I am an atheist thread 2

[ontologysue]

Despite the evolutionary evidence that I have directed you towards, eh? The presence of an “(evolutionary counterpart) in monkeys”. The demonstration of chimps ability to grasp our language, the most accomplished of which currently surpass your grandson, you don’t deny him the ability of language at the moment do you?
Here are some milestones for human language development at the age of 2-3 (the approximate level that chimps have demonstrated, with sign language so forget about such things as question inflection)
I’ve directed you to a masters thesis on the co-evolution of human anatomy and neurology with human language.

Phooney, your evolutionary evidence, that chimps have been shown to use some of the language skills of a 2 or 3 year old human child, does not PROVE an evolutionary link. I appreciate the research you did, and as time allows, I will peruse your links, although I don’t see myself reading Pinker or Chomsky at the moment. Language scholars are writing on both (or more) sides of the language question, BECAUSE there is no consensus.

And, by the way, I am so sick of people touting the fact that we share 96.9% or whatever, of our DNA with the Apes! That argument is worthless, since with the latest discoveries in DNA/RNA research, scientists have found that the DNA we share with apes is the “junk DNA.” We share DNA with a grasshopper too; do you want to argue for a direct link between the insect and ourselves?

Neither does someone’s Masters Thesis! Do you know how they go about finding subjects for a Masters Thesis? Basically obscurity in approach is preeminant.

Here’s the synopsis of that other Stephen Pinker book I mentioned, “The Language Instinct” (I haven’t read this one, but it seems to be quite relevant):

Chomsky notes, “we can’t derive human language from animal communication systems since our languages are built around syntactical rules.”

Richard Dawkins notes, " there’s no sytax in non human animals."

Pinker notes regarding subjective human consciousness and where it comes from, “beats the heck out of me.” We don’t know, we don’t understand it.

Your own sources, Phooney, admit to the enigma language and self-consciousness presents to evolutionists and brain/mind scientists. There are theories on both sides, no consensus, short of the fact that it remains a mystery. (oooh, hope you don’t turn into a pumkin with the mention of THAT word!)

The differences are in degree rather than anything really unheard of in the animal kingdom.

WRONG! I think the above quotes by your own sources, of which we must acknowledge neither of us have read fully, make my point.

About your diatribe regarding the implications of biological complexity etc., as nonsense, misguided, along with your quote from Stengar regarding quantum physics, if I may descend to your inarticulate level, BALONEY!

The Dover court case had only to do with the quandary over science and religion in the classroom. I’m afraid we can’t depend on lawyers to tell us whether or not there is a God, who by definition is intelligent, Phooney!

What are you even talking about here?

It’s profound, it requires a change in paradigm. THOUGHT, it might all boil down to a thought. I AM.

 

[ontologysue]

Kinda jumping in media res here, but no. The more I hear about and from Padre Pio – from himself and from his devotees, at that! – the less respect it seems I am able to have for him. Some time ago, all I knew was that he was a mystic and a stigmatic, and was reputed to be a very holy man; and I was glad that people had a role model to look up to. Then I heard about his striking a woman who came to him for confession (from a Catholic poster here) and thought it odd; and now you proudly quote him denigrating the suffering and doubt of the very saints so many would see him placed with!

To doubt is not to insult. For a thing to be an insult, it must be intentional. Padre Pio may have had unshakable faith, and that’s all very well for him; but the rest of us mere mortals, the devout and the irreverent, the saintly and the worldly, cannot even be sure we will wake up tomorrow.

"There is more faith in honest doubt than in all the world’s religions."

Dare I quote Alfred Lord Tennyson again? There’s absolutely nothing un-Christian about doubting!

To doubt is to be human.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

There is still a clear contradiction. In one passage he says that he is, in the next he is not.
You don’t have to go very far to see the contradiction, but I will admit that you have to twist and hop around just right to see it as not a contradiction.
Is that why you keep asking about the way out justice system judges people?

