What would you do if it were proven...?

[Betterave]

Could you clarify that in regards to the sort of subject matter you would like me to comment on? For instance, with the birth control thing, it’s more a matter of disagreement, not so much flaw, so I shouldn’t choose that as my thing. In the sense that I think if someone wants to do NFP, wants to be open to life, that is perfectly fine with me, I just don’t think ABC should be a sin. I kind of just answered my own question but could you confirm that that would not really quite fit in with the whole objective point of this? In which case, I will have a harder time avoiding the straw man thing bc I know far more on the Catholic teachings of NFP/ABC/marriage than any other subject (of Catholicism). But if you can give me some leeway on the um, accuracy, of my understanding of the subject I choose, I can come up with something quicker. Otherwise, you win. I can’t speak with any amount of certainty on other subjects of Catholic teachings that I find flawed.
Cathoichelp, honestquestions, anyone, you got any suggestions?

I believe the original bar which you agreed to was the one set by cathoichelp: something like “I know with 100% certainty that the Catholic religion is flawed.” This was supposed to demonstrate how she was not a rigid thinker, and you agreed with her claims, and applied the same categories to yourself, IIRC. So with regard to this original standard, I take it I win? (There’s no point in giving you the leeway to dismiss a straw man.) Presumably you’ll concede that there was some hubris in this original position?

 

[Betterave]

Right right and right!!!

Betterave, I thought of something, a flaw in the teaching of the Catholic Church. Shoot, it’s not really that subjective/objective argument though. But it does have to do with the lack of logic and reason that the Church so consistently demonstrates. Here goes.

One belief that Catholics (among others) have that I think is utterly ridiculous is that Jesus was conceived “by the Holy Spirit without human seed.”
Here are some much more logical explanations for the events concerning his conception.

1. Mary had an affair so she lied
2. She was raped, and too ashamed to admit it
3. She got really drunk one night so she did not remember having sex. Or she could’ve been drugged.
4. She and Joseph were fooling around and he could not contain himself, and spilled his seed in that general area. In this case she really was a virgin, and perhaps was unaware that fooling around can lead to pregnancy.

We cannot say for certain what happened. All we can do is theorize. But why believe the most unlikely, outlandish, unbelievable theory? To give it a theistic spin, why forgo the sense, reason, and intellect God gave you to believe this far-fetched story when **perfectly legitimate alternative explanations **are readily available?

So the Catholic belief, you say, is the most unlikely, outlandish, unbelievable theory. That is obvious to you. But back to my original point/question: are you sure that you aren’t just demonstrating that you are a rigid thinker in making this claim? You certainly treat it rather rigidly and dogmatically. You certainly don’t explain why it is the most unlikely, outlandish, unbelievable theory. So I’m left, again, with the strong suspicion that you are lacking in self-awareness, that you really are an irrational, dogmatic, rigid thinker, just like you accuse all Catholics of being. But maybe you have something more to say in defense/explanation of your position? If so, let’s hear it.

 

[honestquestions]

It seems tantum ergo has gone into hiding after my rebuttal. I will make this promise here: I will always remain open-minded and should your argument be more rational than mine I will concede.

 

[greylorn]

After you do enough reading to fully understand this topic, you can come back and explain why you would be disengenuous enough to attempt to disassociate Darwinism from Evolutionary Theory in your sarcastic first sentence----

honestquestions:

By Darwinism you don’t mean evolution right? Obviously it’s not a hypothesis, so I’m guessing you’re not referring to evolution.

You may want to consider an apology to h.q. He did not use the phrase “Evolutionary Theory,” did he? You threw the “theory” word in there. H.q. made a clear enough distinction, IMO, between Darwinism, which is a theory, and evolution, which is generally considered to be an established fact.

Lots of people who are smart enough to know better seem to regard Darwinism and evolution as synonymous terms, and you don’t want to be one of them, do you?

Evolution is a fact. Darwinism is simply a theory which tries unsuccessfully to explain evolution. There are better theories.

I suggest that you and other Catholics focus upon a scientific question which is far more relevant to your beliefs than Darwinism. Specifically, abiogenesis.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Specifically, abiogenesis.

That’s always been the weak spot. If it were true, then we are to believe that no other civilization arose and developed EM info transmission, within the 14 billion light year envelope we can observe right now? It seems given the time and numbers involved one should expect some kind of modulated transmission. It doesn’t mean jack, it just seems odd if we are to believe that abiogenesis is statistically likely in the least. I would like to see some numbers on the issue. It doesn’t matter to me if evolution is correct or not, its never mattered to Catholics at all, as far as I know. But I am always suspicious of anything you aren’t supposed to question. I got a big kick out of the global warming crowd being exposed after years of them insisting on anthropogenic warming. In the seventies they they thought we were headed for a big chill, they just can’t make up their mind.

