A
Adonia
Guest
You’re an Athiest? Read the story of Padre Pio!
- Status
C
Catholico
Guest
Padre Pio may well have been a fraud. Why were there holes in his hands when the greatest likelihood is that the holes would have been in the wrists? That is how people were crucified at the alleged time that Christ was allegedly crucified. Why was no film made of the formation of the stigmata from beginning to end? I know there are stills of his hands but these could have been self induced. Anyway, I’ve seen many amazing feats of the mind performed under hypnotism. This doesn’t mean there is a God.
Also the good Padre has a very checkered record with the Vatican. I’ve heard representatives of the Vatican express great skepticism about him based on the need that his parish had for money.
As for myself I’ve watched so called miracles come out of Italy and Spain and Mexico on television and most of them are laughable frauds. People seeing the Blessed Virgin in the bends of a window or bowing down before a picture of Christ that is bleeding are some examples I’ve seen. It is too bad that the blood turned out to be the blood of the woman who owned the picture. I’ve seen other miracles where entire communities plan their year on whether some blood of a Saint in a vial is flowing this year or not. What a group of fruitcakes!
Catholico :whacky:
Also the good Padre has a very checkered record with the Vatican. I’ve heard representatives of the Vatican express great skepticism about him based on the need that his parish had for money.
As for myself I’ve watched so called miracles come out of Italy and Spain and Mexico on television and most of them are laughable frauds. People seeing the Blessed Virgin in the bends of a window or bowing down before a picture of Christ that is bleeding are some examples I’ve seen. It is too bad that the blood turned out to be the blood of the woman who owned the picture. I’ve seen other miracles where entire communities plan their year on whether some blood of a Saint in a vial is flowing this year or not. What a group of fruitcakes!
Catholico :whacky:
T
Tom
Guest
Cathlico, there are several good books on well documented miracles, but I somehow doubt you will believe them unless God shows you personally. Personally, I have experienced miracles in my life, just briefly my eldest son, when he was 16 was in a severe traffic accident, he received 7 injuries which the doctors said should have each been fatal, they were so sure he was going to die they did not even treat him for the first three days he was in the hospital, all they did was provide hydration and oxygen, after the third day they began to treat his broken neck, there wasn’t much they could do for his lacerated liver ( it was torn into 3 pieces) or his torn brain stem, brain damage, broken ribs, ruptured lungs (except put a drain in), well as I said there were 7 deadly injuries, no need to dwell. That was 13 years ago, this past November, he currently is a computer programmer. No, this will never be reported as a miracle, but please don’t tell me miracles can’t happen.
C
Catholico
Guest
It is wonderful to hear of your son’s recovery.
I do believe there are many unexplained things in this world. Whether some invisible person of infinite power in heaven had anything to do with them is quite another matter.
Catholico
I do believe there are many unexplained things in this world. Whether some invisible person of infinite power in heaven had anything to do with them is quite another matter.
Catholico
B
BillyT92679
Guest
Well, Pio is a Saint, infallibly proclaimed as such by the Holy Roman Pontiff, so I would not throw around words like “fraud.”
A
Adonia
Guest
Look my friend, you have to have faith to believe! It is clear that you don’t. And that’s ok. It’s your eternal soul that is at stake here, and I will pray for you. There is the Bible passage that says you must believe as little children accept things (or something like that) and that is what I do. Try it. It’s really not that hard.
M
mlchance
Guest
Proof?
You’ve never seen anyone spontaneously manifest wounds under hypnotism. Such a feat is impossible.
Ad hominem, appeal to ridicule, biased sample, hasty generalization, and poisoning the well.
IOW: http://home.houston.rr.com/mchance3/rolleyes.gif
– Mark L. Chance.
