I am an atheist thread 4

[_A]

Maybe a quick learner you are not!. haha Yoda talk is what you need. Anyway I don’t know why you just posted that again when I told you already its not popularity on its own its that the FACT that there are more things going for him makes it NOT real but more possible starting with the simple part that no one believes in your Unicorns, remember that is only the start not the only reason, because you forget easily.

Saying that it is more believable because no-one believes in my unicorns is an argument from popularity (or the reverse of one).
How popular a belief is has nothing at all to do with how true it is.

poor little Atheist.

What makes you *believe *that I am poor or small? Did someone tell you that? You really have to stop being so credulous. Someone might take advantage.

You just answered your own question by calling him all powerful all knowing and then you turned around and questioned his actions that is something to laugh about.

No, I was asking which character you were trying to say was historically accurate, a teacher named Jesus, or an all-powerful god.
If the former, you might find evidence of several. If the latter, you have yet to present one bit of evidence.

remember this is not to do with my personal beliefs, I’m only poking fun at the argument

Go ahead, everyone loves a good laugh!

It does matter:

The Matter of the Most Holy Eucharist

The bread used in the celebration of the Most Holy Eucharistic Sacrifice must be unleavened, purely of wheat, and recently made so that there is no danger of decomposition. It follows therefore that bread made from another substance, even if it is grain, or if it is mixed with another substance different from wheat to such an extent that it would not commonly be considered wheat bread, does not constitute valid matter for confecting the Sacrifice and the Eucharistic Sacrament. It is a grave abuse to introduce other substances, such as fruit or sugar or honey, into the bread for confecting the Eucharist. Hosts should obviously be made by those who are not only distinguished by their integrity, but also skilled in making them and furnished with suitable tools.

Redemptionis Sacramentum 48

I never knew. I always understood that the ‘cracker’ was completely ordinary until the priest appealed to the supernatural to change it, then it was eucharist. I think this likely stems from being dragged off to a Christian church in my youth, where the stuff handed out was cubes of wonder white (or some other white bread) and teeny glasses of wine (more likely grape juice).
Anyway, thanks for the heads up, it still seems to me that until the appeal to the supernatural, it is mostly ordinary, and that was my point with using the word ‘cracker’.

You are right…we are all uneducated idiots.

Try reading this link just for starters:
catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9911fea4.asp

I just tried it, and found this…

This time things did not go well for Galileo. He was charged with a number of offenses, and though he was not imprisoned or tortured, he was shown the implements of torture. Galileo, by then an old man, was terrified, and agreed to something of a plea bargain: In return for publicly recanting his heliocentric view, he was allowed to return home with a sentence of permanent house arrest. He lived out his remaining years in his home, eventually going blind. Curiously, it was during his years of house arrest that he wrote his finest work, a book dealing with motion and inertia that is a cornerstone of modern physics.

So because of his written words, they threatened the old man with torture (methods refined no doubt for centuries within the church). He was made to recant, and imprisoned, being denied access to his family.
This is the treatment you are bragging about?
If you think it is appropriate to threaten torture for someones harsh words, I think you are not living the same reality I am (in North America)

 

[Jonathan82]

Saying that it is more believable because no-one believes in my unicorns is an argument from popularity (or the reverse of one).
How popular a belief is has nothing at all to do with how true it is.

Look A for the 3rd or 4rth time I’m not saying its about popularity that its true; I never said that at all, I said it was more possible Mr. J was all knowing etc…considering Unicorns are not considered real at all by anyone and they don’t have churches either (that would be cool though) but, heres the thing if Unicorns were considered real and were thought to cause miracles then Jesus would have competition wouldn’t he. Lets not forget the Unicorn Bible either and the Leprechaun Eucharist.

I don’t believe I’m very credulous just because I look at all different sides before passing judgment. If anything an Atheist calling me credulous is funny again because they believe in not believing

I didn’t mean for you to think that I meant you were poor or small, it was a figure of speech:thumbsup: Geeeez why do Atheists take everything literally. Just messing

 

[Jonathan82]

Guess nobody here has ever heard of the “pope” versus galileo?
If the pope is the all-knowning being linked to god itself why did he condem galileo? Throughout history the catholics have been misguided by their popes.

Look at all the wrong-doing the popes have done, and yet catholics still believe him to be linked to god, didnt know god could make so many mistakes.

Well lets look at it this way considering that I don’t really know if Catholics actually believe what your saying at all(about believing the Pope is a direct link to God).

