I am an atheist thread 3

[phooney]

@onegodonechurch

“It really simple to answer that. God answers all prayer sometimes the answer is yes and sometimes the answer is no.”

But that is exactly what would happen with no god as well.

 

[psyche23]

Hello

If it cannot be taken literaly, that means the fall of man did not happen. If true, why did jesus return to earth to be hung on a cross?? If genesis isn’t taken literaly, christianity goes up in a poof of smoke…

Just because it’s not necessarily taken literally doesn’t mean it’s wrong. There’s truth there. You don’t just “throw the baby out with the bathwater”… that’s just ridiculous…

 

[psyche23]

Hello Psyche

Okay, this is one of my main problems with christianity. In college, a professor(methodist minister) said that the methodist church considered the account of genesis as myth.
If so, their was no fall of man, no reason for jesus to return to forgive us of this fall from sin. So, no fall of man, no reason for jesus.
Poof, christianity goes up in smoke.

I never said it was a myth. You’re putting words in my mouth. Allegory, symbolism, truth it’s all there with possibly more historical fact than we know… the first part of Genesis is on the creation of the world. An awful lot of info to get into a small book, so it makes sense that the author(s) had to resort to a story we can all understand. Even Jesus used parables to get his point across. The second part of genesis is more historical and geneological. So There will obviously be more use of the 24 hour day as the 24 hour day we all know and are familiar with.

 

[psyche23]

Hi 659

Not really just atheist. Women who want control over their own body. People who could be helped by stem cell research. Etc…

I can’t buy booze on sunday because god doesn’t like it. What if they past a law that no one could shop on saturday because Thor didn’t like it. How would you feel about that? Would that be scary??

There are reasons we follow those rules. If you looked hard enough it would make sense…

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

phooney;3245831

Well, there was supposed to be a solar eclipse when Jesus was crucified, wasn’t there? I’m sure somebody mentioned this to me in one of the other threads. The dating you have given for the birthdate of Jesus doesn’t match up with the possible solar eclipses if he died when he was 33. That’s all I was saying.

The Gospels of Matthew and Mark state that at noon a darkness came over the countryside. it does not say that there was a solar eclipse. The Gospel of Luke does say eclipse.

now the definition of eclipse from dictionary.com

1. Astronomy.
   a. the obscuration of the light of the moon by the intervention of the earth between it and the sun (lunar eclipse) or the obscuration of the light of the sun by the intervention of the moon between it and a point on the earth (solar eclipse).
   b. a similar phenomenon with respect to any other planet and either its satellite or the sun.
   c. the partial or complete interception of the light of one component of a binary star by the other.
2. any obscuration of light.
3. a reduction or loss of splendor, status, reputation, etc.: Scandal caused the eclipse of his career.
   –verb (used with object)
4. to cause to undergo eclipse: The moon eclipsed the sun.
5. to make less outstanding or important by comparison; surpass: a soprano whose singing eclipsed that of her rivals.

Could it be that at the moment of Christ death that clouds gathered in and eclipsed the sun from entire countryside. Since by accounts in the Bible it was dark for 3 to 4 hour or more that makes more since the a solar eclipse.

I find many things in the universe beyond my comprehension. But non more so than man. I am not sure if it was you or A that was
making the statement about why if it true do not all other believers in all the religions find that the God of the bible is the one true living God. The answer is the same as why some still believe that OJ is not guilt. The same reason that there are people that do not believe the moon landings happened, there are people that no matter what you show them are not going to believe.

I have never been show any proof that there is no God nor have I been show any proof that what is written in the Bible is not true.

I try to keep an open mind on all things and have tried to look at the universe with no God I just can not see it. I have tried to look at the world through the other religions out side of Christianity and I don’t see it. The Only other religion I can ever grasp is Judaism, but then when run into rejecting Christ Jesus so there you go.

Phooney and A the last thing I have to say ( as this thread, as other than I could probably be friends with both of you as long as we agreed to stay away from religious discussions, is pointless) May you both always find the joy and peace that we all long for.

I shall not be back to this tread so no need to respond.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

I don’t remember which was which, so I will repost…

Meduim-sized Northern Pike (aka - Jackfish)
http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee174/Darren8306/DarrenmediumPike-1.jpg

Medium-small Pickeral (aka - Walleye)
http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee174/Darren8306/Darrenspickeral.jpg

Medium large (to me!) Whitefish (aka - Tasty Treat - yummmm!)
http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee174/Darren8306/Darrenbigwhitefish.jpg

Large moose. (spotted on the last summer solstice at about 3 am - notice there is sunshine at that time if day up here )
http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee174/Darren8306/moose.jpg

Also spotted on the river…
http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee174/Darren8306/Beaver.jpg

I have to go take some winter pics now…I’ll leave you with one…
http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee174/Darren8306/Breakthesnowfree.jpg

Excellent pics, A! The moose and beaver would look great in a nature magazine. Have you thought of doing freelance photography?

