Hello

[happilycatholic]

Indeed.

You wrote “people with no real beliefs” in regards to atheists. Seeing as how the only thing differing between every atheist, and every catholic is our “belief” in a god, it can easily be deduced to “god is the only real belief”. Did I explain your own words well enough for you to understand what you had perhaps mistakenly wrote?

I can’t explain a lot of things, in ancient times you’d be telling me how foolish I am to doubt zeus, clearly you have witnessed thunder and lightning what is your explanation for that? In those times you’d be unable to give me an answer, do you see the connection between your argument and what I have just demonstrated?

no…

Insulting? I rather thought I was doing Catholics a favor in assuming you are not a prime example of those who hold their beliefs.

Oh no sweetie, there are waaaaay more differences between Catholics and the likes of you AND Atheists. So there are a vast array of beliefs we could be talking about here, but to correct you, we are talking about religious beliefs on the whole since you are on a “non-catholic religions” thread and I believe that yes, God does fit into that. Thanks for stating the obvious now that you get it. (and still you call me ignorant) And what exactly was it I’m ignorant of again? (second time I’ve asked this one).

I’m not the one getting my feathers ruffled because I can’t explain love. Why don’t you just take a stab at it and get this over with?

I wouldn’t call me a “prime” example of catholicism. But if there are catholics on here who disagree, they will chime in and I’m sure they don’t need the likes of you to take up for them. k, thanks.

Oh, anytime on that origin of love thing…

 

[mrhenrik]

Do we love like animals love?

P.S. No, we have not found a gene for love, do you think there is a gene for hate?

Oh well, we might do later. Do we love like animals love? I don’t know, I’m not an animal by that term. I would believe so though. At least the same concept. Perhaps our love is developed further. And perhaps some animals have a stronger concept of love than we do. Some might need it, some might not. I don’t know, but this intrigues me and I do want to find out.

I still see no citations on no love centre/gene found though. I don’t think gene is the right word. What I mean is some sort of physical part of the body which creates the emotion love. There’s probably an equal part for hate, perhaps it’s even the same? I don’t know.

 

[AtheistEnvoy]

Oh no sweetie

there are waaaaay more differences between Catholics and the likes of you AND Atheists

Indeed, but the only single difference that can be made for EVERY atheist is the lack of belief in god. Perhaps you don’t understand the definition of atheism?

So there are a vast array of beliefs we could be talking about here

no, there aren’t.

I’m not the one getting my feathers ruffled because I can’t explain love. Why don’t you just take a stab at it and get this over with?

I’ve already said I do not know, but if you were to ask me what my best guess is I would say that love is the result of a chemical reaction in ones brain.

Why did you ignore my zeus comparison?

I wouldn’t call me a “prime” example of catholicism.

good.

 

[PJM]

Originally Posted by lkddav
If prayers worked there would not be 27,000 people starve to death on this planet today.

Please show me one peer reviewed study of a miracle occurring?

Actually I could tell you about one in my personal life if I thought it would actually help.

As I reviewd the last dozen or so post a few things seems evident.

**A HUGE stumbling block for you to accept a “God” and Christianity are:

That “evil” does exist which is “Evidence” that “God Cannot!”**

You also seem to hold this “god” if He does exist is personably responsible for all the evil that exist, solely on the gounds that He “has the power to change it” and He “made us?”

Am I close to understanding you’re position?

The fallicy it seems to me is that this position removes all human guilt in causing, abiding in, simply ignoring everything that is evil and wrong.

Can we agree that in all of the Universe, that humanity alone is made up of a combination of both physical and spiritual attributes? Why is this? [Mind, intellect, and freewill can be demonistrated but not seen, touched nor are we able to smell them.]

Next can we agree [making the assumption that their is a God] that this God can be defined as: "God is only and all good things perfectly?"

It seems a reasonable and logical assumption that** IF **God created the Universe, and everything on it, that it would have been only for “good purposes and good reasons?”

So my first question is why would God CAUSE, create, or make evil? You’ll have to answer that for us, because I am logically unable to do so.

So am I saying that because God did not create, cause or make evil, He also does not permit evil to exist? NO! Of course not. Evil does exist!

But is all poverty evil? What about provety of intellect, understanding, forgiveness?

So why does evil exist?

Because humanity has three attributes that can be blamed. Our minds, our intellect [or lack thereoff] and our freewill.

It is the improper application of these very attributes that are to blame for the existence of evil, war, proverty, murder, crimes Ect. They are the direct result of human personal decisions! So it is we, not God who are the source of evil.

OK? So then why does this “God” who you claim is “all and only good” permit and tolerate these evils?

The answer is simply staggering. God permits these atrocious things, because GOD HAS TO! What?

