For Those Who Are Skeptical About God's Existence

[Bob4BVM]

My answer was originally going to be in jest, but the more I think about it, the more seriously I mean this…

Halftime at the Super Bowl. No…make it during the World Cup Final. Worldwide TV audience. Time is about to expire. Game tied. Everyone is on the edge of their seats. Suddenly, the sky is filled with deep purple clouds. There is a deafening thunder and a blinding flash of lightening. Everyone is filled with terror because they think it’s the end of the world. The Almighty assumes a form that we can see, sticks his head down through the clouds, and in a booming, terrifying voice yells, “YOU GUYS ARE REALLY STARTING TO **** ME OFF!!! I"M HERE. I"M WATCHING. WHEN YOU DIE, I’LL BE WAITING. YOU DO NOT WANT TO BE ON MY BAD SIDE!!! THE CATHOLICS (or the Jews, or the Muslims, or whomever) GOT IT RIGHT. FOLLOW THEIR TEACHINGS AND YOU’LL BE OK. IGNORE THEM AT YOUR PERIL.”

Now, before you start rolling your eyes and saying the God doesn’t operate that way, tell me…why not?? I go to mass with my wife every week and honestly, I look for a reason to believe. It simply isn’t there. But, if God were to make himself known in a grand manner that nobody could ignore, you could put a $1,000,000 bounty on atheists and no one would be able to collect…because there would BE not atheists.

Just my $.02.

Rick,

God WILL make himself known to YOU, maybe even in a grand manner that you could not ignore, if you just ask Him.
Here’s the big secret- God does not look down and see the great crowd…
He looks down and sees YOU, Rick.

Next time you are at Mass, when the priest holds up the Consecrated Host, look at it, because from it, Christ is looking out at YOU.
Waiting.
And He sees YOU, Rick, not the crowd.

He chose to do this incredible thing, to come to us in this approachable way.
He makes himself a prisoner of love, for us, waiting for our response.
If you do not believe He is there in the Host, ask Him.

 

[Bob4BVM]

Most anti-deists hold that there is no evidence to believe in God or that the evidence shows that there is no God.

My question is what evidence would be acceptable?

Again, the irrefutable evidence of personal experience.
He is willing to meet us exactly where and as we are, …But He does not come uninvited.

Does that sound too difficult ? …I am amazed every day at His response to a VERY FEEBLE request…

"Dear children, why don’t you just ASK ? "

 

[bridgeforsale]

Most anti-deists hold that there is no evidence to believe in God or that the evidence shows that there is no God.

My question is what evidence would be acceptable?

anti-deist (new term?).

The concept of god was always one founded in myth or being overwhelmed by I guess you could say nature.

When you look at the claimed accounts of “revelation” there’s usually more evidence to show they’re myth than otherwise. For instance, the Exodus is now believed a myth by the overwhelming majority of archeologists. No last minute escape of two millions Hebrews, no splitting red sea, no traping around the desert for 40 years (in a formation that would have been roughly 150 miles long). It was a story that stretched our imagination to begin with, but now given the archeological and historical evidence we have from that period, the experts have concluded it’s outside the range of historical possibility.

Of course the first six chapters of genesis have been long believed outside the range of the historical possibility (for this we have even more concrete science that dates the earth and universe, discoveries of perhaps millions of fossils and skeletons showing our evolutionary history, etc.).

The only thing left seems to be new testament claims (which, just to point out the obvious, themselves rely on the veracity of the old testament). But even NT claims are fairly easy to debunk. The christian tells me there were 500 witnesses of this resurrection event, yet not a single one mentioned (and no evidence from any indepedent source, besides one sentence in First Corinthians, a manuscript COPY btw that dates roughly a century after the original it allegedly mirrors was written).

Then we have a few sentences by Josephus, a blurb by Tacitus and one or two others, but no indepedent verification (outside the gospels and epistles themselves) attesting to the supernatural events claimed by Christianity. Even letters like those from Ignatius or Polycarp, or the Didache (frequently touted as evidence) don’t provide any testimony. It only shows there were Christians in the first century (a claim few atheists I’ve ever heard deny or try to deny). As if sticking around for a really long time makes absurd stories any less absurd? Greco-Roman and Egyptian mythology had a long shelf-life, does that mean they were true? So proof that there were Christians in the first century is no evidence at all really. At least it doesn’t help discern whether or not the claims made by the bible actually happened (though it might be useful in some way in denominational disputes among different types of Christians).

Catholics will tell me about the 65 people who were cured after visiting Lourdes. I counter by saying 65 people out of over 5 million sick visitors, statistically speaking, is no evidence at all. There’s absolutely no reason to believe those people wouldn’t have recovered from their illnesses if they never visited Lourdes in the first place. Indeed a true miracle would be if an amputee regrew a limb, but of course there’s never any miracles like that are there? Indeed every Catholic miracle claim I’ve looked at can be similarly addressed (many even debunked more forcefully).

And these type of myths are where we derive the idea of a god. Today it’s Christianity, for the ancients it was their mythological figures, but the idea of a god has never been premised on real evidence. Even ancient metaphysicists who created elaborate theories supporting the idea of a god, didn’t invent the idea of a god themselves. They inherited the idea from those before them, primitive people who must have been overwhelmed beyond our comprehension when they witnessed something like a solar eclipse.

