Hello

[ntenaglia]

My conclusion:

Atheism 0
Christianity 1

Atheism does a horrible job of explaining the origin of love …it just chooses not to. Awesome.

That’s because there is no love in atheist. Why do you think they’re all so combative when in the presence of those of us who know and love God?

 

[happilycatholic]

That’s because there is no love in atheist. Why do you think they’re all so combative when in the presence of those of us who know and love God?

I know what you mean, but they do know and have love. They love those in their families and they love pets. They partake of the same love from God we do, they just deny that it comes from God.

 

[jam070406]

My conclusion:

Atheism 0
Christianity 1

Atheism does a horrible job of explaining the origin of love …it just chooses not to. Awesome.

Not only that, disingenuously wrentching bible quotes out of context never helps anyone’s argument.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

it’s one thing to say there is no greater power who lies beyond our cognition (whether its a creator god or some other force) … it’s yet another to deny the veracity of religion.

Any smart atheist would not say he or she is 100% sure there is no greater power of some sort (whether it’s a god or not). What we do say is we can know religion is untrue because it CAN be proven untrue.

Beginning with Genesis … from what we already KNOW regarding evolution, we know an Adam and Eve could not have existed (at least not in the form depicted by the bible … or anything remotely close). We know the Genesis chronology isn’t right. We know creation didn’t occur in seven days. I can go on and on … but the point is clear enough.

I’ve studied the bible well enough to know the pivotal role Adam & Eve play in scripture (and indeed even in Catholic typology). Take away our first parents & holding the rest of the bible together becomes extremely difficult; however, that’s not where the problems end.

We read about this god who split the red sea, turned the Nile into blood, sticks into snakes, raised men from death, destroyed cities, flooded the earth, and all the rest. Yet this god hasn’t manifested himself in any real and obvious way to modern man even once. Is it a coincidence that god left the stage of human history just as man began looking at our physical world through the prism of science? Of course not. Ancient man didn’t know how earth quakes or solar eclipses occurred, so they attributed such events to a god or gods. Today many engage in the same folly. Although no one (besides perhaps the really wacky) attribute earth quakes or eclipses to a god these days … many do conjure up stories of miracle healings and point to the seeming mysterious relationship between physical and psychological health; but rather than simply understanding just because we don’t understand this relationship yet doesn’t mean it’s the work of some god (because of course, just like earth quakes and eclipses, we will learn why these things occur) – religious folks make the same erroneous assumptions as our ancient ancestors did.

Oh well …

 

[aileron]

I gave you an entire web site dedicated to that topic with in depth study. You mean to tell me you read it all and you still come back tossing out bible quotes??

Is the Bible the inspired word of God? If so, deal with the plain language wording.

As far as the apologetics, there are a few specific topics in Christian apologetic, slavery one, that I’ve simply read the distortions, cheap tricks, lies, and nonsense to such an extent that I’ve lost patience. I know the slights of hand. Deal with the language that is there. Mark Twain was right, the Christian religion is a pharmacy. Witches are no longer, but the text remains. Slavery is bad but the text remains.

You’re just using slavery as a cop out now, and frankly not being honest to yourself.

No, I’m using it as one example that the Bible gives obvious indications of having no inspiration from a being that is all knowing, all loving, and all knowing.

You don’t have eyes to see or ears to hear.

You have a brain to think, but you’re letting unreasonable information you’ve internalized lead you to an unreasonable conclusion. Similar words on slavery are in other books people consider holy, and I suppose you’d have no problem thinking that the words on the topic in those books are not inspired by any supernatural deity – just as they have no problem thinking that the words in your holy book are not inspired by any supernatural deity.

As Josie pointed out Jesus cam to save souls, so the point is rather moot.

I guess then it is moot provided you can prove your assertion.

 

[happilycatholic]

Not only that, disingenuously wrentching bible quotes out of context never helps anyone’s argument.

Praise God for the pain of enduring other’s disingenuousness. It lets us know we are alive in the Lord!

Bring on the pain. (and tell us where love comes from).

 

[aileron]

[removed duplicate]

 

[happilycatholic]

it’s one thing to say there is no greater power who lies beyond our cognition (whether its a creator god or some other force) … it’s yet another to deny the veracity of religion.

Any smart atheist would not say he or she is 100% sure there is no greater power of some sort (whether it’s a god or not). What we do say is we can know religion is untrue because it CAN be proven untrue.

Beginning with Genesis … from what we already KNOW regarding evolution, we know an Adam and Eve could not have existed (at least not in the form depicted by the bible … or anything remotely close). We know the Genesis chronology isn’t right. We know creation didn’t occur in seven days. I can go on and on … but the point is clear enough.

