I am an atheist thread 2

[Pax]

PenguinsFan,

I do not share your confidence especially since there are so many other things that science cannot explain…especially things that they can readily observe.

 

[ontologysue]

The DNA code is complex indeed, and none of the respected experts are saying that there is intelligence behind it.

Actually, A, they are. I just read it, thought I put it on an earlier post, but I will look it up again;

A biologist said, and I’m paraphrasing until I find the quote, that the only way to describe the DNA molecule is to say it is actually “embedded intelligence.”

 

[Pax]

It isn’t so much the suffering (such as a small girl being abused in a terrible way be a stepfather), it is the churchs’ nonsense stand (backed by holy scripture) on this childs’ right to an abortion.
From an article I found here.

Were it not for the church-driven bible-inspired criminalization of a medical procedure, much of this extra damage would not have happened. What if the girl died?
Why does she not have the right to escape building a child out of this horrible incident?

So let’s see now…let’s murder the unborn baby for the crime committed by the father…that makes a lot of sense.

 

[PenguinsFan]

PenguinsFan,

I do not share your confidence especially since there are so many other things that science cannot explain…especially things that they can readily observe.

They are already explaining it, but where we get tripped up is that science will only go so far. Do we presume to ever fully know how God created the universe?

Think about it. Creation trying to figure out its Creator? Marginal at best, we can have some realistic theories on the horizon. Theories that point to (not prove) a “Higher Power.”

 

[steve_b]

Falsified data?

Check out the lecture, the beginning of time
hawking.org.uk/text/public/bot.html

Penguin:

“The Copernican principle” alone is a theory about space itself expanding. (along with others) The big bang “model,” well known to most, is that our universe started from a dense small state. I’m oversimplifying, but where are u getting that no one can answer what happened b4 the big bang? Science is growing nearer daily to what happened, there are some darn solid theories on the table. I’m relatively confident there will BE a concrete answer soon.

According to Hawking, (the beginning of time) there is no way science can measure what happened pre big bang. Therefore it’s not addressed.

 

[_A]

So let’s see now…let’s murder the unborn baby for the crime committed by the father…that makes a lot of sense.

Do you remember that the victim was a little girl? Would you condemn your own child to nurture the child of her rapist?

Denial of abortion enslaves women.

 

[_A]

Check out the lecture, the beginning of time
hawking.org.uk/text/public/bot.html

According to Hawking, (the beginning of time) there is no way science can measure what happened pre big bang. Therefore it’s not addressed.

Do you not understand what I said about there being no ‘before’ the bang? It’s like going north of the north pole, or down to -300 degrees celsius.
It makes no sense.

EDIT - spelling, punctuation.

 

[BlaineTog]

So let’s see now…let’s murder the unborn baby for the crime committed by the father…that makes a lot of sense.

Do you remember that the victim was a little girl? Would you condemn your own child to nurture the child of her rapist?

Denial of abortion enslaves women.

This is an example of something I like to call parallel arguing: from a certain angle, it looks like you’re talking to each other, but take a few steps to the left and it becomes clear that you’re both shouting into the void.

A, the reason the Church abhors abortion is that it considers the embryo, even when it’s just one cell, to be a human life, an innocent human life at that, and killing it is de facto murder. Murder = wrong, so abortion = wrong. That a woman should be raped and then become pregnant is a heartbreaking situation, but it doesn’t justify murder. From the church’s standpoint, it would be roughly equivalent to going into the rapist’s house and strangling his five year old, who clearly had nothing to do with the crime. You have to keep this in mind when discussing abortion with someone Pro-Life, because otherwise you’re committing the strawman fallacy. And why would you not want to understand their point of view?

(And I’m not saying that Pro-Lifers are any better in this respect. So often, they don’t even try to understand where Pro-Choicers are coming from, and that irritates me just as much. It’s a necessary discussion, but obstinately refusing to understand each other is not going to get us anywhere.)

And technically, denial of abortion only enslaves women for 9 months, at which point they can give the child up for adoption.

 

[Seshat]

Another note, I have two sisters who are atheists, and my family has heard all the arguments, debates, possibilities, u name it. I digress that convincing an atheist that God exists, is like a one legged man trying to win in a butt kickin’ contest. Actually, that could be easier.

Actually, PenquinsFan, you might be surprised to find out that many, if not most atheists at one time were believers. I myself was at one time convinced that there was a god. The problem was, once I started questioning, I did not see enough evidence for the existence of a god to stay convinced that there is one.

Rather odd that so many have changed their minds about such a thing, if the evidence is so strong for the existence of god.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

… No my friend, I can’t! I hope to be able to clear this up here.

I agree that I am unaware of any evidence that proves that Alexander the Great read Ezekiel. I repeat here, as I have said before, that I don’t believe that is what happened, due to the lack of supporting evidence. I think this lack of belief on this matter is the rational position to take.