If there is no free will but instead there is destiny then God didn’t make a mistake at all. Instead he intended for it to happen(meaning bad popes etc). And if we don’t have free will we certainly are not aware of it aren’t we because we live our lives feeling like we do have free will, and with that we are able to learn knew things. Maybe we are spirits, Souls etc in the body which is a vessel that is predestined due to our brain genes etc. Just because we are predestined (if we are) does not mean we cant learn new things it just means we make certain decision and adjust a certain way to our surroundings and whatever comes in our way.

Lets say we do have free will. I guess we have to believe that everyones goal (Atheist, Agnostics, Religious) is to do the right thing. So life is like a road were you encounter temptations and other things that try to lead you astray from reaching your goal which is doing the right thing; wouldn’t that mean we have free will if we are all trying to get to the same place yet we don’t all make it? This would mean that Popes can also make mistakes, unless they were given divine guidance 24/7 after all supposedly even angels can fall why not popes?

 

[latin_rite]

Where is the evidence of evolution? Evolution is a theory and nothing more. Funny how Atheist cry ‘where is the evidence of your God?”. yet proceed to give us no evidence of their “beliefs” We must take their theory as fact, or risk being called arrogant. Christians have faith in God. Some atheist need to look up the meaning of the word faith. No Christian today has absolute proof of God. Only faith. That Faith can be so strong that we feel with absolute certainty that God exist. It can be so strong that we will live, die by our faith. But at the end of the day its still just faith. While God has chosen a select group of people to show himself to. For reason known only unto him, he has chosen to let the rest of us rely totally on faith. Perhaps by relying on faith alone it allows our true selves be shown. How many bad people are bad when they know they are being watched for certain? (yes there are exceptions but I’m talking about the majority)
And to the person who says he was kicked out of church for asking to many questions. I would have suggested he looked for another church. But maybe that idea is too irrational, as we all know atheists have the market cornered on rational thought.

 

[phooney]

You should be a poster boy for atheism

 

[gnaaus]

Galileo is only one of many mistakes the popes have made.

 

[NaturalEnquirer]

Welcome!

Galileo is only one of many mistakes the popes have made.

You’re certainly right. The Galileo affair was extremely unfortunate. The Pope (and his agents) definitely made mistakes here.

But…

Look at all the wrong-doing the popes have done, and yet catholics still believe him to be linked to god, didnt know god could make so many mistakes.

It seems that you misunderstand the doctrine of papal infallability. It does not mean that the Pope cannot ever make mistakes. It does not mean the Pope cannot ever sin.

I’m not even sure it means he is “linked to god”, as you put it. I mean, he certainly is, at least in the sense that we all are. A better way to put it is that he is sometimes guided by God in a unique way, in very specific circumstances.

God bless!

 

[BlaineTog]

Evolution is a theory and nothing more.

It’s also a theory that the earth revolves around the sun. “Theory” is a very strong word in Science; it’s the strongest word they have for anything other than empirical data, with the possible exception of “Law” (which are still basically observations, and still basically theories). If something is a theory, then that means a consensus of scientists think it’s true because it has held up under numerous experiments. Theories aren’t infallible, and they get revised all the time, but given the data and data analysis methods at hand, for something to be a theory, it has to represent the best science we’ve got.

Evolution isn’t something you can either take or leave at your whimsy. There is a massive amount of support for the theory of evolution, far too much to just dismiss it.

 

[Pax]

I just tried it, and found this…
So because of his written words, they threatened the old man with torture (methods refined no doubt for centuries within the church). He was made to recant, and imprisoned, being denied access to his family.
This is the treatment you are bragging about?
If you think it is appropriate to threaten torture for someones harsh words, I think you are not living the same reality I am (in North America)

You just can’t tell it like it is can you? Just what prison was Galileo sent to? Likewise, who says he couldn’t see his family? Well, he obviously couldn’t once he went blind but that’s beside the point.

Considering the times and the culture, it is reasonable to say that Galileo got off rather easily. Once again, you make all of your judgments about punishments based upon the comforts of your modern day western culture. Your fellow atheist, Mao, was considerably harsher on minor dissidents than the Church ever was on Galileo. The same can be said for our own government even today. Many at Gitmo, that don’t deserved to be detained at all, would love to be in the same circumstances as Galileo was.

Galileo’s real problems with the Church went well beyond heliocentrism. As the article points out, many of his peers taught heliocentrism yet none of them ran a foul of the Church. The Church’s handling of the Galileo affair certainly wasn’t perfect, but it wasn’t as bad as you would have us believe.

