Hello

[DavidHume]

mrhenrik: it’s a little amusing to me how much your story parallels mine, but the book was “The Blind Watchmaker” instead of “The God Delusion,” and none of my friends were atheist/agnostic, since I lived in the USA and not Norway.

Your mother is not going to be happy, I can guarantee it. But most likely she will still love you just the same.

 

[wxboss]

Would you please substantiate this assertion with facts? How do you know there are “many gods”. How do you define “gods”?

Why? If there is an omnipotent God, why can He He not choose to reveal Himself only in specific instances to certain of His creatures?

Good idea! I challenge you to create a pink invisible unicorn that has as much impact on the world as Jesus.

We may not have another 2000 years, though, so better work quick!

In addition to being disrespectful and ignorant, this statement is also false. It demonstrates how little you really know about how the Church researches and authenticates miracles.

It’s pretty apparent to me that we, as human beings, have the tendency to think more of ourselves than others do. As a result, we like to elevate ourselves to a position that is more than likely higher than it should be.

Comments made by such ‘defenders of the faith’ that carry implications that they knew it all prior to having their beliefs seriously challenged reveal how little they really did (and do) know is apparent by the statement you just commented on.

While I’ve read through these posts, I see the all too common reply by atheists, “Why doesn’t God reveal Himslef?” “Why doesn’t God give a sign?” Seeing that this is a popular line of thought among them, I find it interesting that they continue this line of argument on this forum knowing that such proof on demand will not be found here.

They deride us at times for our beliefs, but they went out of their way to engage us. They sought us out, not the other way around. I was thinking, maybe they are getting tired of talking amongst themselves. Maybe they are trying to solidify their beliefs by coming here instead of just being content with asserting what they believe to be true within their own circles. It might just very well be egoism playing itself out.

I could engage atheists on their own ground (that is seeking them out in their own circles), but what would be the point? I could claim that conversion would be my aim and goal, but if I really took an honest look at things, I would probably find a different, more selfish motivation behind it all.

I have taken time to know what I believe. And I can confidently say that I believe what I know. Others may disagree with what I believe, but that is there option - just as my belief is my option. One thing I do know, in spite of the best efforts of most people in this thread, is that truth will not be found in this often muddled and occluded mess that has splintered into so may unsolved arguments and accusations that even a madman couldn’t make sense of it.

 

[guanophore]

What is relevant is how reliable various classes of historical records are.

This is an interesting difference between Christians and others. Christians believe that what is relevant is the Creator’s revelation of Himself.

They count in the sense that they must be examined and a subjective assessment made…

I think this says it all. I was reading up the thread where a self proclaimed athiest made her own rational abilities the standard of what is “good”. Now, I am reading another atheist saying that “a subjective assessment” must be made. I think this is a Freudian slip, however, I have no realized that our atheist neighbors are in the same boat as their Sola Scriptura neighbors. They have made themselves the standard.

 

[DavidHume]

Good idea! I challenge you to create a pink invisible unicorn that has as much impact on the world as Jesus.

He’s not a pink unicorn, but since Prometheus brought us fire, he has arguably had much more impact than Jesus. Not everyone is a Christian, but everyone uses fire.

 

[josie_L]

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).

So you equate love with the size of a species intellectual capacity. Therefore, what do you then say of those who are moderately/severely mentally impaired, is there capacity for love affected?

P.S. Do we have proof that love (for the human species) is a learnt behaviour (evolutionarily-speaking)?

 

[josie_L]

He’s not a pink unicorn, but since Prometheus brought us fire, he has arguably had much more impact than Jesus. Not everyone is a Christian, but everyone uses fire.

An Impact of any kind should not be reduced to quantifiable numbers but the qualitative effect it has had on its environment and peoples. Fire is great and all but it is not my raison d’etre (reason for being).

 

[jam070406]

He’s not a pink unicorn, but since Prometheus brought us fire, he has arguably had much more impact than Jesus. Not everyone is a Christian, but everyone uses fire.

What are you doing here? Is it because of your denial of Prometheus or Jesus that you are an atheist? I would definitely say Jesus has had more of an impact on you. And I’ve never seen mention of Prometheus on these boards before you.