Now religion is propped up by institutions who will fight tooth and nail to survive. In other words religion will continue because of human self-interest (and no other reason). Nevertheless, the most rational position, I believe, is that of an atheist.

 

[rick43235]

It would be cool in a way if it worked like that. But one problem. If God did do that… would you still be you? The things you do or say. Would they be a true indication of the person you are?

Of course I’d still be me. I’d just have a bit more information to work with.

 

[rick43235]

It would be cool in a way if it worked like that. But one problem. If God did do that… would you still be you? The things you do or say. Would they be a true indication of the person you are?

Of course I’d still be me. I’d just have a bit more information to work with.

 

[rick43235]

Also, remember that as much as He wants us to know Him, His love for us forces Him to respect our free will.

Informing us of His existence in an unmistakable way would have no effect on our free will. I would just give us a more complete and accurate picture of reality.

 

[ricmat]

Informing us of His existence in an unmistakable way would have no effect on our free will. I would just give us a more complete and accurate picture of reality.

What you do when no one is looking IS the “real you.”

Yes, you would still have free will if you know that someone is looking. But it seems to me that if you will only do the right thing when you know someone is looking, one hasn’t “arrived” yet where we are supposed to be. We need to arrive via an un-coerced route.

I just re-read the above, and confused myself even though I wrote it. If it doesn’t make sense, just continue on to the next post…

 

[rick43235]

What you do when no one is looking IS the “real you.”

Yes, you would still have free will if you know that someone is looking. But it seems to me that if you will only do the right thing when you know someone is looking, one hasn’t “arrived” yet where we are supposed to be. We need to arrive via an un-coerced route.

I just re-read the above, and confused myself even though I wrote it. If it doesn’t make sense, just continue on to the next post…

No problem…I get your meaning.

But as a “believer,” aren’t you already being coerced? As a Catholic, I assume you believe that it would be a mortal sin to skip Sunday mass. I also assume that you believe that to die with an un-confessed mortal sin on your soul would mean a trip to a very hot, unpleasant place from which there is no return. If the penalty for the mortal sin was reduced from “eternal damnation” to “get a firm talking-to from St. Peter before entering the Pearly Gates,” don’t you think mass attendance might fall off a bit?

The point I’m trying to make is that if you currently “believe,” a strong motivation for your adherence to Church laws/rules is to avoid God’s punishment. If God were to make a grand, unmistakable announcement regarding his existence and what he expects, then the rest of us unbelievers would be motivated to fall into step too.

 

[ricmat]

No problem…I get your meaning.

But as a “believer,” aren’t you already being coerced? As a Catholic, I assume you believe that it would be a mortal sin to skip Sunday mass. I also assume that you believe that to die with an un-confessed mortal sin on your soul would mean a trip to a very hot, unpleasant place from which there is no return. If the penalty for the mortal sin was reduced from “eternal damnation” to “get a firm talking-to from St. Peter before entering the Pearly Gates,” don’t you think mass attendance might fall off a bit?

Yes, Mass attendance would fall off. But the people who go only because of the fear of eternal punishment are going for the wrong reason.

It’s not only WHAT we do that counts, but also WHY we do it. I don’t know if you are familiar with this version of the Act of Contrition - “Oh my God, I am heartily sorry for having offended thee, and I detest all my sins because of thy just punishment, but MOST OF ALL because they offend thee, my God who art all good and deserving of all my love. I firmly resolve with the help of thy grace to sin no more and to avoid the near occasions of sin. Amen”

In this prayer, there are 2 reasons given for “doing the right thing” - fear of punishment, and love of God. Love of God is the reason we should be striving for. In fact, God is love, and the reason we were created is to share the inner love of the Trinity in the fullest possible way. Our jobs on earth, should we decide to accept them, is to learn to love God in the same way he loves us. Only in that way can we see the face of God, and know him as he truly is, in all his beauty, majesty, and glory. And we need to be just like God (in terms of purity) to be with God.

Love cannot be forced. Love cannot be coerced. Love needs to be freely given. So we should try to do everything for the glory of God, and out of love for God. If we truly understand how much God loves us, we could not in any way offend him. In that case, the fear of Hell doesn’t even enter into the picture.

So some people do the right thing because of fear of Hell. That’s better than doing the wrong thing. It may get us to heaven, but not as close to God in heaven as we were intended to get.

IMHO.

 

[KyivAndrew]

The problem is this book is based on, at this point, antiquated cosmology. The big bang is no longer in vogue among theoretical physicists (who have moved beyond Lemaitre’s theory at this point). Now it’s the “big bounce” (and the associated theory of loop quantum gravity).What’s worse (for theists that is) the idea of infinite regression (once thought impossible by such notable philosophers as Aquinas) is now possible (maybe even likely).

What!? Nobody can say anything with scientific proof of what came before the Big Bang. Was there space and time in such and earlier universe like in our universe? Or were there merely mathematical points before the Big Bang. Just because certain atheists have personal, emotional problems with the Big Bang and grab at straws to avoid it doesn’t make their “hypotheses” on what came before the Big Bang any more believable or verifiable. Even atheists on CAF will admit they have no clue what came before the Big Bang.

