I am an atheist thread 2

[steve_b]

If the big bang started time, then saying ‘before the big bang’ is like saying ‘-300 degrees Celsius’. Complete nonsense.

Not exactly.

Even science predicts there is nothing prior to the big bang.

Ever hear the law of “things” that are at rest stay at rest until acted upon? Well, to take that one step further, “things” just don’t magically appear from nothing. Where did they come from and what or who acted on them.

Singularity had to be acted upon. But even before THAT, how did singularity get here?
_A_:

The language that we use is insufficient to the task.
I think this is very important, but I can’t quite get a handle on it, either.
It is no wonder that Hawking didn’t say anything about it.

Hawking actually tries to answer this through atomic theory, which atoms that you can’t see all of a sudden bunch together to form something, therefore giving the appearance that something came from nothing. Problem is, atoms are something. How did atoms get here? They don’t just magically appear.

 

[steve_b]

I was trying to show you that any gods are equally impossible to disprove.
In the words of an author (one who was invited to the Vatican, if memory serves) - “that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence”

I haven’t made the case for God yet. I’m still trying to get the atheists and agnostics here to make THEIR case for no God. Science just happens to be the favorite mediun, so we’re focused on only science and the best that science can offer for the time being. You have to admit, science is not coming up with the answer for how everything began. They can go just so far and then they’re stuck.

 

[steve_b]

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.

And do you not understand what I’M saying? Science can’t just plop singularity into an equation, or a big bang, or time, or space, or ANYTHING until they address how these elements or ANY element of their theory got here. You pride yourself as a critical thinker. Did singularity just get here by magic?

Until they answer the question of questions, I would suggest they have crossed the line from science into faith.

 

[Minnie31]

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.

Why does the catholic church consider these things sins? If the church approved of birth control and educated students about it there would be less unwanted pregnancies, therefore less abortions.

 

[steve_b]

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

I’d like to hear it. If you post it let me know or PM me

 

[BlaineTog]

Why does the catholic church consider these things sins? If the church approved of birth control and educated students about it there would be less unwanted pregnancies, therefore less abortions.

It’s part of sexual morality as a coherent whole. Essentially, the sex act is necessarily an action in which you give the whole of yourself to the other person and they do the same to you, as if you were two glasses of water poured together into one glass. Contraception prevents this from happening, as you aren’t giving all of yourself to the other person, as if instead of pouring the glasses together you merely placed them next to each other and said “look, they’re one!” This is both an egregious lie and a mockery of both each other and sexuality itself (and therefore, God, since God designed sexuality). Additionally, contraception is the taking from God His right to decide when you should conceive, and in a marriage situation it displays a lack of openness to life.

That’s why the Church is against contraception, though really, it’s necessary to explain sexual morality in whole for it to be completely understood.

As for it being the lesser of two evils, let me put it this way: let’s say you hate this guy and you decide to kill him. I could ask you not to kill him, or I could council you to just chop his arm off instead. Obviously, it’s less bad for you to chop his arm off, but it’s still wrong. Similarly, the Church believes in absolute morality, as in if something is wrong, it is wrong even if it’s the lesser of two evils (though the sinfulness of it can be lessened because of the situation, it can never be removed, and “to sin” and “to not do what you should have done” are synonyms. Of course, a situation where you are literally required to choose one bad thing over another, such as if you’re driving a bus whose brakes have failed and you have literally no third option between plowing through a crowd of 10 people or just two people, isn’t a choice to do evil on your part at all).

 

[ontologysue]

There’s also the factor of abstinence in the marital relationship. I believe the Church looks at abstinence, (for a few days each month, for example,) as a creative element in the dynamics of Eros. Brief periods of abstinence can be a creative and unitive action.

Even during a short time of abstinence, the couple is theoretically open to creation. In fact, it can strengthen the marital bond and each soul existentially.

 

[Righteousone]

I’d like to hear it. If you post it let me know or PM me

I don’t mind telling you right here, perhaps A will listen too.
About three years ago, a woman was having the glove of Padre Pio at her home. Maybe 14 people were there including a priest. One had cancer etc.lall had a problem they wanted to pray for. Anyway I never even heard of Padre Pio and was never quite religious either. I just believed in God and it didn’t go beyond that.
As they passed the glove around, it was my turn. I decided to go with the flow, had no health issues and didn’t know what to pray for so I prayed that my children be forever ok in life.
Suddenly the next day, I awoke strangely. I had to get to confession, I had not been in 20 years or more. After all, Padre Pio was known for his endless hours a day hearing confessions.
I went to a church and had a confession. I was so happy and overcome with joy just being there, that the priest told me I was in a state of Grace. I stayed 1 hour with this priest telling him about Padre Pio and all of a sudden my desire to come there.
But it didn’t stop there. I bought all his books, all the books about the Blessed Mother’s apparitions (Padre Pio loved the Blessed Mother), started to study Scripture, history of my church, read only about the Saints, had a Mass for Padre Pio, had people at the house with a priest hearing their confessions (right after that, I had a heart attack, but was ok realizing it was Satan trying to interrupt my journey of faith).
Anyway, I started preaching, talking and converting others, went to church 40 days straight during Lent etc…I was NEVER like this before that night with Padre Pio’s glove. I also had a gift from God 2 weeks before Lent that I cannot talk about yet.
Steve, I am a living witness to the fact that there is a God. I am witness to this and that is why it frustrates me so much to see that people do not believe.