 

[1234]

You just can’t tell it like it is can you? Just what prison was Galileo sent to? Likewise, who says he couldn’t see his family? Well, he obviously couldn’t once he went blind but that’s beside the point.

Considering the times and the culture, it is reasonable to say that Galileo got off rather easily. Once again, you make all of your judgments about punishments based upon the comforts of your modern day western culture. Your fellow atheist, Mao, was considerably harsher on minor dissidents than the Church ever was on Galileo. The same can be said for our own government even today. Many at Gitmo, that don’t deserved to be detained at all, would love to be in the same circumstances as Galileo was.

Galileo’s real problems with the Church went well beyond heliocentrism. As the article points out, many of his peers taught heliocentrism yet none of them ran a foul of the Church. The Church’s handling of the Galileo affair certainly wasn’t perfect, but it wasn’t as bad as you would have us believe.

If the RCC had as much power as Mao did in his lifetime, it could easily have been as cruel as Mao.

Who else of Galileo’s stature taught heliocentrism? Well, there was Copernicus. His follower, Bruno, also taught that there were other planets, solar systems and maybe even sentient beings out there, and for that he got burned alive.

Galileo was humiliated, threatened with torture and worse, and decided to recant, saying to himself, “E pur se muove.” He was sentenced to prison for life, but got off with house arrest. He tried to get this rescinded by failed and he died, blind, at home.

 

[Pax]

If the RCC had as much power as Mao did in his lifetime, it could easily have been as cruel as Mao.

…

This is an absurd remark and is nothing more than imagined boogey man. This same accusation was dealt with earlier in the thread.

Why make such exaggerated claims?

By the way, did you read the article at the link?:
catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9911fea4.asp

 

[Pax]

Who else of Galileo’s stature taught heliocentrism? Well, there was Copernicus. His follower, Bruno, also taught that there were other planets, solar systems and maybe even sentient beings out there, and for that he got burned alive.

…

I make no excuses for the burning of Bruno at the stake. The discussion was, however, about the treatment of Galileo.

Bruno wasn’t very likeable and he bounced from place to place because of it. Many of his ideas were goof ball, and his theology was often bogus. The Calvinists booted him, the Lutherans booted him, and then he ultimately was burned at the stake by Catholic civil authorities. Obviously, this is not a good end for anyone, and an awful stain on those that had anything to do with his demise.

His teaching of heliocentrism is merely incidental and has nothing to do with anything. Kepler also taught heliocentrism and he did not run amok against the Church.

My efforts in this part of our discussion are primarily directed at getting people to consider things with a little more objectivity. The discussion presented by the atheists on this thread have frequently been over the top and completely insensitive to the culture, politics, and methods that were in operation by everyone during the historical periods in which these people lived. Bruno was sentenced and burned at the stake by civil authorities after his trial under the Roman Inquisition. Obviously, the Church authorities had a major hand in what happened to Bruno. The Church was right about Bruno’s theological errors, but was wrong to let his sentencing and execution to be carried out by the civil authorities. In those days, folks like Bruno if they remained unrepentent, were put to death.

People often do bad things. I do not believe that Bruno should have been burned at the stake. Nevertheless, I am not so naive so as to think that his trial and execution was somehow carried out in some cultural, social, and political void. If anything the cultural, social, and political world along with its secular power has probably caused more evil within the Church than anything coming from within.

I personally like the idea of governance being a separate institution from religious institutions. Even this has problems because secular governments have few qualms about persecuting religious groups. We simply do not live in a perfect world. This was true during Bruno’s time and it is true today.

 

[phooney]

Likewise, Pax, I think most of your posts show extreme bias in the presumption that there is a god and interpreting scripture and any relevant evidence in that light rather than what the evidence itself can actually tell us.

On a lighter note, I am going to Rome for Easter next weekend, are there any recommendations for what you’d (anybody reading this) like me to see, or anything you’d like me to take a picture of to post here? I warn that I foresee myself standing in lines for the vast majority of my visit, but will try to take your suggestions on board. At the top of my list are the Collesium and St Peter’s Basillica at the moment.

 

[latin_rite]

It’s also a theory that the earth revolves around the sun. “Theory” is a very strong word in Science; it’s the strongest word they have for anything other than empirical data, with the possible exception of “Law” (which are still basically observations, and still basically theories). If something is a theory, then that means a consensus of scientists think it’s true because it has held up under numerous experiments. Theories aren’t infallible, and they get revised all the time, but given the data and data analysis methods at hand, for something to be a theory, it has to represent the best science we’ve got.