From the Catholic News Agency: New astrophysical discoveries leave little to no room for Atheism, expert says:

Fr. Spitzer explained that, since science is based on a empirical model, it can change at any time. Nevertheless, as science develops and the so called “Big Bang” theory of the origin and existence of the universe becomes more refined, “it becomes less and less possible for other explanations (of the universe) to be scientifically viable.”

The theory, developed by the Belgian Catholic priest and astronomer Georges Lemaître, proposes that the Universe has expanded from a primordial dense initial condition at some time in the past (currently estimated to have been approximately 13.7 billion years ago), and continues to expand to this day.

The model, according to Fr. Spitzer, has been revised, refined and scientifically established to a point that any other theory of the origin and existence of the universe has become harder and harder to defend.

Fr. Spitzer explained that, what we know from the most recent scientific evidence is that “the universe is not the universe of Mr. Newton anymore, it is not infinite, it is finite, it started at some point, and is in constant expansion.”

He then explained the complexity of the universe, saying it is based on “an incredibly delicate balance of 17 cosmological constants. If any of them would be off by one part of a tenth at a forty potency, we would be dead and the universe would not be what it is.”

“Every single Big Bang model shows the existence of what scientists call a ‘singularity,’ and the existence of each singularity demands the existence of an external ‘element’ to the universe,” Fr. Spitzer said.

The priest physicist then proceeded to explain the different, complex versions of the various Bing Bang theories.

He quoted Roger Penrose, the world-famous English mathematician and physicist, who corrected some of the theories of his friend and colleague Stephen Hawkins to conclude that every Big Bang theory, including the one known as Quantum theory, confirms the existence of singularities. Therefore, said Spitzer, the need to find an explanation to the universe’s existence drives us to seek “a force that is previous and independent from the universe.”

Fr. Spitzer also quoted the 2003 experiments by three leading cosmologists, Arvin Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin, who were able to prove that any universe which has, on average, been expanding throughout its history cannot be infinite in the past but must have a past space-time boundary.

“The concept at this point is clear: nothing is nothing, and from nothing, nothing comes, since nothing is… nothing!” Fr. Spitzer said, to explain the fact that contemporary astrophysics demands “something with sufficient power to bring the universe into existence.”

“It sounds like a theological argument, but is really a scientific conclusion.

“There is no way to ignore the fact that it demands the existence of a singularity and therefore of a Creator outside space and time,” he added.

catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=17267

 

[AJTheMan]

For anyone who is skeptical about God’s existence, this excerpt from “The Reason For God” might make you rethink what you believe.
books.google.com/books?id=-eUbFMEY49QC&pg=PA129&lpg=PA129&dq=The+Reason+For+God+contingent&source=bl&ots=n7lv3VYlNK&sig=Hppsu3McHXlNgM6lGg77OdSsfNY&hl=en&ei=oTYXS-ekNZ6ltgeDyeXjBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CBcQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=&f=false (start on page 128 with “The Mysterious Bang” and stop at the section titled “The Cosmic Welcome Mat” on page 129)
I would like to hear your thoughts on contingency and if you think it could relate to the possibility of the existence of a god.

I think it’s possible that there are gods. I just don’t see them as particularly important or relevant to my life. Not to mention the fact that even gods have their problems.

I think it’s possible for gods to exist but as of now I act with them as I act with Bigfoot – Never seen it, never heard it, never interacted with it, so it’s not important to my life’s functions. The plausibility of such a being existing goes on to personal experience or empirical evidence – of which neither have occurred for me. Cheers.

 

[KyivAndrew]

I agree with David Berlinski in The Devil’s Delusion that:

“If the Big Bang expresses a new idea in physics, it suggests an old idea in thought: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. This unwelcome juxtaposition of physical and biblical ideas persuaded the astrophysicist Fred Hoyle, an ardent atheist, to dismiss the Big Bang after he had named it. ‘So long as the universe had a beginning,’ Stephen Hawking has written, ‘we could suppose it had a creator’…There is a very natural connection between the fact that the universe had a beginning and the hypothesis it had a creator.
A universe that is expanding [the Doppler effect] is a universe with a clear path into the past. If things are now far apart, they must at one point have been close together; and if things were once close together, they must at one point have been hotter than they are now, the contraction of space acting to compress its constituents like a vise, and so increase their energy. The retreat into the past ends in a state in which material particles are at no distance from one another and the temperature, density, and curvature of the universe are infinite. Such a state is known as a singularity, and in the case of the cosmos it is known as the Big Bang singularity.
The cone tapering into the past must end. The lines of sight converge. The universe had a beginning.
If nothing else, the facts of Big Bang cosmology indicate that one objection to the argument that Thomas Aquinas offered is empirically unfounded: Causes in nature do come to an end…The hypothesis of God’s existence and the facts of contemporary cosmology are consistent”

Plus another argument against a big bounce theory is the evidence that has been accumulating over the last decades that our Universe is an Accelerating Universe, not one that is about to collapse in on itself in a Big Crunch.

