly, for example.

 

[mmortal03]

…the example I offered on Blacks being allowed to vote, on the books (law of governnace), while simultaneously being kept, physically, from actualizing their right to vote has a pertinent connection to the issue of prayers in public schools: the law says we have the right to do so but there are elements (on both sides I may add) that circumvent the law. (Had I thought that this issue would arise I would have kept the news footage of the various incidents relating to school prayer…)

Maybe I missed that point. No doubt, though, do ignorant people circumvent the law at times. Again, it would be important to separate the ignorant atheists from those who are not. Some people don’t always get the full picture. Think of Protestants and Sola Scriptura. They think they are living the fullness of truth by just using the Bible alone, but from the Catholic perspective, this is false.

In the same way, there are flawed perspectives within the category of atheism, but it doesn’t mean that there aren’t fuller, more complete perspectives under the same roof.

 

[mmortal03]

jcrichton, I’ll get back to post #576 in a few days. I’m kind of caught up with some other stuff at the moment, and will be busy for a little less than a week. I’ll have yours and veritashunter’s posts bookmarked until then.