A logical contradiction is one that asserts that a statement is both true and false. For example

A = ~A (not A)is a contradiction, while

A http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/itm/ITM/ne.gif B is in no way a contradiction.

If i were to say i hate apples (A) but love berries (B), it would not be a contradiction. If i were to say i will not forgive Adolph (A) because he refuses to repent, but i will forgive Bill (B) if he first repents, there would also be no contradiction. What you are comparing is apples to berries, or Adolphs to Bills.

Jeremiah is saying that God hates those who do not repent (A), but forgives those who do (B). The Jewish people of ancient Palestine lived in two separate kingdoms – the northern kingdom called Judah and the southern kingdom called Israel. Jeremiah was contrasting the relationship the people of Judah had with God, with the relationship the people of Israel had with God. He was saying he will not forgive the people of Judah who refuse to repent (A) but will forgive the people of Israel if they choose to repent (B).

Your own words were:

*Yes, I agree that judges have that discretion. I don’t want to imply that I think this is a good idea, just that it is the law.*A human judge has the discretion to show leniency to the criminal who repents but give a stiffer sentence to the habitual criminal who refuses to change his attitude. I think you agree that there is no contradiction in this. In what way, then, would there be a logical contradiction if God (if such a judge exists) uses the same discretion?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Mr. A:

It might help to compare the two passages in context:

Jeremiah 3:

6 During the reign of King Josiah, the LORD said to me, “Have you seen what faithless Israel has done? She has gone up on every high hill and under every spreading tree and has committed adultery there. 7 I thought that after she had done all this she would return to me but she did not, and her unfaithful sister Judah saw it. 8 I gave faithless Israel her certificate of divorce and sent her away because of all her adulteries. Yet I saw that her unfaithful sister Judah had no fear; she also went out and committed adultery. 9 Because Israel’s immorality mattered so little to her, she defiled the land and committed adultery with stone and wood. 10 In spite of all this, her unfaithful sister Judah did not return to me with all her heart, but only in pretense,” declares the LORD.

11 The LORD said to me, "Faithless Israel is more righteous than unfaithful Judah. 12 Go, proclaim this message toward the north:
" ‘Return, faithless Israel,’ declares the LORD,
‘I will frown on you no longer,
for I am merciful,’ declares the LORD,
‘I will not be angry forever. 13 Only acknowledge your guilt—
you have rebelled against the LORD your God,
you have scattered your favors to foreign gods
under every spreading tree,
and have not obeyed me,’ "
declares the LORD.

Jeremiah 17:

1 “Judah’s sin is engraved with an iron tool,
inscribed with a flint point,
on the tablets of their hearts
and on the horns of their altars.
2 Even their children remember
their altars and Asherah poles
beside the spreading trees
and on the high hills.
3 My mountain in the land
and your wealth and all your treasures
I will give away as plunder,
together with your high places,
because of sin throughout your country.
4 Through your own fault you will lose
the inheritance I gave you.
I will enslave you to your enemies
in a land you do not know,
for you have kindled my anger,
and it will burn forever.”
5 This is what the LORD says:
"Cursed is the one who trusts in man,
who depends on flesh for his strength
and whose heart turns away from the LORD.
6 He will be like a bush in the wastelands;
he will not see prosperity when it comes.
He will dwell in the parched places of the desert,
in a salt land where no one lives. 7 "But blessed is the man who trusts in the LORD,
whose confidence is in him.

Jeremiah 3 describes the people of Israel, who have not yet refused to repent and might still do so and escape God’s judgement. Jeremiah 17 describes the people of Judah who have refused to repent and will now suffer the consequences of God’s judgement. It is not a logical contradiction to be lenient with one group of people but to be strict with another group of people based on their attitudes.

The same sun melts butter but hardens clay. The same wind makes it hard to hike when it is in your face but not as hard when it is at your back. The same God forgives those who repent but judges those who refuse to repent. Forgiveness is one change of mind away.