 

[KyivAndrew]

Nevertheless, the most rational position, I believe, is that of an atheist.

And what kind of morality as an atheist to you subscribe to? Do you believe in right and wrong and do you believe in the existence of Evil?

 

[Reuben_J]

The concept of god was always one founded in myth or being overwhelmed by I guess you could say nature.

The statement is not consistent with one who based his belief on evidence and scientific proof. So it is just an opinion.

When you look at the claimed accounts of “revelation” there’s usually more evidence to show they’re myth than otherwise. For instance, the Exodus is now believed a myth by the overwhelming majority of archeologists. No last minute escape of two millions Hebrews, no splitting red sea, no traping around the desert for 40 years (in a formation that would have been roughly 150 miles long). It was a story that stretched our imagination to begin with, but now given the archeological and historical evidence we have from that period, the experts have concluded it’s outside the range of historical possibility.

It was a miracle. How can you expected archeological remnant and evidence as you would expect from ordinary great human achievement? It stretched our very imagination exactly because it was a miracle.

Of course the first six chapters of genesis have been long believed outside the range of the historical possibility (for this we have even more concrete science that dates the earth and universe, discoveries of perhaps millions of fossils and skeletons showing our evolutionary history, etc.).

Genesis is not about history, time or space. I would not expect you can get anything scientific or historical from it.

The only thing left seems to be new testament claims (which, just to point out the obvious, themselves rely on the veracity of the old testament). But even NT claims are fairly easy to debunk. The christian tells me there were 500 witnesses of this resurrection event, yet not a single one mentioned (and no evidence from any indepedent source, besides one sentence in First Corinthians, a manuscript COPY btw that dates roughly a century after the original it allegedly mirrors was written).

Why should we look for independent source? I don’t think that is practical given the situation and the era that it happened. People then were not interested to record the event more so for historical purpose. The 500 hundred were perhaps ordinary uneducated people. The resurrection was not big event.

You don’t have the internet or the press then, so I suppose pretty quickly lots were forgotten. What we have today were the words and the traditions of the apostles. Even the written account seemed to be an after thought considering that it was written long after the incident took place.

Then we have a few sentences by Josephus, a blurb by Tacitus and one or two others, but no indepedent verification (outside the gospels and epistles themselves) attesting to the supernatural events claimed by Christianity.

Do you have complete literature, unaltered and original for anything happened 2000 years ago today? From experts study, the Bible is the single book that has the highest number of original documents that are very close to the actual date. The method being used to verify it is an acceptable method being used for other historical writings too.

Catholics will tell me about the 65 people who were cured after visiting Lourdes. I counter by saying 65 people out of over 5 million sick visitors, statistically speaking, is no evidence at all. There’s absolutely no reason to believe those people wouldn’t have recovered from their illnesses if they never visited Lourdes in the first place. Indeed a true miracle would be if an amputee regrew a limb, but of course there’s never any miracles like that are there? Indeed every Catholic miracle claim I’ve looked at can be similarly addressed (many even debunked more forcefully).

Miracle is never to prove God per se except for the belief that God’s presence can be accompanied by signs and wonders. Most miracles are spiritual but there are physical as well that have been authenticated. If you want to prove God on this basis, you only need one real mircale out of the millions reported.

The Vatican has standard to be complied before announcing something as miracles, and they are far and few in between.

And these type of myths are where we derive the idea of a god. Today it’s Christianity, for the ancients it was their mythological figures, but the idea of a god has never been premised on real evidence. Even ancient metaphysicists who created elaborate theories supporting the idea of a god, didn’t invent the idea of a god themselves. They inherited the idea from those before them, primitive people who must have been overwhelmed beyond our comprehension when they witnessed something like a solar eclipse.

Now religion is propped up by institutions who will fight tooth and nail to survive. In other words religion will continue because of human self-interest (and no other reason). Nevertheless, the most rational position, I believe, is that of an atheist.

For me the only thing that can help an atheist cause is if you can prove that anything can happen by itself without anyone makes it to happen. So far there is no full conclusion that the Big Bang created the universe. There is no knowledge as to who responsible for it or how it happens.

 

[ralphinal]

anti-deist (new term?).

Just seeing if it moved the dial. New term

The concept of god was always one founded in myth or being overwhelmed by I guess you could say nature.

When you look at the claimed accounts of “revelation” there’s usually more evidence to show they’re myth than otherwise. For instance, the Exodus is now believed a myth by the overwhelming majority of archeologists. No last minute escape of two millions Hebrews, no splitting red sea, no traping around the desert for 40 years (in a formation that would have been roughly 150 miles long). It was a story that stretched our imagination to begin with, but now given the archeological and historical evidence we have from that period, the experts have concluded it’s outside the range of historical possibility.

Actually, that is not correct. There are more and more archeologists who hold that the story is true, just happened earlier than we used to think. The Naked Archeologist did a show on it. Very interesting. Basically, he proposed that it was like looking in news reports from the 1990s to find proof of World War II.

Of course the first six chapters of genesis have been long believed outside the range of the historical possibility (for this we have even more concrete science that dates the earth and universe, discoveries of perhaps millions of fossils and skeletons showing our evolutionary history, etc.).