When was the last time you actually built a fire?

When was the last time you logged on to CAF to deny Jesus?

 

[guanophore]

This is a rather more nuanced topic for me than you seem to suggest. Try to imagine a Hindu or Buddhist or Muslim reading the NT for the first time. What do they read?

Well, mostly they read about a man concerned with the method of salvation - a concept foreign to them and so for worldly ethics irrelevant to them.

I don’t think this is true at all. I think there are many consistencies between what Christ taught and some of the principles in Hinduism, Buddism, and Islam.

The other consistent feature is frequent use of platitudes and parables that could be interpreted any which way or no way at all.

How is a “platitude” classified? forgive me, but this seems like another one of your “subjective evaluations”. On the contrary, the parables in the NT cannot be “interpreted any which way”. Such a statement reflects your lack of knowlege of both the parables, and the principles of interpretation.

His followers consider them supreme genius but more often than not they can’t agree on what it is they mean. Geniuses can make themselves understood clearly.

Is that right? Can you name one? Was Einstein “easy to understand”? I think probably the opposite is true. Genius is more difficult to understand.

On the matter of worldly ethics, Jesus seems to be mostly repeating what Hebrews and Greeks have written for centuries. It’s good stuff, alright, but nothing others haven’t already figured out.

For the most part, I think you are right. Scripture states that “salvation is from the Jews”, and it is clear that God revealed moral and ethical conduct to man for millenia before Christ. Your statement assumes, erroneously, that because man “figured out” these eternal principles, that they did so in isolation of God’s revelation of Himself.

Then just occasionally words and actions are attributed to him that are downright mean spirited and nonsensical, and never seem to be mentioned by Christian missionaries.

Sounds like a great topic for a new thread!

The reader sees clearly why they are ignored by people preaching a message of love.

Or the reader may have a very myopic perception of love, for instance, the reader may not understand that love allows consequences to occur.

So that is my take on the teachings of the Logos as delivered to us in the NT. People have used the same source to justify all manners of things beautiful and brutal.

This statement, all by itself, should be sufficient evidence that persons reading the NT interpret it according to their particular mindset. What seems to be missing here is the recognition that Truth is not subject to your “take”, or anyone else’s twisted use of the Scripture. It means what the original writers wanted it to mean. Persons who are separated from that Meaning misinterpret it, misunderstand it, misuse it, and become lost by their own “take”.

It is so ambiguous, so inconsistent, so loosely worded that both and neither sides of any one ethical or theological debate can be said to be following the instructions.

Although I disagree with this characterization of the Scriptures, I do affirm that an infallible interpreter is an essential component to living the righteous life.

I’m not expecting adherents to agree or like it, but that is how the majority of the world population, who are not Christians, sees the NT.

I would ask you to substantiate this claim with some evidence, but the truth is, I don’t really care about it that much. The NT is not the Source of my faith, so how other people misunderstand it, and thereby discount my faith, is of little concern to me.

Indulge me for a moment. My wife and I have two friends who happen to be more or less fundamental Christians. One day the wife told us that her husband got a new job offer, but it required them to move. The husband really liked the offer. The wife has most of her family here. The wife told us that she had prayed intensely. She was 100% convinced that Jesus had told her to convince her husband to stay. Later, the husband who did not hear this part of the conversation was talking with us. It seems he too had prayed intensely. He was 100% convinced that Jesus had told him to take the offer and move with the family.

That is more or less how I consider “following Christ” to be effectively meaningless.

This is an interesting example. So, you have applied the same method these two lost people have done, and judged Eternal Truth by your own fallible perceptions.

 

[guanophore]

Christians follow the same God and read the same books, and yet on issue after issue some Christians adamantly believe one thing and others something else.

I think this is the most damaging results of the errant doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

Each side of the debate turns to their go to source, the NT to justify what they have already decided. Each side invariably finds support in the NT for what they want to do.

I see that you have been jaded by those persons calling themselves Christians who have espoused heretical (non-Christian) beliefs. I can see why you would be dissolutioned. I am dissolutioned by this also. I find your example a very sad, but accurate commentary on the fruit of heresies.

I would venture a guess that there isn’t a single contemporary ethical debate that the Bible does not come down on both sides of the issue.