“So watch yourselves. If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him. If he sins against you seven times in a day, and seven times comes back to you and says, ‘I repent,’ forgive him.”
– Jesus (Luke 17)

“This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. You are witnesses of these things.”
– Jesus (Luke 24)

 

[_A]

There IS no discovery, and NO solid proof that God doesn’t exist, and you know it. So let’s move on to the second part of my post

Why do you avoid for at least the second time the points and questions being raised in post #552, going back to post #411? Is it because you can’t provide the proof that you know I will ask YOU for?
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3155104&postcount=552

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3119660&postcount=411

You don’t like my signature? Fine, then focus on the questions being raised. Stephen Hawking is MORE than qualified as a respected scientist for his views.

Well, I don’t know much about physics or cosmology, really. What I do know is that something having a beginning is not proof of god. If it were evidence of god, Mr. Hawkings would have said so - that would be big news. I suspect that the reason he makes no such claim in the links you provided is that he has no evidence pointing to a god.

 

[_A]

I’m just wondering why this thread has 5 stars?!

I don’t really know what the stars mean, or how they are assigned.

 

[_A]

But

You quoted a chunk of the bible which does nothing. Why not use your own words?
Love me or burn, is the message. How can you see it otherwise?

 

[_A]

Kinda jumping in media res here, but no. The more I hear about and from Padre Pio – from himself and from his devotees, at that! – the less respect it seems I am able to have for him. Some time ago, all I knew was that he was a mystic and a stigmatic, and was reputed to be a very holy man; and I was glad that people had a role model to look up to. Then I heard about his striking a woman who came to him for confession (from a Catholic poster here) and thought it odd; and now you proudly quote him denigrating the suffering and doubt of the very saints so many would see him placed with!

To doubt is not to insult. For a thing to be an insult, it must be intentional. Padre Pio may have had unshakable faith, and that’s all very well for him; but the rest of us mere mortals, the devout and the irreverent, the saintly and the worldly, cannot even be sure we will wake up tomorrow.

To doubt is to be human.

Thanks, Mirdath. I hope that no-one has reason to fear their own mind.

 

[_A]

A logical contradiction is one that asserts that a statement is both true and false. For example

A = ~A (not A)is a contradiction, while

A http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/itm/ITM/ne.gif B is in no way a contradiction.

If i were to say i hate apples (A) but love berries (B), it would not be a contradiction. If i were to say i will not forgive Adolph (A) because he refuses to repent, but i will forgive Bill (B) if he first repents, there would also be no contradiction. What you are comparing is apples to berries, or Adolphs to Bills.

Jeremiah is saying that God hates those who do not repent (A), but forgives those who do (B). The Jewish people of ancient Palestine lived in two separate kingdoms – the northern kingdom called Judah and the southern kingdom called Israel. Jeremiah was contrasting the relationship the people of Judah had with God, with the relationship the people of Israel had with God. He was saying he will not forgive the people of Judah who refuse to repent (A) but will forgive the people of Israel if they choose to repent (B).

Your own words were:

*Yes, I agree that judges have that discretion. I don’t want to imply that I think this is a good idea, just that it is the law.*A human judge has the discretion to show leniency to the criminal who repents but give a stiffer sentence to the habitual criminal who refuses to change his attitude. I think you agree that there is no contradiction in this. In what way, then, would there be a logical contradiction if God (if such a judge exists) uses the same discretion?

RIGHT ! So this god of yours is no better than a human judge. Also, those 2 statements were contradictions of each other…
Unless of course, you get an apologist to stretch and twist enough to make it seem as if it were no contradiction.

 

[ontologysue]

@Phooney

Rather than continuing to knock down your “strawmen,” and thus engage in a tireless game of slaying phantoms over and over again, I will condense my point.

You appear to be subjectively involved in picking out bits of an argument, turning it’s interpretation slightly so that you can then attack it as a “strawman.” There seems to be more zealousness in the agenda than an honest confrontation with the argument.