And no Catholic is required to say that they are hisorical or scientific. In fact, most don’t.

The only thing left seems to be new testament claims (which, just to point out the obvious, themselves rely on the veracity of the old testament). But even NT claims are fairly easy to debunk. The christian tells me there were 500 witnesses of this resurrection event, yet not a single one mentioned (and no evidence from any indepedent source, besides one sentence in First Corinthians, a manuscript COPY btw that dates roughly a century after the original it allegedly mirrors was written).

Then we have a few sentences by Josephus, a blurb by Tacitus and one or two others, but no indepedent verification (outside the gospels and epistles themselves) attesting to the supernatural events claimed by Christianity. Even letters like those from Ignatius or Polycarp, or the Didache (frequently touted as evidence) don’t provide any testimony. It only shows there were Christians in the first century (a claim few atheists I’ve ever heard deny or try to deny). As if sticking around for a really long time makes absurd stories any less absurd? Greco-Roman and Egyptian mythology had a long shelf-life, does that mean they were true? So proof that there were Christians in the first century is no evidence at all really. At least it doesn’t help discern whether or not the claims made by the bible actually happened (though it might be useful in some way in denominational disputes among different types of Christians).

So, because there is no proof, you deny the NT, too. At least you are consistant.

Catholics will tell me about the 65 people who were cured after visiting Lourdes. I counter by saying 65 people out of over 5 million sick visitors, statistically speaking, is no evidence at all. There’s absolutely no reason to believe those people wouldn’t have recovered from their illnesses if they never visited Lourdes in the first place. Indeed a true miracle would be if an amputee regrew a limb, but of course there’s never any miracles like that are there? Indeed every Catholic miracle claim I’ve looked at can be similarly addressed (many even debunked more forcefully).

Maybe, maybe not.

And these type of myths are where we derive the idea of a god. Today it’s Christianity, for the ancients it was their mythological figures, but the idea of a god has never been premised on real evidence. Even ancient metaphysicists who created elaborate theories supporting the idea of a god, didn’t invent the idea of a god themselves. They inherited the idea from those before them, primitive people who must have been overwhelmed beyond our comprehension when they witnessed something like a solar eclipse.

So, have we outgrown God?

Now religion is propped up by institutions who will fight tooth and nail to survive. In other words religion will continue because of human self-interest (and no other reason). Nevertheless, the most rational position, I believe, is that of an atheist.

Alright, let us take the most rational position. Now, as a rational atheist, is there such a thing as an act which is always evil?

 

[bridgeforsale]

Just seeing if it moved the dial. New term

Actually, that is not correct. There are more and more archeologists who hold that the story is true, just happened earlier than we used to think. The Naked Archeologist did a show on it. Very interesting. Basically, he proposed that it was like looking in news reports from the 1990s to find proof of World War II.

I raise you you’re “not correct” with my “not correct”

Actually modern archeologists (the majority anyway) now view the Exodus as outside the range of historical possibility. With regard to Genesis, evolution dispensed with that long ago. With millions of fossils, some dating back 3 billion years, discovery of skeletal remains of 14 different species of hominid (our evolutionary ancestors) dated as millions of years old, not many places you can really go with the Adam and Eve myth (logically anyway).

And no Catholic is required to say that they are hisorical or scientific. In fact, most don’t.

OK, and I do understand that (although I strains credibility when one understands how interdependent the bible is, from beginning to end). Nevertheless, we have no evidence supporting the supernatural claims of the bible, NONE (not a drop). Every bit of apologetics I’ve ever heard (and believe me I’ve debated against some supposedly good protestant apologists on other sites, so I know the arguments) is far fetched, unsupportable, etc. There’s always an excuse why evidence is lacking, always a far fetched story to explain how events did occur that by any reasonable archeological and historical measure, we know couldn’t have occurred, etc. etc.

So, because there is no proof, you deny the NT, too. At least you are consistant.

That’s one reason yes. I expect a god, who is now allegedly reading my mind, who can count the hairs on my head, who created our universe, existed eternally, can do anything, bla bla bla … to be able to transmit information a little more efficiently than feeding us copies upon copies of yet more copies of ancient manuscripts people have been quibbling about for the last 2,000 years.

So, have we outgrown God?

obviously not yet … but hopefully we’ll advance to that point (before we kill each other over bronze age myths).

Alright, let us take the most rational position. Now, as a rational atheist, is there such a thing as an act which is always evil?

morality is the by-product of social evolution, intellectual development, human psychology, and so on. Through the human experience we have learned that there are acts, which are always evil.

Murder (as distinguished from killing, as in war) is a prime example of an objective, universal evil. However, even with this rule there’s exceptions right. I mentioned war, but there’s other instances where we intentionally kill people (namely self-defense). While these “other instances” preclude the lable of murder, this standard has been applied subjectively (in many cases by churches, like your own).

I suppose at one point a religious heretic was viewed as a threat to the community, and therefore his execution was sort of a self-defensive measure. It certainly wasn’t theists (or at least not religious partisans) who taught us the insanity of such policies, it was the secularist thinkers of the enlightenment.