I’ve studied the bible well enough to know the pivotal role Adam & Eve play in scripture (and indeed even in Catholic typology). Take away our first parents & holding the rest of the bible together becomes extremely difficult; however, that’s not where the problems end.

We read about this god who split the red sea, turned the Nile into blood, sticks into snakes, raised men from death, destroyed cities, flooded the earth, and all the rest. Yet this god hasn’t manifested himself in any real and obvious way to modern man even once. Is it a coincidence that god left the stage of human history just as man began looking at our physical world through the prism of science? Of course not. Ancient man didn’t know how earth quakes or solar eclipses occurred, so they attributed such events a god or gods. Today many engage in the same folly. Although no one (besides perhaps the insane) attribute earth quakes or eclipses to a god … many do conjure up stories of miracle healings and point to the seeming mysterious relationship between physical and psychological health. Rather than simply understanding that just because we don’t understand this relationship yet doesn’t mean it’s the work of some god (because of course, just like earth quakes and eclipses, we will learn why these things occur); religious people make the same erroneous assumptions as our ancient predecessors did.

Oh well …

tsk, tsk, tsk…:imsorry:

 

[mrhenrik]

I need to research that more. Absense of proof is not proof of absense.

Atheism does not explain anything though. An atheist is a person without a belief in a supreme being. There’s nothing more to it. Science might do a bad job describing what love comes from, but it can’t simply choose not to. There’s no such unity. I’m quite sure that if science has not found the answer yet, it’s still looking.

ntengalia, if it does not involve emotion, what does it involve?

jam, I rely on something logical according to the laws of nature and the scientific research we have done. I don’t change my life according to it though. I claim god cannot be proven - absolutely. Can you prove god?

ntengalia, no love in an atheist? That’s just nonsense.

 

[aileron]

Why do you insist on quoting OT law? You’re not a jew living under the law 6000 years ago.

Was the OT inspired by Yahweh, or was it not?

Did God teach the Hebrews morality or did he not?

Does Jesus think the Law came from God, or did he not?

 

[jam070406]

Is the Bible the inspired word of God? If so, deal with the plain language wording.

As far as the apologetics, there are a few specific topics in Christian apologetic, slavery one, that I’ve simply read the distortions, cheap tricks, lies, and nonsense to such an extent that I’ve lost patience. I know the slights of hand. Deal with the language that is there. Mark Twain was right, the Christian religion is a pharmacy. Witches are no longer, but the text remains. Slavery is bad but the text remains.

No, I’m using it as one example that the Bible gives obvious indications of having no inspiration from a being that is all knowing, all loving, and all knowing.

You have a brain to think, but you’re letting unreasonable information you’ve internalized lead you to an unreasonable conclusion. Similar words on slavery are in other books people consider holy, and I suppose you’d have no problem thinking that the words on the topic in those books are not inspired by any supernatural deity – just as they have no problem thinking that the words in your holy book are not inspired by any supernatural deity.

I guess then it is moot provided you can prove your assertion.

Refer to post #331 & 332.

I am not a ancient Jew under the law, nor are you. Keep in mind, these people did not know of Jesus. You attempt to wrentch quotes out of context to serve your view. This is not reasonable and you should be honest enough to admit this.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

I think the “divine inspiration” argument is ultimately a dead end. Different Christian denominations explain this differently (and Catholics do not subscribe to biblical literalism these days – although arguably a simple history lesson on the Galileo affair shows they did at one time … so much for infallibility – but I digress ).

On the other hand the arguments I set forth above are logically decisive.

 

[jam070406]

Was the OT inspired by Yahweh, or was it not?

Did God teach the Hebrews morality or did he not?

Does Jesus think the Law came from God, or did he not?

Did God fully reveal Himself to the Hebrews or was it necessary for God to fully reveal Himself in the person of Jesus Christ, due to their hardened hearts?

 

[humble_in_doubt]

tsk, tsk, tsk…:imsorry:

like Martin Luther said: “reason is the whore of the devil”

 

[happilycatholic]

I need to research that more. Absense of proof is not proof of absense.

Atheism does not explain anything though. An atheist is a person without a belief in a supreme being. There’s nothing more to it. Science might do a bad job describing what love comes from, but it can’t simply choose not to. There’s no such unity. I’m quite sure that if science has not found the answer yet, it’s still looking.

ntengalia, if it does not involve emotion, what does it involve?

jam, I rely on something logical according to the laws of nature and the scientific research we have done. I don’t change my life according to it though. I claim god cannot be proven - absolutely. Can you prove god?

ntengalia, no love in an atheist? That’s just nonsense.

First of all, Christianity does not “require” proof of God but rather faith in God. Hence why you are not Christian. I’m not asking you to proove anything. I’m just asking you to tell me where love comes from. It’s pretty simple. You either believe it comes from a being or a thing. Obviously, you believe love is a physical attribute (a form of DNA perhaps) attributed by a physical attribute (DNA, which forms all physical traits in life on earth), which makes no sense at all.