You would find yourself very embarrassed. Sounds like another great topic for another thread!k

I know the common arguments… Perhaps the most common is people are corrupting the words. Why is a text revealed from God so easy to corrupt - so easy to disagree on?

I know why I think so. Why do you think this is? Or maybe you don’t think there is corruption?

The U.S. Constitution is vague and did not anticipate many rancorous debates and provide more detail to head them off at the pass. I would expect that from a purely human work. I would not expect that from works where God had a hand in the text.

If the Constitution were not “difficult”, we would have no need for courts, would we? God appointed an infallible authority so that this type of bickering over the meaning of scripture would not happen. Protestants have rejected that infallible authority, and this has caused more divisions than can be counted.

 

[James924]

You do know that the Discovery Institute is not above pious fraud, right? Reporters contacted people on the list and many of them reported being misled as to the intent of the document and the mission of the Discovery Institute. Also, most of the people on the list are not research scientists and those that are are mostly in irrelevant disciplines.

Pious fraud is a title more accurately applied to your post (a few of your posts actually).

Mostly in irrelevant disciplines?
Like these?:
John Bloom Ph.D. Physics Cornell University
William Dembski Ph.D. Mathematics University of Chicago
Ben J. Stuart Ph.D. Chemical & Biochemical Engineering Rutgers University
Raymond Bohlin Ph.D. Molecular & Cell Biology University of Texas, Dallas
Christa R. Koval Ph.D. Chemistry University of Colorado at Boulder
David Richard Carta Ph.D. Bio-Engineering University of California, San Diego
Lydia G. Thebeau Ph.D. Cell & Molecular Biology Saint Louis University
David Bossard Ph. D. Mathematics Dartmouth College
Sami Palonen Ph.D. Analytical Chemistry University of Helsinki (Finland)
Rudolf Brits Ph.D. Nuclear Chemistry University of Stellenbosch (South Africa)
Gary Kastello Ph.D. Biology University of Wisonsin-Milwaukee
Lev Beloussov Prof. of Embryology
Emil Palecek Prof. of Molecular Biology
Eugene Buff Ph.D. Genetics
Paul Ashby Ph.D. Chemistry
Israel Hanukoglu Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology
Alan Linton Emeritus Professor of Bacteriology
Dean Kenyon Emeritus Professor of Biology
Robert W. Bass Ph.D. Mathematics
David W. Forslund Ph.D. Astrophysics
Giuseppe Sermonti Professor of Genetics
Stanley Salthe Emeritus Professor Biological Sciences
Donald Ewert Ph.D. Microbiology
Russell Carlson Professor of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology
Scott Minnich Professor, Dept of Microbiology
Ralph Seelke Professor of Molecular and Cellular Biology

Oh, yes, very irrelevant.
You said “many” have felt misled…thats funny because I read several arguments against the list and I could only find two (2) sure incidents.
It seems as though you simply googled “arguments against discovery institute.”

The list is mainly people with PhDs in RELEVANT disciplines.
As a matter of fact…Why don’t I just post the list…

 

[James924]

The list is too long and it won’t let me post it. But I’d invite everyone to look at it %between%
About 760 names of Scientists with PhDs, almost all in VERY relevant disciplines.

But it doesn’t matter, because this is simply an argumentum ad verecundiam.
What matters most is the actual content of the argument for a transcendent cause, a transcendent designer.
You’ll find that when atheists criticize the discovery institute’s “Descent from Darwin” they NEVER mention the content of the argument. It almost as if they’re afraid to mention it. Why? Because they are VERY good arguments. (A small fraction of them are mentioned in post #610.)

Speaking of post #610, you’ll notice nobody has responded to that post either. They all try to sidestep it by focusing on whether my supplemental list is credible. Again, I wonder why that is.

 

[James924]

The list is too long and it won’t let me post it. But I’d invite everyone to look at it %between%
About 760 names of Scientists with PhDs, almost all in VERY relevant disciplines.

But it doesn’t matter, because this is simply an argumentum ad verecundiam.
What matters most is the actual content of the argument for a transcendent cause, a transcendent designer.
You’ll find that when atheists criticize the discovery institute’s “Descent from Darwin” they NEVER mention the content of the argument. It almost as if they’re afraid to mention it. Why? Because they are VERY good arguments. (A small fraction of them are mentioned in post #610.)