Similarly I certainly don’t say atheists are immune from such lunacy (obviously that’s not true). Nevertheless it’s much harder to show a disbelief in something could inform one’s views pertaining to topics like political or economic philosophy, versus the complex dogmas of religion. I know you’ll say without religiosity they lack extrinsic limitations on their conduct; but, however good that idea might be in theory, it certainly hasn’t worked in practice.

The only guarantor of liberty and human rights, as far as experience tells us, are things like a rigorous checks and balances system, representative democracy, a sound judiciary founded on common law pricipals, etc. Indeed these ideals were founded by the rationalist thinkers of the enlightenment despite religion, not because of it.

 

[ralphinal]

I raise you you’re “not correct” with my “not correct”

Actually modern archeologists (the majority anyway) now view the Exodus as outside the range of historical possibility. With regard to Genesis, evolution dispensed with that long ago. With millions of fossils, some dating back 3 billion years, discovery of skeletal remains of 14 different species of hominid (our evolutionary ancestors) dated as millions of years old, not many places you can really go with the Adam and Eve myth (logically anyway).

Again, you are assuming that I hold that Genesis is literal. I do not. It was written to pass along religious truths to a primative people. The same is true for Exodus. What if the actual number was closer to 100,000? Then what would they say?

The idea that every word in the Bible means exactly what it says is a new concept. The Early Church ALWAYS had an understanding that some things were literal and some were figurative.

OK, and I do understand that (although I strains credibility when one understands how interdependent the bible is, from beginning to end). Nevertheless, we have no evidence supporting the supernatural claims of the bible, NONE (not a drop). Every bit of apologetics I’ve ever heard (and believe me I’ve debated against some supposedly good protestant apologists on other sites, so I know the arguments) is far fetched, unsupportable, etc. There’s always an excuse why evidence is lacking, always a far fetched story to explain how events did occur that by any reasonable archeological and historical measure, we know couldn’t have occurred, etc. etc.

Again, what holds true to Protestants may not be true to Catholics. The message of the Bible is that there is a God (only One) who wants a relationship with people. There. The details are not as important until you want to discuss how we know and the nature of the Relationship.

That’s one reason yes. I expect a god, who is now allegedly reading my mind, who can count the hairs on my head, who created our universe, existed eternally, can do anything, bla bla bla … to be able to transmit information a little more efficiently than feeding us copies upon copies of yet more copies of ancient manuscripts people have been quibbling about for the last 2,000 years.

Now, that is a logical statement. However, God has chosen a way to transmit information that does not remove our Free Will.

obviously not yet … but hopefully we’ll advance to that point (before we kill each other over bronze age myths).

I hope that we can outgrow the concept of death to those who are different…

morality is the by-product of social evolution, intellectual development, human psychology, and so on. Through the human experience we have learned that there are acts, which are always evil.

Alright. Let’s see where we go from here

Murder (as distinguished from killing, as in war) is a prime example of an objective, universal evil. However, even with this rule there’s exceptions right. I mentioned war, but there’s other instances where we intentionally kill people (namely self-defense). While these “other instances” preclude the lable of murder, this standard has been applied subjectively (in many cases by churches, like your own).

I suppose at one point a religious heretic was viewed as a threat to the community, and therefore his execution was sort of a self-defensive measure. It certainly wasn’t theists (or at least not religious partisans) who taught us the insanity of such policies, it was the secularist thinkers of the enlightenment.

WHY is murder a universal evil? WHY is theft one? WHY?

Similarly I certainly don’t say atheists are immune from such lunacy (obviously that’s not true). Nevertheless it’s much harder to show a disbelief in something could inform one’s views pertaining to topics like political or economic philosophy, versus the complex dogmas of religion. I know you’ll say without religiosity they lack extrinsic limitations on their conduct; but, however good that idea might be in theory, it certainly hasn’t worked in practice.

Actually, I will not say that. Every single moral teaching of the Catholic CHurch can be defended without religion. EVERY ONE.

The only guarantor of liberty and human rights, as far as experience tells us, are things like a rigorous checks and balances system, representative democracy, a sound judiciary founded on common law pricipals, etc. Indeed these ideals were founded by the rationalist thinkers of the enlightenment despite religion, not because of it.

Actually no. Enlightenment thinkers held on to one fact: All men have an intrinsic quality that entitles them to basic human rights. This is Catholic Theology 101. No matter what else can be said, we all are entitled to be treated with basic human dignity. Now, this concept does not exist in all of Christianity.

 

[bridgeforsale]

Again, you are assuming that I hold that Genesis is literal. I do not. It was written to pass along religious truths to a primative people. The same is true for Exodus. What if the actual number was closer to 100,000? Then what would they say?

The idea that every word in the Bible means exactly what it says is a new concept. The Early Church ALWAYS had an understanding that some things were literal and some were figurative.

I’m not an expert on early church history, except to say I’m familiar enough with late first and second century Hellenic and Roman history to know Christians weren’t very organized back then. For the most part they were very superstitious and expected the return of Christ in their life times (and had a very apocalyptic world view).

Moreover, at one time the church held so firmly to literalism they held to a quasi-official policy of geocentric cosmology. So I’m not sure your statement here tells the whole story.