Because of limited space I can’t go into the detail I’d like, so in an attempt to keep this brief, God has too, Becuase of precisely Who and What God are.

Physical things [on earth, in this Universe] can only produce physical things. Correct?

Something can’t give what something itself “does not have to give.”

So where did humanities mind, intellect and freewill orginate, and precisely why do only humans have these attributes? This would be a great question for you to ask on a different string.

The answer is that they came from our Creator God [to “create” means to make out of nothing’] who is “Spirit.”

God permits humanity to use these three attributes in what ever way suits the individual.**** BUT, they are given to us to discover God, love God and serve God and humanity.

God cannot, in a literal sense stop man from creating evil without overiding our GIFTS of mind, intellect and freewill. If God were to do this, God would have to cease being God!

Thus God has the power to stop or change evil, but He lacks the Will to do so!

Hopefully this will set you to thinking obout “the First Cause!”

Love and prayers,
Pat

 

[happilycatholic]

Oh well, we might do later. Do we love like animals love? I don’t know, I’m not an animal by that term. I would believe so though. At least the same concept. Perhaps our love is developed further. And perhaps some animals have a stronger concept of love than we do. Some might need it, some might not. I don’t know, but this intrigues me and I do want to find out.

I still see no citations on no love centre/gene found though. I don’t think gene is the right word. What I mean is some sort of physical part of the body which creates the emotion love. There’s probably an equal part for hate, perhaps it’s even the same? I don’t know.

(sorry for butting in)

Ok, see now here’s some intelligent conversation. At least someone says “I don’t know” rather than “prove God”. I’m not trying to prove God for anyone. I’m just trying to get you to think about the possibility that God exsists beyond our ability to prove that he does.

I believe Love is present even without a physical source. In other words we can’t see love, touch love or know that it is present without a source to convey it, but I believe it exsists still. I do not believe love is contained within a DNA molecule or any other form of physical matter. I don’t think it is created or destroyed.

And if we prove that love exsists without a physical form and without a provable source, then so can God. God is Love. Then atheists and agnostics will have their proof.

 

[happilycatholic]

Indeed, but the only single difference that can be made for EVERY atheist is the lack of belief in god. Perhaps you don’t understand the definition of atheism?

no, there aren’t.

I’ve already said I do not know, but if you were to ask me what my best guess is I would say that love is the result of a chemical reaction in ones brain.

Why did you ignore my zeus comparison?

good.

Actually, it would appear that you are agnostic, rather than atheist. Atheism is the denial that God exsists. There’s nothing to prove. Nada, no way, no how. Agnostics on the other hand deny the ability to prove the exsistance of God. So at least agnostics have the hope of proof (and that is relative to one’s own interpretation so there’s always a possibility that one will start to believe given what is perceived as proof) Atheist though you claim to be, you ask for proof. Why? Are you truthfully open to conversion? Is that why you are so insulting?

With the denial of the possibility that God exsists also comes a whole basket full of rotten apples dear friend. Including bad attitudes toward Christians. Don’t make the mistake of believing the difference between you and I is God. That’s the one thing that’s the same whether or not you believe. God is our common ground.

The difference between you and I is your unbelief, which harbors all kinds of terrible things. The proof is in your posts.

I ignored your Zeus post because in a word it’s stupid. First of all, I was not born then, obviously. Second, there are known to be those who were pagan, something like yourself. Third, what does that have to do with what we are dealing with here?

 

[jam070406]

You said:

If those with “no real beliefs” never found faults in “those that believe in God” the earth could still be considered the center of the universe

prove it.

You said:

it would also be considered flat.

prove it.

You said:

Technologically we’d be a far cry from where we are today

prove it.

You said:

slavery could be acceptable,

prove it.

I don’t demand proof, I don’t recall stating that I did. If you intend for me to agree with you on something that has such an impact on quite frankly everything then I will indeed need something to go on.

You are an atheist, no? You don’t believe in God because you need _______ that God exists. (fill in blank)

If you have studied history, and read your bible I would hardly consider it baseless, however it was quite presumptuous of me to say “would” rather than “could” which is what I originally intended as you can see by the first statement. For that slip up I do apologize.

I’ll await your study, including passages from the bible apparantly, that back your claims quoted above.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

=mrhenrik;5278718]Yes, I do believe that people will let themselves be killed for something that doesn’t exist. Whether the apostles themselves existed as well, I don’t know enough about, but I would assume there’s significantly less evidence for their existance compared to Jesus’ existance.