B
BlindSheep
Guest
That is true, it is another matter. But it is based on the evidence. I am sure you can come up with a number of possible explainations for such unexplained events. The next step is to test these theories and see which is most likely. You wouldn’t be the first person to do so! Many of us have personal experiences that we consider evidence for our way of viewing the world, but which we obviously cannot prove to anyone else, since you will assume we are lying or delusional (if we cannot trust our own perceptions at least to some degree, we cannot believe anything, no?), or that we are missing some more probable explanation (perhaps we have already considered it, and rejected it as improbable based on our more intimate knowledge of the event). Therefore, you may have to take more on faith than, for instance, I have had to. I have believed because I have seen, but blessed are those who have not seen and have believed! I know this places you in a position of having to trust the testimony of others, a position I don’t envy; but perhaps there is a reason for that, too. Perhaps you have the potential for greater faith than I do.It is wonderful to hear of your son’s recovery.
I do believe there are many unexplained things in this world. Whether some invisible person of infinite power in heaven had anything to do with them is quite another matter.
Catholico
C
Catholico
Guest
I wasn’t aware that there is so much controversy about the practice of crucifixion through the hands or wrists. I had been assuming that Barbet’s experiments had pretty much dismissed the nail through the hands scenario. But Frederick T. Zugibe, M. D., Ph. D. conducted more recent experiments and has scholarly support for both hand and wrist nailing by crucifixion. See crucifixion-shroud.com/experimental_studies_in_crucifix.htmmlchance said:
There is ossuary evidence of at least one crucifixion victim who had no wounds at all through the hand area see: pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/jesus/crucifixion.html, but this doesn’t create a general case for exclusive wrist or arm crucifixion or suspending by ropes.
So I will back off from saying that Padre Pio’s hand stigmata alone tends to discredit him. I will, however, still assume that his stigmata is a fraud until it is definitely proven otherwise. In my book you are guilty of pious fraud until proven innocent.
No, I have seen extreme cases of strength and pain anaesthesia. There are rumors that blisters have formed from suggestion but I haven’t seen that.
You offered a short course in argument fallacies. Thank you!
As for my ridiculing the Blessed Virgin veneration and the vial of blood ritual I wasn’t offering it as an argument that proves that there are a lot of gullible Catholics. The vial ceremony is funtionally similar to Groundhog Day in Pennsylvania. I’m not going to argue that Punxsutawney Phil’s shadow perception doesn’t increase or decrease the severity of winter. I just assume that is an utterly assinine idea unworthy of any consideration.
Catholico
C
Catholico
Guest
I don’t have to have an explanation of it. Saying that God up in heaven with his Son at his right side and the cherubim and seraphim singing his praises while the Holy Ghost flaps around fanning the beatific vision caused the event is extremely adventurous. I will accept amazing things happening, but unless you have film of Our Lord and Master sending out his visible spirit vibes to create the amazing effect I must remain a staunch skeptic without a clue.
Catholico
B
BlindSheep
Guest
Than we are different. If a source is shown to be credible by a sufficient amount of evidence, I will assume other statements from that source are accurate, unless I have evidence to the contrary.I don’t have to have an explanation of it. Saying that God up in heaven with his Son at his right side and the cherubim and seraphim singing his praises while the Holy Ghost flaps around fanning the beatific vision caused the event is extremely adventurous. I will accept amazing things happening, but unless you have film of Our Lord and Master sending out his visible spirit vibes to create the amazing effect I must remain a staunch skeptic without a clue.
Catholico
D
Donald45
Guest
Reply to predatorCA, Posts 1 & 12:
My first thought is that, according to your profile, you’re around 20 years old, a fairly young age to settle on atheism as a worldview. Then again, given that there are no philosophical vacuums, we have to believe something, right? As someone barely out of his or her teens, however, I hope you’ll continue to pursue truth throughout your life. You seem intellectually honest, and somewhat aware of your own biases, so I have high hopes for you
.