Speaking of post #610, you’ll notice nobody has responded to that post either. They all try to sidestep it by focusing on whether my supplemental list is credible. Again, I wonder why that is.

Sorry, the list is here: discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660

 

[James924]

I think I gave my opinion on this earlier in the thread, but I’ll repeat it since it’s late and I should get some sleep.

I explained earlier in the thread how love could have developed through evolution. Obviously this would apply to animals as well - after all we are just a particularily bright species. Some animals would probably have “less love” than humans, simply because it’s not a trait that’s as needed for survival as it is for humans. Mothers abandoning their cubs when they reach a certain age for instance - the mothers didn’t need to develop the “love gene”, or whatever it is, any further than that because the cub survives. Following the same principle I would assume that there are also some species which show even “greater love” than what we see in humans, because it is more essential for their survival.

This is one of the more humorous arguments I’ve heard from an atheist. Love evolved? I’m pretty sure this argument has no basis in science and Charles Darwin would probably laugh his pants off if he heard it.

Love is an emotion. It requires only consciousness and awareness. No study of the brain has ever been able to account for why consciousness exists. Consciousness, awareness are not material, are not chemical. They do not occupy space or weigh anything. They exist outside of space and time. The same goes for knowledge and information.

Evolution is the theory that features within species change over very long periods of time via very slight, slow variations.
Love did not evolve. Love is not of this world because, again, its properties do not exist within space and time. You cannot observe it, although you can observe its accidents.

Do animals have something similar? We can certainly observe the accidents of such a thing within animal nature. Companionship, and therefor extreme sorrow over the absence of a companion (as I could observe in my Cockerspaniel when his mate died), is one example of an accident of one of the many features of love that can be observed in animals. Is this the same category of “Love” that humans have? That God has? Remember, Catholics, in our Theology we accept that non-human life can have a sort of earthly sole in that it has consciousness, judgment, and will. I’m no theologian but I would advise against adamantly maintaining that animals do not love. (Though we could probably fill up a whole separate thread with that topic alone.)

 

[James924]

Emotions like morality and empathy are also things that are hard-wired into our brains through natural selection.

Again, you’re joking, right? Can one of you atheists please teach this guy to be better at atheism?
Morality is not an emotion. Empathy is not “hardwired into our brain” because it is an emotion and by the way…if its hardwired in the human species why do so many people have none of it?

Also, you’re comment about this one life being precious…if you’re an atheist then its silly to make an objective statement like that. If you’re an atheist your life has no objective value. Your statement is only subjective…and in that case it means nothing. Its important to remember that relativism is a necessary feature of non-theism. Therefor…your life doesn’t have value. You can only say that you like to think it is precious but that it isnt really true because everything is relative, subjective. Tell me, what made you think your life has any form of objective value that would warrant you calling it precious?

 

[James924]

Do animals have something similar? We can certainly observe the accidents of such a thing within animal nature. Companionship, and therefor extreme sorrow over the absence of a companion (as I could observe in my Cockerspaniel when his mate died), is one example of an accident of one of the many features of love that can be observed in animals. Is this the same category of “Love” that humans have? That God has? Remember, Catholics, in our Theology we accept that non-human life can have a sort of earthly sole in that it has consciousness, judgment, and will. I’m no theologian but I would advise against adamantly maintaining that animals do not love. (Though we could probably fill up a whole separate thread with that topic alone.)

Anyone interested in or confused about the Catholic understanding of a soul and whether or not animals have one should read F. J. Sheed’s “Theology and Sanity” or his smaller volume “Theology for Beginners.” The first two chapters of the latter give a good explanation of the concept of spirit and of what exactly a soul is. Also, Peter Kreeft, a Catholic Philosopher/Theologian who even Protestants call one of the greatest since C.S. Lewis has a lot to say on the subject. You can find plenty of free written articles and audio lectures offered on his website.