 

[Pax]

The two accounts is simply a contradiction, among many, in the bible.

This is a statement born of absolute ignorance of scripture and how it was written. You have no understanding whatsoever of the modes of middle eastern thought. Superimposing a western thinkers bias(let alone your own personal bias), and doing so with such arrogance is a classic example of blindly rejecting that which you do not understand.

 

[Pax]

A day doesn’t have to represent a 24 hour day, but a day does in genesis. No reason to believe otherwise.

Anyone who fails to look at scripture this way will fail to it as myth and nothing else.

You have been given sufficient reason but you reject it anyway.

 

[psyche23]

@psyche23

An omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent deity is omniresponsible.

But plenty of people have died for mutually exclusive beliefs, therefore it has nothing to do with the truth or otherwise of the claim, it just shows that they believe. Also, like Jesus, I haven’t come across satisfactory evidence that the Apostles existed either. As I mentioned before, I think Paul mentioned that he met Peter, but this is a topic I need to do more research on.

Your comment that this world doesn’t really matter in the long term, I find… horrible. I’m sorry if you think that I’m being harsh, I don’t know how to soften my sentiments any more than that. It matters a whole lot to me right now, and will matter to my children, and will matter to people after I am gone. As this life is the only one we have evidence for, the importance of this world, which has and will continue to outlast many generations of us, is one that certainly may be reasonably classified as ‘long term’.

I think the word used for ‘day’ was ‘yot’ (somebody correct me if I’m wrong) and I’ve heard that when it is used in conjunction with mentioning sunrises or settings, it always means a normal day as we use the word. I can’t remember where or when I heard this, so I could be wrong.

That is a very interesting article/project, thanks for the link. Mind you, I don’t see how this backs up the church/biblical claims? That San bushman didn’t just appear out of the clay, he had parents, grandparents, likely had siblings, etc. All the research claims to do by trying to trace the ‘first’ human is to find approximately when and where the most recent common ancestor of all humans is likely to have lived. Just the most recent, that’s all. Technically there would be millions of ‘ancestors of all human kind’, like that San bushman’s Mum or Dad for example. Common descent is all part of evolution.

Sorry, but I’m not familiar with Pascals theory. Those were my own words and thoughts… And you’re right, I have no guarantee I’ll go to heaven. But I believe that because I believe in Christ and in his Church, I’ll have a reasonably better chance of getting in than otherwise. If we continue to search for the truth (even if it means leaving the Catholic Church) then so be it. But I’ve never come across anything that led me to believe a different faith or lack of faith was any better or held any more truth. And if somehow you’re correct and I die believing in an invisible nonexistent being, then at least I’ll die with hope and not think “well that was fun. I guess that’s all there is to it…”.

I think I’ve already answered that omnipresent-omniresponsible argument. You can look it up in my previous posts.

If you don’t believe the apostles existed. Fine, but I think a lot of credible historians will disagree with you. There’s also something called invincible ignorance where people truly think they’re doing the right thing and believing in the right people/gods but are still wrong because they refuse to seek out the full truth and will never accept anything other than what they know. I may be in that category, who knows. But I have faith in all that history-yes history- , the Bible, my Church, tradition and the Church fathers (all of which are much smarter than I will ever be) that I am correct. If I’m wrong, then I die knowing I did my best.

And I meant that this world doesn’t matter in comparison to the *heavenly *realm. Of course I’ll continue to do as many good works on this earth as possible. I don’t just give up because there’s something better to come… rather I try to make this world better for everyone while we’re waiting…

And my link with the ancestors was only to point to the fact that science sometimes does back up the bible. This might have been a bad example, but I still think it’s interesting. You should read my subsequent posts on this matter.

On a side note, it’s quite possible that these two people were the first to be given souls. Man is different from animals. Anyone looking at our accomplishments can see that. The question should arise that at what time in history did man who evolved from an ape, start to be a reasoning, moral and ethical being? This question has always interested me.

 

[Pax]

Hello

If it cannot be taken literaly, that means the fall of man did not happen. If true, why did jesus return to earth to be hung on a cross?? If genesis isn’t taken literaly, christianity goes up in a poof of smoke…

Try reading my posts again. What I said was that the narrative cannot be taken in a “literalist” fashion. When reading any document the reader must look at the intent of the author and do so within the cultural, religious, and social context of the times.

If I tell you that “it was raining cats and dogs at my house yesterday,” you would know that I meant that it was raining extremely hard. If someone were to hear or read the same statement in another culture a thousand years from now they would have to understand the idiom. If they did not they would mistakenly think that dogs and cats were literally falling from the sky.

