I am an atheist thread 3

[dessert]

Cradle catholic with a background in aviation and social work. How about you?

Sorry to be so long in getting back, my goodness I had a hard time finding this! So many posts allready!

I have had training in the nursing field and social work, psychology
was baptised a Catholic and strayed away for 40 years only attending Mass occasionally with my mum.

My dad was in aviation WW II . He has much guilt about killing people in the war.

I’m going out tonight as I have a group to get together with, can’t be on this forum all the time!
Blessings

 

[NaturalEnquirer]

Yes, and i think it is wise for me to not believe anything until there is good evidence to support it. Where scientific evidence is lacking, i have historical and rational evidence on which to rely. This evidence tells me there is a God who created all.

When you think about it, you cannot say it is a scientific certainty that life could begin without a God to create it. The best you can do is to say you hope life could begin without a God. You cannot use scientific evidence that does not exist to prove there is no God. So, if that is your goal, you must rely on other evidence to prove He is not.

Science cannot help either of us come to the truth about whether or not God exists. She washes her hands of the whole business and tells us to ask someone else to settle the matter. To what, then, would you suggest we turn to assist us in deciding this important question?

My friend, you’re not reading many of my posts if you think I’m trying to disprove God. Not at all!

I agree whole-heartedly that the historical and philosophical evidence points strongly to the existence of God.

I’m just trying to point out that your arguments about DNA in particular (for example, the analogy to Windows) are off base. No offense meant.

God bless!

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

My friend, you’re not reading many of my posts if you think I’m trying to disprove God. Not at all!

I agree whole-heartedly that the historical and philosophical evidence points strongly to the existence of God.

I’m just trying to point out that your arguments about DNA in particular (for example, the analogy to Windows) are off base. No offense meant.

God bless!

No offense taken. Sorry for misunderstanding your intentions!

I suppose my answer to you would be applicable to our discussions with A or Phooney. Science has nothing conclusive to offer any of us to settle the matter about God’s existence.

 

[lkddav]

No because I’d still believe in God. I don’t call other faiths atheist, because they do have faith. I am vastly different from you because I DO believe in God.

Hi psyche

You may not call other faiths atheist, but they are. They do not believe in your god just like i don’t. What is the difference ??

So, if i believed that green invisible trolls live underwater in the hudson river, created the world and man, you would consider that faith? You would not consider me an atheist?

les

 

[psyche23]

Hi psyche

You may not call other faiths atheist, but they are. They do not believe in your god just like i don’t. What is the difference ??

So, if i believed that green invisible trolls live underwater in the hudson river, created the world and man, you would consider that faith? You would not consider me an atheist?

les

No I would not because you would still believe in a god. You’d be wrong in your beliefs, but athiesm requires no belief in a god of any kind. If you believed your computer was a god, you would not be an atheist…

 

[lkddav]

Thank you for posting so many words from my Lord, but what is your point?

Hello AOG

You are correct. My quote didn’t get through. You told “A” that he was not qualified to interpret the bible as to what HELL meant.
The bible is very clear on what hell is. Over the years it seems that Hell has been “watered down” to make it more “user friendly”.

It doesn’t take an expert to read and understand the bible and it’s description of hell.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Hello AOG

You are correct. My quote didn’t get through. You told “A” that he was not qualified to interpret the bible as to what HELL meant.
The bible is very clear on what hell is. Over the years it seems that Hell has been “watered down” to make it more “user friendly”.

It doesn’t take an expert to read and understand the bible and it’s description of hell.

Dav:

I’m not sure i understand hell that well. If it is not too much to ask, will you explain to me what you believe the Bible teaches about hell?

 

[_A]

Sorry for not responding until now. We were talking about how scientific experiment has never been able to produce functioning DNA from the base chemicals adenosine, cytosine, guanosine, and thymidine. This is not for want of trying, as many attempts have been made by geneticists and chemists over many years.

Not quite, you said…
"Socrates4Jesus:

What it does mean is that there is no scientific evidence (i.e., no results of scientific experimentation) that demonstrates that functioning DNA can be created by natural occurrences.