Again, what holds true to Protestants may not be true to Catholics. The message of the Bible is that there is a God (only One) who wants a relationship with people. There. The details are not as important until you want to discuss how we know and the nature of the Relationship.

I don’t think official Catholic doctrine holds to this very obscure sort of quasi-deistic outlook.

Now, that is a logical statement. However, God has chosen a way to transmit information that does not remove our Free Will.

but isn’t this just a way to rationalize what is an obviously awkward and dare I say absurd set of circumstances? What you call free will others might fairly describe as gullible?

Accordingly, it seems, only the gullible will get into heaven?

WHY is murder a universal evil? WHY is theft one? WHY?

humans learned to hunt in groups, rather than individually, because we learned it was mutually beneficial to do so. We learned that it was mutually beneficial not to arbitrarily kill each other.

Like animals learned to travel in packs, and cooperate, so did we (obviously, given our much larger brain size, much more rapidly). We eventually learned how to make complex tools, cook our food, build dwellings, etc. just as we learned that it’s mutually beneficial to avoid stealing from one another, not assault one another, and so on.

We probably learned to care for our offspring through natural selection. I imagine any species who extinguished their offspring didn’t survive very long.

In other words there’s no grand mystery to explaining human morality. It’s the product of our intelligence, our social evolution, and learned experiences.

Actually, I will not say that. Every single moral teaching of the Catholic CHurch can be defended without religion. EVERY ONE.

today that might be true (I’m not sure), but I’m way beyond those type of inquiries. To me it’s enough to know it’s all bronze age mythology.

Actually no. Enlightenment thinkers held on to one fact: All men have an intrinsic quality that entitles them to basic human rights. This is Catholic Theology 101. No matter what else can be said, we all are entitled to be treated with basic human dignity. Now, this concept does not exist in all of Christianity.

Many believed we are endowed by our creator with liberty (but not all). I believe we are all endowed with liberty, I just skip the creator part (since I think the better view is to assume a natural cause for the universe unless real evidence arises to the contrary).

Moreover, I think the CC has reshaped itself into this mold. Formerly it was an opponent of the enlightenment, but the enlightenment thinkers WON! This goes to show the church was never infallible. It’s ideals, morals, and collective intellect evolved … along with the rest of us.

 

[ralphinal]

I’m not an expert on early church history, except to say I’m familiar enough with late first and second century Hellenic and Roman history to know Christians weren’t very organized back then. For the most part they were very superstitious and expected the return of Christ in their life times (and had a very apocalyptic world view).

They were more organized than the Protestants would have you think. But, yes, they expected the return of Christ to be within their lives

Moreover, at one time the church held so firmly to literalism they held to a quasi-official policy of geocentric cosmology. So I’m not sure your statement here tells the whole story.

What I am saying is that the Church never, ever said that the only way to interpret the Bible is the Literal way. The School at Alexandria taught that there was an allegorical means to Biblical exegesis as well as a literal way.

I don’t think official Catholic doctrine holds to this very obscure sort of quasi-deistic outlook.

Amazing how you got deism out of “There is a God and he wants a relationship with man.” In fact, that is not deism of even quasi-deistic. If you want me to expound upon it, you will see that it is 100% Catholic Teaching. God first started with one holy family, moved through a clan, then a people, then a nation, and finally to a Church.

but isn’t this just a way to rationalize what is an obviously awkward and dare I say absurd set of circumstances? What you call free will others might fairly describe as gullible?

Accordingly, it seems, only the gullible will get into heaven?

Not at all. How is having self-determination being gullible? If I told you that you have no choice but to accept God, you would say (I bet) that you would not want to worship a God that FORCED you to worship Him. I can chose to deny the existance of God. I can say that the evidence does not support it. I can say that my life does not show the need for one. I can simply say that I do not believe and that is enough. In all cases, I have the free will to do so.

Why do I not? Because I also have the free-will to say that as great as Ralph is, and Ralph is great, there is more to life than me. Stepping back, the true claims that the Catholic Church makes fit all to well with the universe as we see it.

humans learned to hunt in groups, rather than individually, because we learned it was mutually beneficial to do so. We learned that it was mutually beneficial not to arbitrarily kill each other.

Like animals learned to travel in packs, and cooperate, so did we (obviously, given our much larger brain size, much more rapidly). We eventually learned how to make complex tools, cook our food, build dwellings, etc. just as we learned that it’s mutually beneficial to avoid stealing from one another, not assault one another, and so on.

And yet there have been societies without all of these norms.

We probably learned to care for our offspring through natural selection. I imagine any species who extinguished their offspring didn’t survive very long.

In other words there’s no grand mystery to explaining human morality. It’s the product of our intelligence, our social evolution, and learned experiences.

So, why is eugenics wrong? Would that not be insuring the survival of the fittest? Modern man has removed evolution from the process with medical care and all. Shouldn’t we embrace eugenics?

today that might be true (I’m not sure), but I’m way beyond those type of inquiries. To me it’s enough to know it’s all bronze age mythology.

So, the fact that the Catholic morality can be defended without God is meaningless to you because it is still Catholic. How very open minded.