 

[greylorn]

I would have to believe in that God or I would be denying the evidence. But I’d probably have more questions such as what kind of God is it, what does it want of me, what does it mean for me after I die, if anything, does this God care about me, or is it an impersonal God, does this God help me, or does it not interfer in day to day life. Lots of questions like that.

Sarah x

Sarah,
As an atheist, would you not first examine the evidence, at least with respect to its applicability to the God-concept you were considering?

Out of curiosity, if a God-concept was presented which was different from the usual— consistent with physics theory, all available evidence (including that for paranormal phenomena), explained creation, abiogenesis, evolution, and human nature— but made it pretty clear that God is unlikely to be aware of your existence and certainly does not give a hoot about you, would you explore the concept or reject it immediately?

 

[Betterave]

It seems tantum ergo has gone into hiding after my rebuttal. I will make this promise here: I will always remain open-minded and should your argument be more rational than mine I will concede.

So are you in hiding after my rebuttal (post 235)? Or do you concede? Or was your promise only for tantumergo?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Sarah,
As an atheist, would you not first examine the evidence, at least with respect to its applicability to the God-concept you were considering?

Out of curiosity, if a God-concept was presented which was different from the usual— consistent with physics theory, all available evidence (including that for paranormal phenomena), explained creation, abiogenesis, evolution, and human nature— but made it pretty clear that God is unlikely to be aware of your existence and certainly does not give a hoot about you, would you explore the concept or reject it immediately?

Would you stop proselytizing, that is what always annoys me about you, this is a Catholic forum.Further, you don’t expose your theories to peer review. I would happily point out all the logical flaws I see in passing. Your worldview is seriously flawed because you accept some logical contradictions as valid. I dare you to publicly and fully disclose your “heterodoxical theism”. The excuse that people pile on, or aren’t accepting only lasts so long. But if you insist on proselytizing on our forum, then I expect you to openly defend your beliefs.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

So are you in hiding after my rebuttal (post 235)? Or do you concede? Or was your promise only for tantumergo?

 

[Edward_H]

atheistgirl,

God wants to love you like the most unbelievably lovable Father that you can imagine.

He wants you to be serene, to be assured, to be trusting.

It’s a joyful awareness. God as Father, “Abba” (in the Bible), “Abba = Daddy”

This awareness can deepen and be enriched each day of our lives. Struggles take on a different flavor, when you maintain this child-like view (not childish) on ordinary events in life.

Struggles will come, sorrows will happen…but in the context of a supernatural outlook on life’s events. These events begin to take on a completely different meaning when viewed supernaturally. God let’s us (gives us the dignity to ) share in His Son’s life, intimately.

Life gets a super-substantial meaning…and so do we!

 

[honestquestions]

As an atheist, would you not first examine the evidence, at least with respect to its applicability to the God-concept you were considering?

Out of curiosity, if a God-concept was presented which was different from the usual— consistent with physics theory, all available evidence (including that for paranormal phenomena), explained creation, abiogenesis, evolution, and human nature— but made it pretty clear that God is unlikely to be aware of your existence and certainly does not give a hoot about you, would you explore the concept or reject it immediately?

I would explore it because it’s natural to wonder and if there is supposedly new evidence that could explain creation, etc. as you said all scientists would immediately have to listen.

 

[greylorn]

Would you stop proselytizing, that is what always annoys me about you, this is a Catholic forum.

I hope that’s not the only thing about me that annoys you.

Further, you don’t expose your theories to peer review. I would happily point out all the logical flaws I see in passing. Your worldview is seriously flawed because you accept some logical contradictions as valid. I dare you to publicly and fully disclose your “heterodoxical theism”. The excuse that people pile on, or aren’t accepting only lasts so long. But if you insist on proselytizing on our forum, then I expect you to openly defend your beliefs.

I’ve exposed almost all elements of my theories on the CAF, and am continually amazed at their generous allowance of ideas which are contrary to Catholic dogma.

It is hard to expose my ideas to peer review here because few posters are willing to engage them at the level of physics, or straight-up logic. However, I’ve made private contact with several CAF posters who have been very helpful in reviewing the early chapters of my book, offering excellent corrections which I’ve incorporated into the material.

You’ve had plenty of opportunities to point out flaws in my ideas, and I invite you to take opportunities to do so as they arise. Feel free to resurrect old threads and posts. That would be more constructive than this immediate rant, which seems off-topic.

You and I have tangled before, as I recall, and not constructively. I’m willing to keep trying. My only request is that dogma not be used as the basis for validating an argument. I understand that this is a Catholic forum. Perhaps you need to get clear that we are on the philosophy section of this excellent, open-minded forum. There are other sections which are clearly intended for believers, to which I do not post. My ideas are only intended for those with open minds, questions, and curiosity.

That’s why I addressed “Atheistgirl,” not you.