You suggest that the theist is most interested in seeking “happiness” rather than “truth.” Of course, the experiences of countless people throughout history testify against such an assumption. As for myself, I had it all: Married with children, two university degrees in my pocket, a paid teaching position on staff at a Presbyterian church; my dreams were coming true. Then I made the “mistake” of reading primary theological material written by Catholic scholars, as well as the writings of the Early Church Fathers. The more I studied, the more “Catholic” I became. Long story short, I entered the Catholic Church in 2001. Had I been seeking “happiness,” I never would have gone through with it. Why? Because becoming Catholic, in a real sense, absolutely wrecked my life. My family went through a living hell with the stress our conversion caused (my wife is the daughter of a Baptist minister!); I had to resign my teaching position, a job I loved, and I’ve never been able to find a similar place for myself in the Catholic Church. The changes required by my own search for truth led to misery, not happiness. Yet, I’d do it all again, because truth is the only real reason to get out of bed in the morning, the only reason to live and die. And what would be the alternative? To live a lie so that I can “feel” good? This would be unacceptable to any intellectually honest person. Catholicism is truth, so here I stand.
Christian author, C.S. Lewis (himself a former atheist), observed the following: “A young man who wishes to remain a sound Atheist cannot be too careful of his reading. There are traps everywhere.” This has been my experience in the search for truth. In light of this, let me suggest a few traps…er, books…that might interest you in your own search:
Armand M. Nicholi, The Question of God: C.S. Lewis & Sigmund Freud Debate God, Love, Sex, & the Meaning of Life (Free Press, 2002).
William Lane Craig & Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, GOD? A Debate Between a Christian & an Atheist (Oxford, 2004).
Alister McGrath, The Twilight of Atheism: The Rise & Fall of Disbelief in the Modern World (Doubleday, 2004).
J.P. Moreland & Kai Nielsen, Does God Exist: The Great Debate (Nelson, 1990).
Paul Vitz, Faith of the Fatherless: The Psychology of Atheism (Spence, 1999).
Thomas Woods, How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization (Regnery, 2005).
Finally, a few web references:
catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0501dr.asp
catholic.com/thisrock/1995/9505fea2.asp
peterkreeft.com/home.htm
God bless, and happy reading.
Truly,
Don
My first thought is that, according to your profile, you’re around 20 years old, a fairly young age to settle on atheism as a worldview. Then again, given that there are no philosophical vacuums, we have to believe something, right? As someone barely out of his or her teens, however, I hope you’ll continue to pursue truth throughout your life. You seem intellectually honest, and somewhat aware of your own biases, so I have high hopes for you
.You suggest that the theist is most interested in seeking “happiness” rather than “truth.” Of course, the experiences of countless people throughout history testify against such an assumption. As for myself, I had it all: Married with children, two university degrees in my pocket, a paid teaching position on staff at a Presbyterian church; my dreams were coming true. Then I made the “mistake” of reading primary theological material written by Catholic scholars, as well as the writings of the Early Church Fathers. The more I studied, the more “Catholic” I became. Long story short, I entered the Catholic Church in 2001. Had I been seeking “happiness,” I never would have gone through with it. Why? Because becoming Catholic, in a real sense, absolutely wrecked my life. My family went through a living hell with the stress our conversion caused (my wife is the daughter of a Baptist minister!); I had to resign my teaching position, a job I loved, and I’ve never been able to find a similar place for myself in the Catholic Church. The changes required by my own search for truth led to misery, not happiness. Yet, I’d do it all again, because truth is the only real reason to get out of bed in the morning, the only reason to live and die. And what would be the alternative? To live a lie so that I can “feel” good? This would be unacceptable to any intellectually honest person. Catholicism is truth, so here I stand.
Christian author, C.S. Lewis (himself a former atheist), observed the following: “A young man who wishes to remain a sound Atheist cannot be too careful of his reading. There are traps everywhere.” This has been my experience in the search for truth. In light of this, let me suggest a few traps…er, books…that might interest you in your own search:
Armand M. Nicholi, The Question of God: C.S. Lewis & Sigmund Freud Debate God, Love, Sex, & the Meaning of Life (Free Press, 2002).