In other words, you want a world without religion. When a religion says that we can still hold to our same morality, you still want to discount that. INteresting.

Many believed we are endowed by our creator with liberty (but not all). I believe we are all endowed with liberty, I just skip the creator part (since I think the better view is to assume a natural cause for the universe unless real evidence arises to the contrary).

Moreover, I think the CC has reshaped itself into this mold. Formerly it was an opponent of the enlightenment, but the enlightenment thinkers WON! This goes to show the church was never infallible. It’s ideals, morals, and collective intellect evolved … along with the rest of us.

Actually, it does not show anything of the sort. The first right that we have is the right to exist. Liberty is meaningless if we cannot exist. TO hold that Liberty is more important than Life is silly

The CC has not bowed to the enlightenment. IN fact, much of what has resulted from it is still as wrong as it was 1000 years ago. What the Church has done, and most of Western society with it, is seen all living humans as humans. Sadly, many outside of the Church are returning to a system where not all humans are seen as such.

 

[bridgeforsale]

What I am saying is that the Church never, ever said that the only way to interpret the Bible is the Literal way. The School at Alexandria taught that there was an allegorical means to Biblical exegesis as well as a literal way.

OK, but it seems to me (I could be wrong) that the CC held to an almost bizarre literalism (as late as the Galileo affair, where the scientist refuted a church reading of scripture the church believed enumerated a geocentric cosmology).

So whether or not there were alternative methods of interpreting the bible, doesn’t seem to have trickled down to lay Catholics (until quite recently).

Amazing how you got deism out of “There is a God and he wants a relationship with man.” In fact, that is not deism of even quasi-deistic. If you want me to expound upon it, you will see that it is 100% Catholic Teaching. God first started with one holy family, moved through a clan, then a people, then a nation, and finally to a Church.

I must have glossed over where you said “a relationship with man” (which indeed is not deistic). Nevertheless, the CC does (to my knowledge) preach the necessity of Christ (although I think their dogma has enough flexibility to grant that those from other faiths may potentially be “saved” as well … but I’m not an expert here).

Not at all. How is having self-determination being gullible? If I told you that you have no choice but to accept God, you would say (I bet) that you would not want to worship a God that FORCED you to worship Him. I can chose to deny the existance of God. I can say that the evidence does not support it. I can say that my life does not show the need for one. I can simply say that I do not believe and that is enough. In all cases, I have the free will to do so.

First, to call the choice between eternal paradise and eternal damnation a choice at all smacks of absurdity. Moreover, atheists tend to be from the (I guess you could say) “intelligentia” – while the extremely religous tend to be from the lower rungs of life.

This gives the impression that gullibility is a factor.

Why do I not? Because I also have the free-will to say that as great as Ralph is, and Ralph is great, there is more to life than me. Stepping back, the true claims that the Catholic Church makes fit all to well with the universe as we see it.

I’m confident the claims made by Christiantiy (and all contemporary world religions) are false (at least insofar as their supernatural claims). I’ve seen the evidence (or better stated lack thereof), I’ve looked at the archeology, and I’ve seen the best logical arguments theistic apologists have … and none are persuasive in the least.

And yet there have been societies without all of these norms.

such as?

So, why is eugenics wrong? Would that not be insuring the survival of the fittest? Modern man has removed evolution from the process with medical care and all. Shouldn’t we embrace eugenics?

First survival of the fittest is a little understood maxim (and probably a poor choice words by Hebert Spencer). Natural selection is also called adaptive evolution. The term survival of the species or sub-species that best adapts to its environment is more likely to survive, would have made the point Spencer was trying to make much better (but I guess it was too long to succeed as a snappy maxim ). This has nothing to do with physical strength, intelligence, or any particular genetic factor we might associate with fitness, strength, or superiority.

In industrial England moths that were blackened by the smog and soot emitted by factories survived (while their pale counterparts almost became extinct) simple because being darker allowed them to better hide from their preditors.

Secondly, there’s forms of eugenics happening today (i.e. designer babies). Many view this as fine (including theists). However, I don’t think it’s been researched enough. I’m concerned because altering the DNA of future generations could have the exact opposite effect we’re looking for.

Thus far nature has fine tuned itself through a random process of natural selection. So we have to step carefully before we tamper with its work (since it’s easy to conceive how such efforts might backfire). From a moral standpoint I also don’t think we’ve thought this thing through. Do we really want to include in the laundry list of advantages more affluent children have a genetic advantage (that those from poorer background won’t possibly be able to compete with)?

Unfortunately having the church involved in this debate actually harms the chances rational thinking will prevail.

So, the fact that the Catholic morality can be defended without God is meaningless to you because it is still Catholic. How very open minded.

I think we’d be better off with some other entity defending these morals (since when it comes from the CC people are less inclined to listen to it, not more inclined).

In other words, you want a world without religion. When a religion says that we can still hold to our same morality, you still want to discount that. INteresting.

I have no particular goals or desires with regard to religion. It’s baseless, premised on myths, and I’m inclined to believe people are better off premising their world view on things that are real. Nevertheless, I’m also willing to concede that religion might temper some people (and it might serve some purpose).

continued …