However, this lack of evidence for the above does not constitute as evidence that Alexander the Great was UNAWARE of the prophecy made by Ezekiel. He needn’t have read the text directly, he obviously spoke with countless people before his siege at Tyre, all of those people had doubtless spoken with countless people before they spoke with Alexander. This geometric progression of people in indirect communication with Alexander going back until the time when Ezekiel made the prophecy is absolutely massive. There is still no evidence that he heard the prophecy, though it is clearly possible, so my position remains the same, I lack a belief on this, which means I am suspending judgement pending more evidence. This is also in line with my original condition 3, which stated that the people fulfilling the prophecy must not be aware of it as a valid grounds for skepticism, etc, but we have gone over this already.

The only evidence (that I am currently aware of, or that you have presented) for Alexander having heard the prophecy beforehand or for God speaking to Ezekiel is the fact that Alexander threw the city into the ocean. I think this evidence is insufficient to make such claims, because the evidence isn’t specific enough, it doesn’t rule out either my hypothesis OR yours.

I presented the possibility of Alexander having heard of the prophecy beforehand as a more parsimonious option than God having spoken to Ezekiel. By this I mean that Alexander having heard the prophecy beforehand makes less assumptions than God having spoken to Ezekiel. To go with my option all you have to assume is that people talk, which isn’t much of an assumption at all, and is hardly a contentious issue.
… I hope I have now cleared up this sole perceived inconsistency?

Yes, thank you Phooney! I now see no contradiction.



I should amend my understanding of your logical argument thus:

a2) modern historians indicate there is no credible evidence that Alexander the Great read Ezekielb2) Hence, Alexander the Great likely never read Ezekiel prior to conquering Tyre c2) Nevertheless, there were many people who had read Ezekiel prior to the general invading ancient Palestine d2) It is highly probable that a good number of these people got the idea from Ezekiel to build the causeway to the island city of Tyree2) This number of people was significantly large enough to make it highly probable that Alexander the Great would have met one of these people, or met someone who knew some of these people f2) It is likewise highly probable that one of these people would have discussed Ezekiel’s writings with the Greek general and passed on to him the meaning of the 26th chapter of Ezekielg2) Moreover, it is highly probable that Alexander the Great would have recognized the relevance and significance of Ezekiel’s prophecy and used the knowledge he gleaned to accomplish what no ancient general before him could – defeat the island city of Tyrethereforeq2) The idea of how to defeat the island city of Tyre originated with Ezekiel, rather than Alexander the Greatand thereforer2) Modern historians are wrong about this point in history, and the historical record should be revised to credit the insane or deluded prophet from Palestine with the invention of this remarkable military strategy that modern military students study to this day and therefores2) There is good evidence to believe that there is nothing miraculous about Ezekiel predicting that the entire remains of the mainland city of Tyre would be dumped into the Mediterranean Seaand thereforet2) Common events, rather than the miraculous, explains how Ezekiel’s prediction came trueand thereforeu2) Ezekiel 26 is no proof that a being who is omniscient spoke to EzekielWould you say that this is a fair representation of your argument and the five logical conclusions that might be drawn from it?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Put that way, it is only bigotry on gods part and not a contradiction at all.
Looked at another way, on one breath Yahweh suggests that he is merciful, and in the next, he condemns a race of people for eternity.
Doesn’t sound like he would still be willing to accept an apology, does it?

I see you are a reasonable thinker, my good A! Yes, the contradiction is not within the text, rather, it is your idea of what is morally right that is at odds with this supposed God.



However, is it fair to judge someone based on two brief soundbites? Perhaps you are misunderstanding what this God (whether imaginary or not) says and if only he might be given a chance to respond to your objection you might see how he does not oppose what you hold as good and noble.

Lets say it was me who said i’ll always be angry with one person but i won’t remain angry with another. If one person was black and the other caucasian, would it be fair for you to accuse me of bigotry? Would not the more just course of action be to confront me and ask me point blank to explain why i said what i said before you spit in my face and condemn me a racist?

 

[Righteousone]

Sorry you got that from a single quote. I assure you, It certainly wasn’t meant to offend. Especially when you see how he writes in context with other great quotes. Check this out if you’re interested. See with broader context, why Padre Pio would say what I use as a signature. .
members.aol.com/pacebene/AMDG.html

Padre Pio changed my life forever. I have a great story about him.

 

[Righteousone]

A, I once knew this girl who was so into “Wicca”, that nothing could change her mind about Jesus. Then one day for the heck of it I buy her this book called “The Passion of Our Lord, Jesus Christ” by Anne Catherine Emmerick. She hesitantly for the longest time refused to read it. Several months later, she pulled it out, and dusted it off. I get this phone call and she is crying. She said she was so sorry all these years for not believing she was beside herself. I told her God will lead her and she is now a practicing Catholic. In fact she attends Mass every day. Her life had changed forever by this book.
The book describes in detail to Anne Catherine Emmerick, the death (in detail) of our Lord’s Passion. She saw it all and suffered tremendously because of it. Jesus had given her this gift of seeing his death in explicit detail. In fact, Mel Gibson based his movie on part of this book.