Just because we are not to take Genesis in a “literalistic” fashion, as illustrated in my idiomatic analogy, does not mean that the fall did not happen. You need to think a lot more about all of this. I can hardly believe that you are making this kind of assertion.

 

[Pax]

This is not absurd. Jesus plainly says in the four gospels, if you believe your prayers would be answered. He didn’t say if god was in the mood, or work in mysterious ways, or we don’t understand the will of god.

He plainly said nine times in the gospels that if a believer prayed, his or her prayers would be answered.

So, either you are lying or jesus was lying. This is not an idiotic reguest. Was your jesus lying?

Read my post again and address it head on. Silly sniping makes no head way with me.

 

[Pax]

Pax;3245150:

lkddav;3243969:

Hello Pax

I’m not an idol. I am simply what i am. I simply accept that. I have brought comforts into my life by my accomplishments.
No invisible man has helped me out.

You have placed yourself at the top of the heap. This is IMHO a form of self worship. This may not be the case from your point of view and I can accept that in so far as your perspective is concerned.

 

[Pax]

Hi Pax

In other words, god cannot be felt by our five senses. He doesn’t exist.

Is that what I said? Furthermore, please tell me how the first half of your statement enables the second.

 

[Pax]

…
…

So, either you are lying or jesus was lying. This is not an idiotic reguest. Was your jesus lying?

Now you are just being obnoxious. Should I accuse you or suggest in some way that you are lying?

 

[Armor_of_God]

Hi Phooney,

First I will make a couple disclaimers here. One, I am not too technologically savvy, so this is about as good as it gets regarding nesting quotes. (Perhaps I need lessons from you?!) Second, any comments I have made to A were intended specifically for A as a person, based on earlier comments he made. I have no preconceived notions about what defines an atheist, and I am very averse to lumping all people who don’t believe in God under one stereotypical umbrella. I believe that they are as unique and varied as snowflakes.

So, please find my responses to your comments below, but keep in mind that they were originally directed at A, in response to his comments.

@Armor of God

“I think it requires a fair amount of humility to acknowledge that there is something greater than ourselves, and that one person is equal to any other. I think the assertion that God doesn’t exist because He has not personally visited someone for coffee requires a lot less humility and is a lot more presumptuous.”

I think they are probably approximately equally presumptuous. Atheism isn’t the assertion that there is no God, nothing greater than ourselves and that people are not equal. It is only a lack of belief in a God. I think the universe is greater than me, and I’m an atheist. By what measure would we even use to ascertain equality in people? Those that judge the 100m sprints in the olympics have one measure, those that award academic scholarships have another. I don’t happen to think that all people are equal in all things, but that has nothing to do with my Atheism, which I repeat is only a lack of belief in a God, but I do think that whatever measures are used on people should try to be as fair and unbiased and equally applied as possible.

Please see my disclaimer above, as some of A’s comments seemed to indicate that he thought that humans were the cat’s meow, the greatest thing in the universe.
As for measuring equality, my criteria would simply be: someone has a soul, therefore they are equally as human as anyone else.

“I am truly sorry that you have never experienced God’s love and compassion. No, He doesn’t love suffering. He loves us so much that He suffered for us.”

Yet, he didn’t need to do that. He could have just forgiven, but he didn’t. I assume you aren’t going to say it was out of his power?

No, I would not say it was out of His power. I would say He chose to do it, to teach us about holy suffering and to teach us about choosing the will of the Father.

Any suffering he may have incurred upon himself two thousand years ago, has nothing to do with me, I wasn’t even born yet, and I won’t hold myself accountable for the sins/crimes of anybody but myself.

I can only state the Christian belief that this suffering has everything to do with us.

If you are referring to Original Sin, I think you may be misunderstanding. Here is an explanation from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it; subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death; and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called “concupiscence.” Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin and turns a man back toward God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.

(CCC 405)

Sure, you can take somebody elses punishment for them, but there is no logical way you can make them innocent by doing so.

No, I couldn’t, but an amazing God sure could! The thing is, though, Christian belief holds that a person must repent of their sins in order to be truly forgiven and made whole again.

 

[Pax]

Hi Pax

Science isn’t trying to prove the existence of god, or disprove it.
Philosophy is another way to try to convince yourself something is real that is not.

You are now displaying an inordinate ignorance about philosophy.

 

[Pax]

phooney,

You mentioned that Pascal’s wager was refuted in the previous threads. This is only true from your perspective. I think your criticisms are pure fluff and sophistry. I mean no offense by that. It’s just that while we haven’t convinced you of certain things, it is equally true that you have not convinced us of certain things either.

 

[c659smith]

@c659smith

The only thing I could do for this is show the lack of any official position statement. I can’t find any official position statement. Searching through the catechism www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm for ‘turin’ produced 0 results.