So sense you cannot tell me where love comes from, I choose to believe it comes from God. I am making a choice just as you are.

I choose God.

 

[jam070406]

I need to research that more. Absense of proof is not proof of absense.

Atheism does not explain anything though. An atheist is a person without a belief in a supreme being. There’s nothing more to it. Science might do a bad job describing what love comes from, but it can’t simply choose not to. There’s no such unity. I’m quite sure that if science has not found the answer yet, it’s still looking.

ntengalia, if it does not involve emotion, what does it involve?

jam, I rely on something logical according to the laws of nature and the scientific research we have done. I don’t change my life according to it though. I claim god cannot be proven - absolutely. Can you prove god?

ntengalia, no love in an atheist? That’s just nonsense.

You’re the one that came on a Catholic board saying God doesn’t exist, so the onus is on you to prove it.

 

[aileron]

Refer to post #331 & 332.

I am not a ancient Jew under the law, nor are you. Keep in mind, these people did not know of Jesus.

Was Yahweh talking to the Hebrews or not? Did they record laws from him or did they not?

You attempt to wrentch quotes out of context to serve your view. This is not reasonable and you should be honest enough to admit this.

Oh, come on… “Out of context” is the oldest apologetic trick in the book.

Can you construct a reasonable context for laws permitting chattel slavery and rules for how much you can beat them that takes away the sting of those words? If anything, the overall context makes it worse, not better.

So forget specific verses. Christians burned witches for centuries. Did the leading Christian scholars of the day take the verses out of context?

 

[humble_in_doubt]

the argument that love exists therefore so does god is the most logically preposterous assertion I’ve heard in a while here on CAF (or anywhere for that matter).

Love is emotion and learned behavior … two traits humans share with our fellow mammals lower on the food chain. Dogs feel emotion (yup it’s true … look it up if you need to), and mammals like dogs can learn (albeit due to much smaller brain size they can’t learn much). So arguably even dogs feel an emotion akin to love (although it would be much more primal – in correlation with their lower intellectual capacity).

 

[jam070406]

it’s one thing to say there is no greater power who lies beyond our cognition (whether its a creator god or some other force) … it’s yet another to deny the veracity of religion.

Any smart atheist would not say he or she is 100% sure there is no greater power of some sort (whether it’s a god or not). What we do say is we can know religion is untrue because it CAN be proven untrue.

Beginning with Genesis … from what we already KNOW regarding evolution, we know an Adam and Eve could not have existed (at least not in the form depicted by the bible … or anything remotely close). We know the Genesis chronology isn’t right. We know creation didn’t occur in seven days. I can go on and on … but the point is clear enough.

I’ve studied the bible well enough to know the pivotal role Adam & Eve play in scripture (and indeed even in Catholic typology). Take away our first parents & holding the rest of the bible together becomes extremely difficult; however, that’s not where the problems end.

We read about this god who split the red sea, turned the Nile into blood, sticks into snakes, raised men from death, destroyed cities, flooded the earth, and all the rest. Yet this god hasn’t manifested himself in any real and obvious way to modern man even once. Is it a coincidence that god left the stage of human history just as man began looking at our physical world through the prism of science? Of course not. Ancient man didn’t know how earth quakes or solar eclipses occurred, so they attributed such events to a god or gods. Today many engage in the same folly. Although no one (besides perhaps the really wacky) attribute earth quakes or eclipses to a god these days … many do conjure up stories of miracle healings and point to the seeming mysterious relationship between physical and psychological health; but rather than simply understanding just because we don’t understand this relationship yet doesn’t mean it’s the work of some god (because of course, just like earth quakes and eclipses, we will learn why these things occur) – religious folks make the same erroneous assumptions as our ancient ancestors did.

Oh well …

Oh well…

eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow you die.

 

[happilycatholic]

the argument that love exists therefore so does god is the most logically preposterous assertion I’ve heard in a while here on CAF (or anywhere for that matter).

Love is emotion and learned behavior … two traits humans share with our fellow mammals lower on the food chain. Dogs feel emotion (yup it’s true … look it up if you need to), and mammals like dogs can learn (albeit due to much smaller brain size they can’t learn much). So arguably even dogs feel an emotion akin to love (although it would be much more primal – in correlation with their lower intellectual capacity).

No one here said God exsists because love exsists or the other way around. What I want is someone to tell me where love originated. It’s here so it had to be created. Nothing just “is”. It has an origin. Tell me where you belive love comes from.

You keep repeating the characteristics of love, what it is and that it can be enjoyed by animals. I’m not asking you to describe love, I’m asking you where it comes from.