Peter (Simon Peter),
Bible writer
Rome, Italy
(Nero) 54-68AD Homicide:
crucified head down,
at his own request
Andrew, son of a John & brother of Peter (Matthew 4:18) Edessa, Greece ?AD Homicide:
severely scourged & tied by ropes on x-shaped cross where he hung 2 days to expire
James,
son of Zebedee & Salome and elder bro. of John (not bro. of Jesus) the Bible writer Jerusalem, Israel
(Herod)
44 AD
(the 1st martyred)
Homicide:
beheaded with sword; Mark 10:39 & Acts 12:1-2
John,
son of Zebedee and bro. of James;
Bible writer Ephesus, Turkey
or Turkish Isle
of Patmos

98 AD
thrown in boiling oil but unharmed; died of Natural causes in Ephesus
Philip of Bethsaida Hieropolis, Syria Homicide:
crucified
Bartholomew (Nathaniel) India or
Armenia Homicide:
beaten/flayed, and crucified
head down
Thomas (Didymus) Edessa, Greece Homicide:
lanced by
idolatrous priests & burned up in an oven
Matthew (Levi), of Capernaum
the Bible writer Nadabah, Ethiopia about 60AD Homicide:
axed to death with a halberd
James (son of Alphaeus);
Bible writer
(? half bro. of Jesus?) Jerusalem, Israel AD66 Homicide:
thrown down from the Temple tower & not dead so clubbed to death with a fullers club at age 94
Jude (Thaddaeus…Judas Lebbaeus) Edessa, Greece AD72 Homicide:
crucified
Simon the Zealot
(the Canaanite) Brittainnia, Europe Homicide:
crucified
Judas Iscariot Jerusalem, Israel Suicide:
by hanging Matt. 27:5
Matthias (the 11 remaining Apostles chose him to replace Judas) Jerusalem, Israel Homicide:
stoned and beheaded
Paul (chosen by Jesus on the road to Damascus) Rome, Italy 66 AD Homicide:
beheaded

True, but personally I would rather be updated on the current “truth” than an ancient one which most likely weren’t true then, and at least not now I would reckon.

I can see the ;logic there. lets take a topic that real big right now. Global warming.

are you aware that scientist have been going back and forth between global warming and global cooling for the last 100 years about every 30 years they change from one to the other. I do not know if you are old enough to have been told in the seventy that we were heading into an ice age now we are going to burn up. in the late 30s in was warming as well and around the turn of the previous century is was cooling. Also if I recall correctly in the 70’s we were told that at the rate of usage we would be near out of oil by now. guess they were wrong again.

Now don’t get me wrong I am all in favor of research and investigating, but I have lived long enough to know that scientific truth of today is primitive belief of tomorrow. I remember when the cd came out we were told that the future was here we had reached the very best in music recording then cam the mp3 players.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

Because that person contributes something that ensures my survival.

so only those that make a contribution to society should be allowed to continue to exist?

 

[jam070406]

slavery could be acceptable,

Btw, you mean like the slave labor camps in the utopia of atheist, communist, China?

 

[AtheistEnvoy]

Actually, it would appear that you are agnostic, rather than atheist. Atheism is the denial that God exsists. There’s nothing to prove. Nada, no way, no how. Agnostics on the other hand deny the ability to prove the exsistance of God. So at least agnostics have the hope of proof (and that is relative to one’s own interpretation so there’s always a possibility that one will start to believe given what is perceived as proof) Atheist though you claim to be, you ask for proof. Why? Are you truthfully open to conversion? Is that why you are so insulting?

Agnostic Atheist = person who believes that the lack of knowledge is reason for a lack of belief in god. I find it unlikely, but not impossible for a higher being to exist. Yes you can be both (a)gnostic, and (a)theist at the same time. One pertains to knowledge or lack thereof, and one pertains to belief or lack thereof. As such you can have a belief BECAUSE of knowledge, the same way you can have a lack of belief BECAUSE of a lack of knowledge.

I still fail to see how I am being insulting, if that is how what I am typing comes off then I do apologize. I’ve actually been making a conscious effort to remove sarcasm from my posts.

The difference between you and I is your unbelief

??? I could have sworn I said the difference between us is the atheists lack of belief (or unbelief as you put it) in god.

I ignored your Zeus post because in a word it’s stupid.

You tell me to prove loves origin, asserting that it is god and that since I don’t have a response it automatically lessens my position considering I am someone who does not accept something without adequate proof.

Do you honestly not see how someone who lived during the time of greek gods could say to an atheist “Prove the origin of lightning and thunder! Zeus clearly is the source, since you are unable to provide an answer your position is inferior to your own cause!”

You accuse me of being insulting, and you call me stupid, well played.

On a side note I also already stated that “I don’t demand proof” look back on my posts please. If something seems reasonable I will consider it, having proof is certainly a good way to make something reasonable. To me however a god just seems unreasonable.

 

[mrhenrik]

[long list]

What’s the source for this?