Evolution isn’t something you can either take or leave at your whimsy. There is a massive amount of support for the theory of evolution, far too much to just dismiss it.

The theory of the earth revolving around the sun is strong. Also is the theory of gravity. But just because theory carries a lot of weight with those two “theories”. doesn’t mean it should carry a lot of weight with every weird idea scientist comes up with. A theory is a theory is a theory.

 

[phooney]

Uh… no. A scientific theory isn’t equivalent to random conjecture, which is a general layman’s definition of theory.

 

[BlaineTog]

The theory of the earth revolving around the sun is strong. Also is the theory of gravity. But just because theory carries a lot of weight with those two “theories”. doesn’t mean it should carry a lot of weight with every weird idea scientist comes up with.

Sure. But those “crazy ideas” aren’t called theories. They’re either “hypotheses” or “crazy, hair-brained ideas;” something other than theory. If something has made it to the theory stage, it is more or less as certain as the theory of the heliocentric model of the solar system, and at least close to the theory of gravity. It is not a “well, pick yes or no arbitrarily” sort of thing.

 

[phooney]

Like I said! (though thank you, some people will only believe it if they hear it from a theist!)

p.s. (disclaimer: probably vice versa as well)

 

[NaturalEnquirer]

Likewise, Pax, I think most of your posts show extreme bias in the presumption that there is a god and interpreting scripture and any relevant evidence in that light rather than what the evidence itself can actually tell us.

On a lighter note, I am going to Rome for Easter next weekend, are there any recommendations for what you’d (anybody reading this) like me to see, or anything you’d like me to take a picture of to post here? I warn that I foresee myself standing in lines for the vast majority of my visit, but will try to take your suggestions on board. At the top of my list are the Collesium and St Peter’s Basillica at the moment.

I am so envious of you, it may constitute a deadly sin!

Ah, if ya can’t laugh at sin, what can ya laugh at?

I don’t know what it’s called, but I hear that the stairs where Jesus was condemned have been disassembled and moved to Rome. I would love a picture of that, if you get a chance.

When are you leaving?
God bless!

 

[phooney]

Hmmm… not sure.

I’m leaving on Wednesday. No posting irrational nonsense while I’m away either

 

[Pax]

Likewise, Pax, I think most of your posts show extreme bias in the presumption that there is a god and interpreting scripture and any relevant evidence in that light rather than what the evidence itself can actually tell us.

On a lighter note, I am going to Rome for Easter next weekend, are there any recommendations for what you’d (anybody reading this) like me to see, or anything you’d like me to take a picture of to post here? I warn that I foresee myself standing in lines for the vast majority of my visit, but will try to take your suggestions on board. At the top of my list are the Collesium and St Peter’s Basillica at the moment.

Phooney,

Have you gone phony?[LOL]

Dude, going to Rome for Easter is like too Catholic an undertaking for an Atheist.

I would suggest St. John Lateran, St. Mary Major, and St. Paul Outside the Wall, and the catacombs. Anyway, I will be going to Italy in a couple of years when I retire. I plan to spend quite a bit of time checking out all of the places I mentioned as well as St. Peter’s and the Collesium. Your visit and experience are a welcomed addition for information for my future trip. I realize that your time is limited. See what you can and post the pics.

I hope you have a great time. I’ll say a prayer that you have a safe and enjoyable trip.

Now to serious matters. Yes, I have a bias because I believe in God. I didn’t arrive at belief, nor do I remain in belief, however, by blind faith. Likewise, belief is not always easy.

I stand firmly on my posts concerning scripture and Church teaching. I do this not so much in an expectation that I will convert someone to belief, but rather that they at least see both of these from the Catholic point of view. I take great exception to misplaced and erroneous perceptions. I am much more tolerant of disagreement with what something really says and means to the people to whom it belongs than I am to misconceptions posed by those that have no rights or ownership to the same.

Marine biologists are (or should be) good at marine biology. Generally marine biologists aren’t very good at designing racing engines for the Indy 500. Likewise, most atheists aren’t very good at understanding scripture and doctrine, and they make poor theologians. Religious people might appear to be biased but they can certainly help atheists get the facts straight when it comes to a description of their particular religious beliefs. Atheists help religious people understand their problems with belief.

The unfortunate part in some of this is in the approach. Believers and atheists do not use the same tools for exploring their respective positions. We are often not operating on the same wave length. Bias? Yes, we all have some. While I try to keep my biases in check, I am not always successful.