Then I asked…

What it does mean is that there is no scientific evidence (i.e., no results of scientific experimentation) that demonstrates that functioning DNA can be created by intelligent beings?

The reason I asked it was to illustrate that there is also no evidence that DNA could be created by a god or gods. (not to mention how would you tell which god did it?). I am content to leave it unproven for the moment, and for now, the natural answer makes fewer complicated assumptions.

Yes i agree that, just as there is no scientific grounds for believing DNA being created by natural processes,

I don’t agree with this, as I don’t know enough about the theory to make even a good guess.

If neither natural processes nor human beings can create working genetic code, then what possibilities are left you and i to consider, A?

Did I miss something where you demonstrated that natural processes could not create working genetic code?
I will admit I find it a bit complicated, but you base all of your answers on the assumption that there is a creator.
You might consider that it could colour your opinions.

 

[_A]

What you see as “a” thing which splits into “more-than-a” things is incorrect.

It was always meant to become two people (assuming a “twin” split) and each of those people, because they are people, each have a soul.

The fact that you saw a single thing where there existed more than a single thing only means that you weren’t observant enough to discern what was really happening.

Would a mechanically (forced) split have two souls before the split took place? Or would such a mechanical (surgical?) split generate the souls at the time of the split?

 

[_A]

Then you astonish me once more, my friend A! It takes much more blind faith to believe that a mystery created life than to believe that God did. You have great religious faith in this mystery in which you believe.

How is it that you think admitting ignorance takes faith? I think asserting knowledge where you have none takes faith.
From here, it looks like faith is the word you use when you want emotion accepted as fact.

 

[_A]

Can you actually say that understanding a thing as a concept is contingent on believing in it?

I don’t think so, if I understand your question correctly. It would seem that there are many Catholics who don’t understand the same (compared to each other, I mean). This suggests that at least some of them don’t understand, but still believe.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

… Did I miss something where you demonstrated that natural processes could not create working genetic code?
I will admit I find it a bit complicated, but you base all of your answers on the assumption that there is a creator.
You might consider that it could colour your opinions.

Yes, its not fair for me to jump into the conversation after leaving for a week and to expect you to have it fresh in your mind!

To put it simply, scientists have been trying for many years to create DNA using just the four chemicals that make up the 64 nucleotides that compose DNA. Try as they may to simulate the natural occurrences of primeval earth, they have failed to create any functioning genetic code.

Since they have failed, there is currently no scientific evidence (i.e., no result of any scientific experimentation) that shows that DNA can be created by natural occurrences. The only DNA scientists have is that which they extract from living or dead cells of existing or deceased organisms.

So, science has failed to show how DNA could be created in the first place. Religion steps in and says it is God, creator of all life, who programmed genetic code. You cannot argue with this on scientific grounds, for there is no scientific evidence, yet.

Your only recourse is to argue against God creating life on some other grounds other than scientific. The question is, what proof besides scientific evidence would you use to demonstrate there is no God?

 

[phooney]

Welcome back, Socrates4Jesus, how have you been?

Were you going to respond to my posts that were in response to yours as well?

Sorry about the lack of posting today, in particular sorry to Natural Enquirer, you have some nice questions, just one of those days, you know?

Mind you, I still think there are many more points I’ve sent to you that haven’t been responded to yet!

 

[lkddav]

Dav:

I’m not sure i understand hell that well. If it is not too much to ask, will you explain to me what you believe the Bible teaches about hell?

Hello S4J

This post made me chuckle! I have read many of your posts. I think you understand hell very well
When i was about 13 I went to see a movie about hell in a local church. I remember a “sinner” getting killed on a motorbike. Of course he went to hell. He was engulfed in flame, people crawling on him bitting, and worms crawling through his skin.

Even at that age I realized when I came out of that movie that it was nothing but a scare tactic. I went ahead with the program and got saved. I faked that, even cried a little. After that I stayed home and watched Star trek on sunday morning. A much more productive day.