C. S. Lewis’ point about what a materialist must confront by logical deduction is not a “strawman.” Lewis may have written the Tales of Narnia with a poetic spirit but he was a long time Oxford Professor. He knew what a “strawman” argument was. His point, which I was reiterating with you, was not a “strawman.” Everything you are unable to refute, Phooney, you label. You are the one showing arrogance blythely dismissing great minds because your subjective bias precludes your honestly engaging them.

You show me an ape who can paint the Sistene Chapel like Michelangelo, who can compose Beethoven’s fifth symphony with the poignant pause following the first 4 notes, who can unleash emotion like Shakespear’s King Lear or create the “magnificent calligraphy” of the Tang dynasty scholars, or sculpt the Pieta, or write with the profundity of Dostoyevsky, and I will believe the difference between us is ONLY one of “degree.”

Contrary to inspiring “arrogance,” the standards of beauty, truth and ethics innate in man only serve to humble me. As Kant, (another pre-emminent philosopher, who also knew the difference between cohesive argument and strawmen,) said, “Two things fill my mind with ever increasing awe and wonder: the starry heavens above and the moral law within me.”

Awe, is the word, not arrogance. Where there is order there is rationality. Where there is rationality, there is purpose, and, inspite of your quixotic struggle wisping at windmills, where there is purpose, there is Intelligence, ie God.

 

[FaithofAbraham]

You quoted a chunk of the bible which does nothing. Why not use your own words?
Love me or burn, is the message. How can you see it otherwise?

It’s more like if you are drowning facing certain death, and the message is, take my hand or drown.

 

[NaturalEnquirer]

It’s more like if you are drowning facing certain death, and the message is, take my hand or drown.

That’s an ***excellent ***way to put it. Possibly the best metaphor for salvation I’ve ever heard.

A - you seem to be awfully concerned about hell as a place of eternal punishment. And certainly, there are plenty of scripture passages that support that belief. But, there is room for dispute. Some think it is non-existence. I believe the Catholic theologian Edward Schillebeeckx has successfully defended that position at the Vatican on a few separate occasions.

You may not like that idea - I can already imagine you saying, “Love me or be annihilated, what a terrible deity!”. But God is faced with these choices for a given soul:

1. Eternal communion with Him
2. Eternal separation from Him
3. Non-existence

It would be hard to claim that someone who rejected God all his life would deserve (or want) eternal communion. So that leaves separation or annihilation - which do you prefer? The faith leaves room to believe in either.

You might consider what the Catechism says about it: “The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God” (1035)

Some say that the separation is, in fact, the only punishment of hell, and that all the talk about eternal fire is a metaphor for the complete absence of divine goodness. We don’t know.

Also, even in the “worst case”, “love me or burn” does not accurately reflect Church teaching. Better would be “reject me and burn”. I vaguely remember reading part of Sister Fatima’s visions, where Christ was talking with a sinner, immediately before (or immediately after? I forget ) his death. The sinner was given a clear opportunity to repent. Face to face with Christ. Doesn’t leave much room for hemming and hawing. How do you think God should answer final unrepentance in that case? We’re not talking about an honest disbelief. We’re talking about a willful rejection.

Hell has always been a stumbling block for me, too. I can totally understand where you’re coming from. But there is room to believe that even though we don’t understand it now, God’s mercy and justice will be clear in the end.

 

[_A]

It’s more like if you are drowning facing certain death, and the message is, take my hand or drown.

That is a bad analogy because this ‘god’ is drowning everyone intentionally, and only saving the ones who jump through the hoops correctly.

Love jesus or burn for eternity.

 

[_A]

That’s an ***excellent ***way to put it. Possibly the best metaphor for salvation I’ve ever heard.