I can see the ;logic there. lets take a topic that real big right now. Global warming.

are you aware that scientist have been going back and forth between global warming and global cooling for the last 100 years about every 30 years they change from one to the other. I do not know if you are old enough to have been told in the seventy that we were heading into an ice age now we are going to burn up. in the late 30s in was warming as well and around the turn of the previous century is was cooling. Also if I recall correctly in the 70’s we were told that at the rate of usage we would be near out of oil by now. guess they were wrong again.

Most certainly not old enough, I vaguely remembered what was said during the 90’s.

I’m not sure about the ice age statement, but I do remember reading about a huge ice wall in the north pole which was close to melting. If it had melted, it would send a flood of ice cold water down into the golf stream and probably cool it down, making things rather… cool.

Since I don’t know enough about the theories of the 30’s and 70’s I won’t comment on them though.

Now don’t get me wrong I am all in favor of research and investigating, but I have lived long enough to know that scientific truth of today is primitive belief of tomorrow. I remember when the cd came out we were told that the future was here we had reached the very best in music recording then cam the mp3 players.

Perhaps scientific truth today really is the primitive belief of tomorrow, but in the long term there is a lot of progress, yes? If there was no science, we could still believe that earth was flat and the sun revolved around us. There were probably a lot of nutty theories back then which are forgotten by now, but some things stuck at least, and they’re invaluable for us now.

CDs = the future, now that’s just sleazy marketing.

 

[AtheistEnvoy]

prove it.

You come off a tad childish, it is not uncommon for theists to just shout “PROVE IT” at everything atheists say and believe they are somehow witty by doing so. If you provide me with why your religion is reasonable and how it makes sense then I would be more than happy to consider it. I don’t happen to find it reasonable thus far, as i don’t find most religions very reasonable. There are some eastern religions that I find reasonable (without deities mainly) however I remain unconvinced of there standpoint but I do make an effort to study it. Perhaps I am missing something, no way to find out if I don’t look.

humaniststudies.org/enews/index.html?id=219&article=7

No matter what group you look at there is good and bad, you don’t deny this do you? The difference is whether the group condones the acts or not.

 

[mrhenrik]

Btw, you mean like the slave labor camps in the utopia of atheist, communist, China?

“According to the 1993 edition of The Atlas of Religion, the number of atheists in China is between 10 and 14 percent.”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_China#Statistics

 

[jam070406]

“According to the 1993 edition of The Atlas of Religion, the number of atheists in China is between 10 and 14 percent.”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_China#Statistics

Yeah, including the atheist government with their forced abortion, slave labor, murder of innocent people, suppression of liberties, etc. etc.
No thanks.

 

[aileron]

Then you should be honest enough to place the bible in proper context, as the Church teaches and understands it, rather then misquoting passages out of context to serve your argument. And also to realize that the Catholic Church does not rely solely on the bible alone.

Oh, come on man, I’m not another anti-Catholic Protestant claiming sole scriptura. I understand the role of tradition and catechism in the RCC.

I did not “misquote” the Bible. I copied verbatim from a major translation. As far as taking it out of context, you really need better material. Put a large number of sections in the OT that offend modern morality into a context that makes it inspired by an all loving all beneficent God?

Simply put, there are parts of the Bible that Christians simply ignore. Some are because they are largely irrelevant except to scholars such as Chronicles, but a number of parts simply offend modern morality and don’t get read from the pulpit on Sundays.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

What’s the source for this?

just type in how the apostles died?

 

[aileron]

Btw, you mean like the slave labor camps in the utopia of atheist, communist, China?

Yeah – do you suppose it’s the lack of God or the communism? You don’t see European political leaders campaigning on how much they love Jesus the way they do in the USA. Agnosticism and just don’t care is the reigning religion in large parts of Eurpope, and they’re doing just fine human rights wise - better than the USA I might add.

 

[jam070406]

You come off a tad childish, it is not uncommon for theists to just shout “PROVE IT” at everything atheists say and believe they are somehow witty by doing so. If you provide me with why your religion is reasonable and how it makes sense then I would be more than happy to consider it. I don’t happen to find it reasonable thus far, as i don’t find most religions very reasonable. There are some eastern religions that I find reasonable (without deities mainly) however I remain unconvinced of there standpoint but I do make an effort to study it. Perhaps I am missing something, no way to find out if I don’t look.

humaniststudies.org/enews/index.html?id=219&article=7

No matter what group you look at there is good and bad, you don’t deny this do you? The difference is whether the group condones the acts or not.

Oh please, why am I childish? You made the bold claim that history would be different if you hadn’t broken free from religion. A claim you couldn’t back and never can, so instead you use an ad homenim on me.

 

[aileron]

Yeah, including the atheist government with their forced abortion, slave labor, murder of innocent people, suppression of liberties, etc. etc.
No thanks.

Is that the only difference between China and Western governments