By the quotes in the bible that I posted above, that is the tradional Hell. Burning in fire and gnashing of teeth. It is repeated more than once.

Over the years it seems that the tradional hell is being replaced by sayings such as, “it’s not a nice place”, “a place that is not pleasant”, " a place void of god".

This is just an attempt to make the bible more “user friendly” to attract more converts, in my opinion.

les

 

[Armor_of_God]

No, play nice. He’s making a rhetorical point. And it’s not bad. If, as was claimed, souls are created/inserted/whatever at conception, and if the zygote becomes two individuals at some time after conception, then either they only have one soul between them (I think this was believed in the middle ages – anyone remember that?), or something’s wrong.

But I don’t think anyone said that “ensoulment” can only occur at conception, merely that that is the normal time. Not exactly the death knell to the claim that A made it out to be.

Couldn’t resist… We need a little levity and humor here every now and then. Besides, all we have to work with are words on a screen, so A should have qualified his statement with a beginning phrase such as: “If, indeed, souls exist…”.

 

[Armor_of_God]

Hello AOG

You are correct. My quote didn’t get through. You told “A” that he was not qualified to interpret the bible as to what HELL meant.
The bible is very clear on what hell is. Over the years it seems that Hell has been “watered down” to make it more “user friendly”.

It doesn’t take an expert to read and understand the bible and it’s description of hell.

Whoa, hang on there, les. I told A no such thing. You are mixing me up with someone else. Please check out the dialogue leading up to that post again.

But you know, I agree with you that the concept of hell has been watered down over the years, in many locations. The reason I asked what was the point of all those quotes? Because Catholic teaching has never denied hell exists, and we hear those Scriptures you quoted at Mass regularly during the liturgical year. They are no surprise, and they are not sugar-coated.

Anyway, I believe your posting of the quotes came about from an earlier “love me or burn” discussion, so I asked the question in that context. What I was getting at is what seems to be the missing link in this “LMOB” mind-set: Why do people who see these quotes and seize on them totally ignore all the teachings and quotes about love? There are entire chapters about love in the New Testament.

 

[Armor_of_God]

Phooney,

Thanks for your responses…will get back to them when I have more than 30 free minutes…

 

[lkddav]

Whoa, hang on there, les. I told A no such thing. You are mixing me up with someone else. Please check out the dialogue leading up to that post again.

But you know, I agree with you that the concept of hell has been watered down over the years, in many locations. The reason I asked what was the point of all those quotes? Because Catholic teaching has never denied hell exists, and we hear those Scriptures you quoted at Mass regularly during the liturgical year. They are no surprise, and they are not sugar-coated.

Anyway, I believe your posting of the quotes came about from an earlier “love me or burn” discussion, so I asked the question in that context. What I was getting at is what seems to be the missing link in this “LMOB” mind-set: Why do people who see these quotes and seize on them totally ignore all the teachings and quotes about love? There are entire chapters about love in the New Testament.

AOG

You may be correct. I have made a few mistakes before. It is late now but i will go back and check the dialogue out again.

les

 

[NaturalEnquirer]

Sorry about the lack of posting today, in particular sorry to Natural Enquirer, you have some nice questions, just one of those days, you know?

Mind you, I still think there are many more points I’ve sent to you that haven’t been responded to yet!

I hear ya.

Yes, there are indeed many points that I haven’t responded to. Unfortunately, the length of this thread is going to make them hard to dig up.

Peace,
NE

 

[NaturalEnquirer]

AOG

You may be correct. I have made a few mistakes before. It is late now but i will go back and check the dialogue out again.

les

I confess - it was I who told A that he was not qualified to interpret the Bible.

My earlier statement was that he’s not qualified because he’s not a member of the Magisterium. I suppose I can back off from that position a little bit, since it would preclude everybody on the forum. Unless there’s any bishops here that I don’t know about… anyone? Anyone?

Anyway. I may have been wrong, and am prepared to entertain A’s qualifications at biblical interpretation. A, can you present your qualifications? Have you studied Greek? Hebrew? Theology? Philosophy? Church history?

For that matter, have you, lkddav?