A - you seem to be awfully concerned about hell as a place of eternal punishment. And certainly, there are plenty of scripture passages that support that belief. But, there is room for dispute. Some think it is non-existence. I believe the Catholic theologian Edward Schillebeeckx has successfully defended that position at the Vatican on a few separate occasions.

You may not like that idea - I can already imagine you saying, “Love me or be annihilated, what a terrible deity!”. But God is faced with these choices for a given soul:

1. Eternal communion with Him
2. Eternal separation from Him
3. Non-existence

It would be hard to claim that someone who rejected God all his life would deserve (or want) eternal communion. So that leaves separation or annihilation - which do you prefer? The faith leaves room to believe in either.

You might consider what the Catechism says about it: “The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God” (1035)

Some say that the separation is, in fact, the only punishment of hell, and that all the talk about eternal fire is a metaphor for the complete absence of divine goodness. We don’t know.

Also, even in the “worst case”, “love me or burn” does not accurately reflect Church teaching. Better would be “reject me and burn”. I vaguely remember reading part of Sister Fatima’s visions, where Christ was talking with a sinner, immediately before (or immediately after? I forget ) his death. The sinner was given a clear opportunity to repent. Face to face with Christ. Doesn’t leave much room for hemming and hawing. How do you think God should answer final unrepentance in that case? We’re not talking about an honest disbelief. We’re talking about a willful rejection.

Hell has always been a stumbling block for me, too. I can totally understand where you’re coming from. But there is room to believe that even though we don’t understand it now, God’s mercy and justice will be clear in the end.

Love me or burn.
Reject me and burn.
Doesn’t sound like love to me.
And it certainly isn’t unconditional.

 

[whatevergirl]

How do I know that my faith is not a hallunication? Because hallucinations do not change people…my faith has changed me. God has changed my life. If He and His words were hallucinations to anyone, people wouldn’t be moved to change. An even better question I have heard people ask…(not just from a non believer point of view) is how do you know something is faith, and not a coincidence? Now, there’s a question for a thread. At the risk of hijacking your thread…lol…I’ll just leave that one out there.

But, visions seen by martyrs and saints in the past, for example, are not mere hallucinations-again, because hallucinations do not move people to change. Just my thoughts.

 

[NaturalEnquirer]

Love me or burn.
Reject me and burn.
Doesn’t sound like love to me.
And it certainly isn’t unconditional.

What about “Don’t want to come in? Don’t come in. Your call.”

Did you read anything I wrote about other opinions on the “burning”?

 

[Nino]

Yes it takes guts to be a believer in a supreme Being that cares about His creation!..It is easy and soooo pc to be an agnostic and secular humanist…after all its these rapists,murderers,child molestors, rotten presidents and world leaders who always get a nice cozy press and movies that just glamorize them…gee they had a meany for a daddy,once he actually ordered them to clean up their room …etc! I used to be envious of the movie star types who lead lives like barnyard animals…till I began to realize how they behaved when they passed the age of good looks etc…so many turn to drugs and just go looney!..I guess those late moments just before they go nitey-nite,thoughts of…hey,I have a feeling of justice inside of me.where did that feeling come from…when I was young and making those movies lampooning goodness and Jesus it was such a busy twirl of lights and camera and glamor…now that I am getting old…I just wonder…maybe I have worshipped the wrong God after all…oh gee…wheres that needle…I was warned by my agent to never ,ever think about justice and that horrid movie…Its a wonderful life!..happy new year and may God slip a teeny bit of common sense onto the plates of our world leaders…

 

[phooney]

@Socrates4Jesus

“You have to keep in mind that there are varying opinions about just what omnipotence means…In this conception, of which Evangelicals like myself and Roman Catholics seem to hold alike, we have as much to do with shaping the future as God does.”