 

[Minnie31]

It’s part of sexual morality as a coherent whole. Essentially, the sex act is necessarily an action in which you give the whole of yourself to the other person and they do the same to you, as if you were two glasses of water poured together into one glass. Contraception prevents this from happening, as you aren’t giving all of yourself to the other person, as if instead of pouring the glasses together you merely placed them next to each other and said “look, they’re one!” This is both an egregious lie and a mockery of both each other and sexuality itself (and therefore, God, since God designed sexuality). Additionally, contraception is the taking from God His right to decide when you should conceive, and in a marriage situation it displays a lack of openness to life.
.

Thanks for your explanation. I have a clearer view of where you’re coming from now. You mentioned that god decides when a woman should conceive. Does god also decide that a woman should be infertile? If so, isn’t this diplaying a lack of openness to life, not the woman’s fault. Now, let’s suppose we have a happily married catholic couple. The husband contracts HIV (through a blood transfusion, of course). How is this couple ever to give the whole of themselves to each other? If they do, the wife will likely contract HIV. Even worse, she may become pregnant and pass it onto her fetus. Wouldn’t birth control be necessary in this case? Or would you argue abstainance? If they abstain from sex wouldn’t that be a display of lack of openness to life as you explained it?

 

[_A]

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.

I understand all of that. What stops me is that, while I would protect a human life, I would not do it at the expense of anothers’ freedom.
If a woman wants to abort, she will. If reasonable medical help is not available, she will do something less safe. (such as tossing herself down some stairs).
Having medical professionals available to assist women in this matter reduces harm.
Another important point is that, while you may think that it is a human life, it is more important what the mother thinks. If she thinks it is a precious life, she will act accordingly. Wonderfully.
If she thinks it is a sentence of a trap, what sort of nurturing do you think she will do? Having seen many people living with FASD, I know what often happens.
I will not enslave a woman. The church may think her rights are not important, but I am a person, not a church.

 

[_A]

Lets say it was me who said i’ll always be angry with one person but i won’t remain angry with another.

If you said that you would hate all Italians? Yes, I would call it bigotry. I am not the spitting kind, though. The verse mentions gods race-hate, not a hatred of one person.

 

[_A]

A, I once knew this girl who was so into “Wicca”, that nothing could change her mind about Jesus.

I don’t find it at all surprising that she traded in one religious belief for another.
What would surprise me is if there was any **evidence **to support ‘the god hypothesis’.

 

[_A]

[/INDENT]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 circumstances

I disagree. There are some things which are much more complex than a rom chip which are not too complex to have been the result of natural (selection) circumstances.

There is not even one example of complex binary code created by natural circumstances

DNA

therefore100a) 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 them

Here I disagree again.

My 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?

A study of evolution by natural selection would likely clear this up for you.

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.

Except that there is a whale of a lot of evidence in favour of evolution by natural selection (really only the scientifically illiterate say otherwise). That theory has been tested more than any other I can think of. By a wide variety of bright people. It still stands.

 

[_A]

I would argue that abortion harms women.

Please explain.

Furthermore, I believe that you victimize the rape victim a second time by killing the baby.

It would be if I did that. If, however, the woman asked to have it removed, it would be *helping * her, not victimizing her.

 

[_A]

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.

Well thanks for your opinion.
Still no evidence so you thought you would paint me the angry young man with his heart against god? Great strategy!

I still think if you had evidence it would work better.

I am not angry at the imaginary ‘god-head’. I do get angry when people use their faith, religion or both to force others to do what they think is right.

 

[_A]

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

Does this mean that you have evidence, ontologysue? Because it looks like the other poster is basing their belief (or lack of it) on evidence, where you have based it on *faith *(as far as I can tell).

 

[_A]

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.

Why in the world can’t you use birth control? Is there any reason for this, or is it more unfounded dogma?

 

[_A]

Not exactly.

Even science predicts there is nothing prior to the big bang.

Ever hear the law of “things” that are at rest stay at rest until acted upon? Well, to take that one step further, “things” just don’t magically appear from nothing. Where did they come from and what or who acted on them.

Singularity had to be acted upon. But even before THAT, how did singularity get here?

Hawking actually tries to answer this through atomic theory, which atoms that you can’t see all of a sudden bunch together to form something, therefore giving the appearance that something came from nothing. Problem is, atoms are something. How did atoms get here? They don’t just magically appear.

I think you still miss the point…there is no ‘before time’.

 

[_A]

I haven’t made the case for God yet. I’m still trying to get the atheists and agnostics here to make THEIR case for no God. Science just happens to be the favorite mediun, so we’re focused on only science and the best that science can offer for the time being. You have to admit, science is not coming up with the answer for how everything began. They can go just so far and then they’re stuck.

I don’t know everything, but I don’t need to. I am not afraid of such a lack. I will not fill the cracks in my knowledge with ‘goddidit’, because that would seem dishonest to me.
As to what evidence I have to support my lack of belief, well, how about thousands of years of searching, and still no proof.
It is not so much that I disbelieve, but that I don’t see anything to believe.

 

[_A]

And do you not understand what I’M saying? Science can’t just plop singularity into an equation, or a big bang, or time, or space, or ANYTHING until they address how these elements or ANY element of their theory got here. You pride yourself as a critical thinker. Did singularity just get here by magic?

Until they answer the question of questions, I would suggest they have crossed the line from science into faith.

Nope. Pretending that you have an answer (like saying “you don’t know, so goddidit”) is faith. Saying ‘we don’t know’ is honest and a good start for science.

Good science is good questions