William Lane Craig & Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, GOD? A Debate Between a Christian & an Atheist (Oxford, 2004).
Alister McGrath, The Twilight of Atheism: The Rise & Fall of Disbelief in the Modern World (Doubleday, 2004).
J.P. Moreland & Kai Nielsen, Does God Exist: The Great Debate (Nelson, 1990).
Paul Vitz, Faith of the Fatherless: The Psychology of Atheism (Spence, 1999).
Thomas Woods, How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization (Regnery, 2005).
Finally, a few web references:
catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0501dr.asp
catholic.com/thisrock/1995/9505fea2.asp
peterkreeft.com/home.htm
God bless, and happy reading.
Truly,
Don
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
predator CA,
** The improbability of man’s random spontaneous generation **
See more: itsjustdave1988.blogspot.com/2005/12/improbability-of-mans-random.html
** The improbability of man’s random spontaneous generation **
Code:
Sir Francis Bacon asserted "***A little science estranges a man from God; a lot of science brings him back.***" This has certainly been my experience. Over the years, I've had conversations with atheists who have asserted to me that the evidence of science proves there is no God. What follows are excerpts from some of those conversations....
B
bear06
Guest
Interesting. So, you see no problems as long as everyone is a “moral” atheist?
It would appear that Predator has dissapeared but I just thought I’d throw out that question anyway.
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
In my view, we are only given freewill to choose to do as God wills. This is the standard of “right behavior.” It is immoral to do otherwise. When atheists speak of “moral behavior” they clearly hold to a different definition than Catholics. If being moral means conforming to a standard of right behavior, then the very word presumes “right behavior” is an already agreed upon first premise. If “right behavior” is subjective, than so is morality, which means in the final analysis that there is no good and evil. Many of my atheists friends don’t seem to understand the consequences of the “subjective morality” to which they subscribe.
B
bear06
Guest
Well, that’s where I was going with my question to Predator. If there truly were no God, we’d be in moral chaos because the definition of morality would be different for everyone. Obviously we are somewhat in a state of this now because of the fact that there are so many atheist/agnostics out there. I think it funny to be an atheist because one would have to surmise that he is actually more intellectual than the greatest thinkers of our time.
While I know Pascal had some problems, Pascal’s Wager is quite an interesting argument when speaking to an atheist/agnostic. I hardly think you can argue with his theory. One would be foolhardy to make his wager any other way than for God.
For those of you who are not familiar with Pascal’s Wager, it goes something like this. If you bet there is a God and you live your life accordingly and you are correct, what have you gained? Everything. If you bet there is a God and you live your life accordingly and you are wrong, what have you lost? Nothing. You simply lived a moral life which our atheist friend would have to agree with on some small scale. Betting on God is always the best wager.
T
tomaskovarik
Guest
predator CA:
I think that atheism is also a dogmatic form of faith, kind of “anti-religion”. To say that “I am sure that God does NOT exist” is as dogmatic and faith driven as to say (for a theist) that “I am sure that God does exist”. Probably the best position (rationally) is agnosticism which says “I don’t know whether God exist or not”. The most prevalent form of a worldwiew today is indiferrence.
But I hear most people say things like “I think that there exists some kind of higher power, but I just cannot accept any religious claims”, this is probably most frequent position.
There are some classical proofs for existence of God, but they all fail in light of modern science (which basically replaced religion, although not quite).
I think that you should try an experiment, based on the assumption that God exist - if He indeed does exist, He should be more than willing to play along.