EDIT: A common mistake among Christians is to believe that “soul” and “spirit” can be used interchangeably. This is incorrect and I highly recommend the first few chapters of F. J. Sheed’s “Theology of Beginners” specifically for this reason. Protestants, the first several chapters of this book are simple Orthodox Christian theology so there should be no hesitation to read them yourselves (although more specifically Catholic aspects are, of course, taught further on in the book.)

 

[pepin1980]

Hi Annabea,

well if you are 12 you have a lot to see and learn in life I was born and raised in communist country and I was 100% atheist. Why I am catholic now? Because I could not be anything else . I sow 1 800 years old cathedrals , I saw bodies of saints conserved by Lord like they are asleep, I started to read and learn about the HCC and the Only Truth

And don’t worry - just ask God (doesn’t mater if you don’t belief in Him) to show you His way

When I was 12 I was atheist too
When I was 16 i was interested in Buddhism
When I was 23 friend of mine bring me in to a protestant ‘church’ and told me about Jesus
When I was 24 I started to go to a Orthodox Church because I could not accept that the protestants do not accept Mary and the saints (besides that I was living in a orthodox country)
When I was 32 I become finally a catholic because I could not accept that I have to respect my local bishop but not to respect the Bishop of the bishops

So you see it is never too late to find The Truth Nothing is impossible for Lord

Cheers

 

[DavidHume]

When was the last time you actually built a fire?

Every time I start my car.

When was the last time you logged on to CAF to deny Jesus?

Jesus doesn’t particularly concern me; it’s his followers that do.

 

[mrhenrik]

Again, you’re joking, right? Can one of you atheists please teach this guy to be better at atheism?
Morality is not an emotion. Empathy is not “hardwired into our brain” because it is an emotion and by the way…if its hardwired in the human species why do so many people have none of it?

Also, you’re comment about this one life being precious…if you’re an atheist then its silly to make an objective statement like that. If you’re an atheist your life has no objective value. Your statement is only subjective…and in that case it means nothing. Its important to remember that relativism is a necessary feature of non-theism. Therefor…your life doesn’t have value. You can only say that you like to think it is precious but that it isnt really true because everything is relative, subjective. Tell me, what made you think your life has any form of objective value that would warrant you calling it precious?

I was asked where I thought love came from, I gave him my 5 cents. Why are you being such a jerk?

Why is my life precious? I only have one. If I am an atheist, I have no belief in god. This is where atheism begins and ends, and how is that so difficult to comprehend around here?

So you equate love with the size of a species intellectual capacity. Therefore, what do you then say of those who are moderately/severely mentally impaired, is there capacity for love affected?

P.S. Do we have proof that love (for the human species) is a learnt behaviour (evolutionarily-speaking)?

I don’t know much on the topic, but I’m quite sure the mentally impaired have a lower capacity of love.

There’s no proof as far as I know, personally I was just hypothesizing and I clearly stated that in my first post about it.

 

[jam070406]

Every time I start my car.

Sounds like you need a safer car.

Jesus doesn’t particularly concern me; it’s his followers that do.

Then yes, Jesus has had an impact on you due to the fact His followers “concern” you. Not to mention, you also stated that you yourself are an apostate. (not quite in those terms obviously)

 

[guanophore]

If god showed up at my door for coffee and proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that he was in fact god, I’d accept him, sure. This is not agnosticism.

What would be adequate proof? It appears you have made your own perception of what is reasonable and trustworthy as the standard to be met.

If God did come,and you did accept Him, this is, by definition, agnosticism. What you are saying is that you presently cannot “know” God, but that if He convinced you of who He was, you could then “know” HIm, and therefore, would not longer be “agnostic” but believing.

That’s simple reason. You can say that there’s no three km high dinosaurs, but if one shows up at your door for coffee, what do you do? It’s HIGHLY unlikely, but still hypothetically - what would you do?

Well, lessee…if it is a velociraptor, you will probably become breakfast, rather than having any.

I’m not scared of committing 100%. I’m saying that there is NO WAY to prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that something does not exist, so theorietically it’s not 100% sure that god does not exist. It is however, very, very, VERY unlikely.

Hope for what?

Hope that you are in error. Hope that 100% proof is not needed for you to experience the joy of faith and believing. Where else is such a standard applied? I challenge you to produce anything that meets this criteria.