The shroud of turin wikipedia page says “Pope John Paul II stated in 1998, “Since we’re not dealing with a matter of faith, the church can’t pronounce itself on such questions. It entrusts to scientists the tasks of continuing to investigate, to reach adequate answers to the questions connected to this shroud.””

This is repeated on the same website you claim to have read: shroudstory.com/faq/Shroud-Turin-wiki27.htm

Are you aware of an official statement on the shroud from the Catholic Church saying that it is authentic or a forgery?

I noted there were contentious issues, pointed out there was no consensus. You, on the other hand, seem to be trying to make an argument that this IS the burial cloth of Jesus, which isn’t supported even by the sources you yourself cite (or rather when I cite your sources for you)…

If taken literally, the bible blatantly does not stand up to scientific evidence. If you are allowed to claim metaphor, poetry, allegory, translation issues, ambiguity, symbolism or faith, as well as being able to pick and choose from over 50 different versions of the story to suit yourself (according to the website Socrates4Jesus used previously to give me the quote from Ezekiel) then ANY story from the wizard of oz to clifford the big red dog is historically and scientifically accurate. As I mentioned before, the bible doesn’t tell us what to take literally, and what to not take literally, it didn’t come colour coded for such purposes. As a whole it isn’t a history book either, being of largely anonymous authorship, who normally don’t mention how they came across the information along with anonymous editors and redacters disqualifies it as a history book, regardless of whether it was originally based on things that actually happened or not, we can’t rely on it.

Just to further illustrate my point, and also show that conversions happen both ways for those that are fans of Lee Strobel etc(I read his book “The case for faith” last year, and forgive me, but I thought the book would be a bit bigger!) here is a quote from former preacher Dan Barker.

In “Losing Faith in Faith” he explained how Christians would try to explain if the Bible said “This square is a circle”:

"It could mean a circle of squares, or a square of circles. Or in the original language the word ‘square’ was used to refer to any geometric object. Or a circle is functioning in place of a square temporarily. Or yesterday there was a square here, today it’s a circle. Or, the circle is ‘square’ meaning odd or corny - it’s an ellipse, yeah, that’s what it is. Or the word ‘circle’ is used in a general sense of ‘circling around’, which a square can do. Or the circle was cut from a square - the word ‘is’ means ‘is from.’ Or the word ‘square’ doesn’t really belong in this sentence - it goes chronologically with the last sentence. Or the term ‘square’ is symbolic, like the ‘4 corners of the Earth.’ Or the word ‘circle’ is used loosely like ‘a circle of friends.’ A square circle is an old fashioned group of friends. Or, it’s a deep mystery that only God comprehends and we will understand it all someday in heaven.”

Ok.
eh?
Well, as I’ve shown, even if I didn’t have any sources of my own, the sources you use don’t even try to make the same case as you, as far as the shroud is concerned. You claim your independent thought is backed up by science, yet you spout such things as “why are there still apes??” and you seem to think that a scientific theory is the same as a layman’s theory, as if scientific theories might some day become scientific fact. Scientific theories are above facts, because they tie MANY facts together and make testable predictions about reality.
Well, there was supposed to be a solar eclipse when Jesus was crucified, wasn’t there? I’m sure somebody mentioned this to me in one of the other threads. The dating you have given for the birthdate of Jesus doesn’t match up with the possible solar eclipses if he died when he was 33. That’s all I was saying.

What could the star of bethlehem possibly have to do with a solar eclipse at the death of Jesus?

But…there were no solar eclipses in October of 1917. Is this the first time you’ve heard of solar eclipses?

the site you gave me is the Cathechism of the Catholic Church.

Do you know what the the Cathechism is?

Like I said your knowledge is but a piece of sand in the ocean when it comes to the Catholic Church.

Well let me tell you what the Cathechism is. The Cathechism of the Catholic Church is declared as Sacred Teachings of the Church and I do not see any denial here below,

This is the official teaching of the Catholic Church.

515 The Gospels were written by men who were among the first to have the faith and wanted to share it with others. Having known in faith who Jesus is, they could see and make others see the traces of his mystery in all his earthly life. From the swaddling clothes of his birth to the vinegar of his Passion and the shroud of his Resurrection, everything in Jesus’ life was a sign of his mystery. His deeds, miracles and words all revealed that “in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily.” His humanity appeared as “sacrament”, that is, the sign and instrument, of his divinity and of the salvation he brings: what was visible in his earthly life leads to the invisible mystery of his divine sonship and redemptive mission

So once again you cannot prove one of your previous statements.

The clue words are visible in his earthly life and states the shroud as one of them… duh !!

 

[c659smith]

PHOONEY,

you ststed the Shroud was proven false I showed you otherwise as what you had was outdated. I proved my point.

Tell me how was it made?

 

[c659smith]

PHOONEY

As far as eclipses are concerned you asked me that question to something I supposedly wrote but did not. I had no idea what you were talking about that is why my inquiries