Try to pray (yes, you should suspend your disbelief for some time) and simply ask God to show you whether He exists. You are not going to receive a phone call the second day, but over time, something might flourish and you may gain faith. Faith, by the way, is a probabilistic statement. If someone says “I believe in God”, there is no certainty in it. For example, I believe that the Pythagorean Theorem is true, since I can prove it once and for all. But I cannot prove the existence of God (Or disprove it)
So, if God indeed exists, He is quite interested in helping you out with your faith and you should ask for it. You have nothing to lose, but everything to gain!!!
Tomas
This is a very intriquing post indeed. Now, I hope you will not get angry with what I write.
I think that atheism is also a dogmatic form of faith, kind of “anti-religion”. To say that “I am sure that God does NOT exist” is as dogmatic and faith driven as to say (for a theist) that “I am sure that God does exist”. Probably the best position (rationally) is agnosticism which says “I don’t know whether God exist or not”. The most prevalent form of a worldwiew today is indiferrence.
But I hear most people say things like “I think that there exists some kind of higher power, but I just cannot accept any religious claims”, this is probably most frequent position.
There are some classical proofs for existence of God, but they all fail in light of modern science (which basically replaced religion, although not quite).
I think that you should try an experiment, based on the assumption that God exist - if He indeed does exist, He should be more than willing to play along.
Try to pray (yes, you should suspend your disbelief for some time) and simply ask God to show you whether He exists. You are not going to receive a phone call the second day, but over time, something might flourish and you may gain faith. Faith, by the way, is a probabilistic statement. If someone says “I believe in God”, there is no certainty in it. For example, I believe that the Pythagorean Theorem is true, since I can prove it once and for all. But I cannot prove the existence of God (Or disprove it)
So, if God indeed exists, He is quite interested in helping you out with your faith and you should ask for it. You have nothing to lose, but everything to gain!!!
Tomas
M
MrWhy
Guest
It would be interesting to see a comprehensive list of notable thinkers and their views on this topic. However, an even more interesting and meaningful percentage is the current ratio of atheist between educated extremes. As education and intelligence go up, the percentage of atheists goes up. Those with the least education are almost all religious. The percentage of atheists among physicist, mathematicians, biologist, and especially university professors is significantly higher than in the general population.
Pascal’s Wager is ethically weak. And the word “bet” is a really poor choice. The wager suggests you should forget integrity, intellectual ethics, and be religious just to cover your tail.
You left out a choice. You’re an atheist because you cannot accept such claims without adequate evidence, but you go through life pretending to believe just in case there is a god. What have you lost? You’re integrity, and you are an immoral liar.
T
tomaskovarik
Guest
I also found the Pascal’s wager argument morally weak. It certainly would not qualify as a rational search for truth. Now, you are also correct about the correlation between the level of education and faith. My experience is even more detailed. Here is what I found among my colleagues, listing from the highest frequency of faith to the lowest
a) Mathematicians (highest faith occurrence, Christianity isdominant)
b) Physicists (more Pantheistic inclination)
c) Chemists (usually just nominal believers or agnostics)
d) Biologists (almost typically atheists or agnostics at best
e) Social Scientists (inevitably atheists).
So, it all breaks down “by profession”. I see it as a curve, in the beginning you are quite religious and have rather infantile ideas about God, then, as you mature and get an education, the infantile idea is abandoned but substitute is not found, which results in period of indifference or agnosticism or even atheism. Then, as you climb up the intellectual ladder, you have to realize at some point, that there is a manifestation of some kind of Higher Order in the universe and you try to seek a new definition of that which is commonly referred to as God.
Thats my take on stuff
Tomas
B
Benjamin89
Guest
I think that you are wrong in stating that atheists mainly look for truth while theists mainly look for happiness. I am a Catholic and much of my strong belief in God has come from a search for truth. I search for truth. I seek it out. There has even been times when I thought it would be nice if there wasn’t a God so I could do whatever I want without consequences. Not only do theists believe in God because of the longing inside of them for a God, which is inside every human, but because it makes sense. Just look at nature, your family, yourself. There must be God. I will pray for you!
- Status