If you could have an open mind without the stubbornness, purchase this book. You’ll be changed forever.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

The DNA code is complex indeed, and none of the respected experts are saying that there is intelligence behind it.

Actually, there are many respected scientists who are Christians who believe that examples of the results of genetic code are extremely strong evidence that some intelligent being is behind them. However, should we accept the opinion of experts on either side of the fence without examining the evidence ourselves? No, i think you and i should carefully scrutinize the evidence before we decide one way or the other.

I hope you will join me in this investigation and point out any errors i make. Lets start with what we already know. My understanding about that which we both agreed to be true about binary code is this:

1a) Machines, such as computer processors, have two settings within their circuits, which are electrical current on, and electrical current off 2a) Machines, such computer processors, use binary code to receive instructions from computer programs3a) Hence, the binary numbering system itself might be the product of natural circumstances rather than the creating of intelligent beings 4a) However, examples of binary code, such as the programs written that comprise a Windows operating system, or even the simple BIOS of a ROM chip on a computer motherboard, are too complex to be the result of natural circumstances5a) We have many examples of complex binary code created by computer programmers and computer science engineers6a) There is not even one example of complex binary code created by natural circumstancestherefore100a) While the binary numbering system might be explained by natural circumstances, examples of binary code must be the creation of the intelligent human beings who wrote themMy question is this: Since there are no examples of binary code that are proven to be the result of natural circumstances, why should i believe there are examples of genetic code that are the product of natural circumstances?

Genetic code is far more complex than binary code. So, it stands to reason that, it would be less likely, not more likely, that natural circumstances dictate examples of genetic code.

 

[Pax]

Do you remember that the victim was a little girl? Would you condemn your own child to nurture the child of her rapist?

Denial of abortion enslaves women.

I would argue that abortion harms women. Furthermore, I believe that you victimize the rape victim a second time by killing the baby.

 

[Minnie31]

(And I’m not saying that Pro-Lifers are any better in this respect. So often, they don’t even try to understand where Pro-Choicers are coming from, and that irritates me just as much. It’s a necessary discussion, but obstinately refusing to understand each other is not going to get us anywhere.)

And technically, denial of abortion only enslaves women for 9 months, at which point they can give the child up for adoption.

Thank you for trying to understand the view of pro choicers. I must admit that although I am pro choice I would consider abortion as a last resort. I say this because I know quite a few women who really want to have children but simply cannot. I think if I had an unwanted pregnancy I would probably carry the it full term then give it up for adoption. HOWEVER, if I was in a situation where my health was at risk I would opt for abortion. I think it should continue to be legal.

May I ask what your stand is on birth control?

 

[Armor_of_God]

A,

I suspect that in your life, you have experienced an event (or more than one) that caused you great pain, sorrow, anger - or all of these. Perhaps it was something that did not turn out the way you had hoped, or perhaps it was someone who let you down. Whatever took place, it affected you to the point where you set your heart against any belief in God.

I say this because you have stated that you came on this forum to understand faith. Yet, you did not come here merely as someone open and questioning, looking for an explanation of what draws people to faith - any faith.

Rather, your posts show some serious hatred and bitterness coming from you, directed at Who you perceive the Christian God to be and what you perceive the Catholic Church to be. This is greatly hindering your attempts to learn about faith.

 

[ontologysue]

Actually, PenquinsFan, you might be surprised to find out that many, if not most atheists at one time were believers. I myself was at one time convinced that there was a god. The problem was, once I started questioning, I did not see enough evidence for the existence of a god to stay convinced that there is one.

Rather odd that so many have changed their minds about such a thing, if the evidence is so strong for the existence of god.

This is anecdotal. There are probably just as many Atheists who convert.

It is not uncommon for most people, especially in this country, to be raised, at least nominally, in some faith framework. It is also not uncommon for a period of doubt which often leads to Atheism during the adolecsent years through the twenties or longer.

This is not a bad thing. As Dante said, “at the foot of truth, like shoots, doubts spring up; this is a natural force urging us to the top, from height to height.”

You started questioning and found no evidence to suggest a God exists, I also questioned and came to the opposite conclusion.

 

[BlaineTog]

Thank you for trying to understand the view of pro choicers. I must admit that although I am pro choice I would consider abortion as a last resort. I say this because I know quite a few women who really want to have children but simply cannot. I think if I had an unwanted pregnancy I would probably carry the it full term then give it up for adoption. HOWEVER, if I was in a situation where my health was at risk I would opt for abortion. I think it should continue to be legal.

May I ask what your stand is on birth control?

Well, I’m Catholic, so I’d never use it. I have no objection to unmarried people using it, since it’s effectively the same sin as premarital sex.

 

[steve_b]

I thoroughly enjoyed the link on Padre Pio. Thanks!
Just what I needed at the moment.

:tiphat: You’re welcome