Indeed, but you must see that this whole paragraph is pure speculation. Even so, under this conception, I see no reason why this would have any impact on God’s knowledge of precisely when an event would happen. If he knows what he’s doing, he knows how people will react, he knows all the natural events that are going to happen, he knows when he is going to intervene again, and he knows how people will react to those interventions then he will know precisely when something will happen. Unless of course, somebody reacts in a way that God was unable to foresee, or a natural event happens that God had no knowledge of. Both of these possibilities I don’t think are compatible even with your slightly toned down version of omnipotence/omniscience. This condition remains pretty solid.

“A self-fulfilling prophecy is one that the person who makes the prophecy fulfills himself.”

No, this is incorrect, I’m not even sure what you would call that. Perhaps “the person’s plans”. A self-fulfilling prophecy, for our purposes here, is a statement that may sufficiently influence people so that their actions or reactions ultimately cause the prophecy to be fulfilled. Therefore, I think this condition is still relevant grounds for skepticism.

“Again, i see no way to interpret these words as anything other than stating that men, rather than some tsunami, will dump all of the remains of the city into the Mediterranean Sea:”

You seriously can’t?:

“throw your stones, timber and rubble into the sea.”
“when I bring the ocean depths over you and its vast waters cover you”

There’s no mention of “he” or “they” when God is claimed to have said I bring the ocean depths over you

“Are you saying Ezekiel is using the pronoun they as a personification of the waves of a tsunami?”

No, I am not, the God character doesn’t personify the ocean in the passage I mentioned.

“I do not see the verse you mention as a contradiction to verse 12 or the rest of the passage. The depths of the Mediterranean Sea are today over the remains of the city,”

Actually, thanks to the build up of sand, most of the causeway is under that spot on the map I linked you to. Under the land. Yes, I agree that the rubble was temporarily under the sea, and no this does not mean I agree that the prophecy was anything special.

“There is no need to read into Ezekiel’s words the prediction of a tsunami based on your opinion of how to interpret one verse. Each verse in the passage should be interpreted in such a way as to agree with the other verses in the same passage, otherwise, you are in danger of taking the one verse out of context. The effect is to give it a meaning the author did not intend.”

Yet the threat to bring the ocean over the city, rather than to bring the city under the ocean was there. All the bases for a watery destruction of this coastal city are covered, with no time limit or window. The ambiguity, vagueness, repetition, theatrics and poetry rob this prophecy of convincing prophetic power.

This condition is still sounding very reasonable to me.

“This does not mean that the prediction that the ancient city would be shoveled into the sea by men is not impressive. As i said before, in all of the known history of the earth, this event has happened only once and only to the city to which Ezekiel predicted this would happen.”

I’m impressed by the event, but still remain underwhelmed by the prediction. I’ll obviously be happy to look at your thoughts on the point you labeled 5b as well.

 

[phooney]

@A

“I just wanted to thnak you for a few wonderful posts here, phooney. Learning things is one if the side benefits of discussions like this. I for one appreciate all the efforts you put into your writing here.”

Thanks for your thanks! I urge people to check things out independently, and actually read about some of these topics. Perhaps on both sides of the issue too.

 

[_A]

How do I know that my faith is not a hallunication? Because hallucinations do not change people.

They certainly do change people. Think of the suicide bomber. Either she was right, and all of christianity is wrong, or she was experiencing an hallucination (or illusion) and it changed her.

…my faith has changed me. God has changed my life. If He and His words were hallucinations to anyone, people wouldn’t be moved to change.

But that is exactly my point - if the hallucinations are convincing enough (which some of the common ones are), then people will be convinced.

An even better question I have heard people ask…(not just from a non believer point of view) is how do you know something is faith, and not a coincidence? Now, there’s a question for a thread. At the risk of hijacking your thread…lol…I’ll just leave that one out there.

Thanks, I think if we ask this question in different ways, there is a much better chance of an answer.

But, visions seen by martyrs and saints in the past, for example, are not mere hallucinations-again, because hallucinations do not move people to change. Just my thoughts.

Which martyrs? The ones who flew the planes into the world trade centers?
Whose saints? The catholic ones, or the ones from islam?