I understand your love for dogma, because I once shared it. I’m willing to argue against the value of certain elements of dogma, but have pretty much given up conversations with those who use it as the basis for arguments.

Feel free to expose my flaws. However, instead of a general purpose rant like this, why don’t we tangle with a particular issue? Pick one. If inappropriate to this thread, either of us can initiate a new thread dedicated accordingly. If you pick up that particular gauntlet, kindly PM with your OP title.

I am delighted to expose and argue my ideas in detail, provided that doing so is appropriate to the CAF, and if there is some general interest. I will argue/discuss/whatever according to reasonable standards of common logic, but will no longer waste time in conversation with dogmatists of either religious or atheistic flavor.

 

[greylorn]

I would explore it because it’s natural to wonder and if there is supposedly new evidence that could explain creation, etc. as you said all scientists would immediately have to listen.

Good! With luck you’ll have the opportunity.

However let me be clear that no “new evidence” is required. With the exception of the recent discovery of dark energy, the evidence I use has been around for most of the last century. I simply interpret old evidence honestly instead of trying to warp it to fit a particular paradigm.

 

[honestquestions]

However let me be clear that no “new evidence” is required. With the exception of the recent discovery of dark energy, the evidence I use has been around for most of the last century. I simply interpret old evidence honestly instead of trying to warp it to fit a particular paradigm.

I’m confused. Are you asserting a claim or not? If so, please give your best evidence.

 

[John21652]

Survival of the fittest does not assume ‘social darwanism.’

You need to do some more homework. Survival of the fittest and Social Darwinism are the same thing. I’m not sure why you went down this path in answering my question. I gave links to what Darwinism is and means, and the last link, to UCLA, states that modern evolutionary theory is just that - still a theory.

If I agree that science can’t tell us right from wrong, that does not assume that the only other option is the bible. (false dichotomy) So for now, I’ll forget the stoning an unruly child passage.

Good, I’m glad you agree wiith the statement that science can’t tell us what is right and what is wrong. However, I don’t know why you next mentioned ‘"…the only other option is the bible’’. No-one said that and it isn’t the case anyway. As for the bible passage you referred to, it doesn’t talk about stoning an unruly child.

You know what I meant.

Not quite. The words you write here are what you mean. To infer anything else is to assume too much of anyone’s posts. So, if you are being misconstrued, be more erudite with your postings.

People initially thought that God went poof and there were humans, which attempted to explain the complexity of our bodies. Yes, we can come up with tough questions all day - I guess you’re trying to corner me into saying I don’t know, I can’t explain it, I can’t fathom how, therefore there must be a God.

People still think God went ‘poof’ and there were humans. Science can’t prove otherwise. I wager it never will. As for cornering you, no, that’s not my intention at all. If you feel cornered, maybe it’s because your thinking has reached a dead end.

 

[John21652]

You may want to consider an apology to h.q. He did not use the phrase “Evolutionary Theory,” did he? You threw the “theory” word in there. H.q. made a clear enough distinction, IMO, between Darwinism, which is a theory, and evolution, which is generally considered to be an established fact.

You have gotten this back to front. I used the term ‘Darwinism’. In post #243H.Q. specifically wrote “By Darwinism you don’t mean evolution right? Obviously it’s not a hypothesis, so I’m guessing you’re not referring to evolution.”, thereby disassociating Darwinism from evolutionary theory, which you now say is an established fact. If that’s the case, then you’d better write to UCLA and tell them, because their web site says “In broad terms, contemporary evolutionary theory builds on the synthesis of Darwin’s ideas of natural variation and selection and Mendel’s model of genetic inheritance…” UCLA’s web page which I linked to in post #247 is headed “Evolutionary Theory”. You are another one who needs to do more homework on this issue. Particularly so before you go around suggesting that one person apologise to another!

Lots of people who are smart enough to know better seem to regard Darwinism and evolution as synonymous terms, and you don’t want to be one of them, do you?

Like I said, you’d better write to UCLA and convert them to your way of thinking.

Evolution is a fact. Darwinism is simply a theory which tries unsuccessfully to explain evolution. There are better theories.

The study of evolutionary theory is a fact. As per the UCLA web site, it is a theory. There is still heaps and heaps that science can’t explain about inheritance. Like I asked of H.Q., how does the info get into the DNA? Explain the fabrinicci numbers found in the natural world. You say there are better theories, well, start enlightening the world. In the meantime, the Catholic Church has theories that no-one can debunk.

I suggest that you and other Catholics focus upon a scientific question which is far more relevant to your beliefs than Darwinism. Specifically, abiogenesis.

I lionked to an article about the Vatican and science, which explained the position of the Church to science, great scientists and to the use of reason. I guess you couldn’t be bothered reading it, eh? As for abiogenesis, you gotta be kidding me?! The theory that can life can spring from nothing, and so today we have the human eye, fabronacci numbers and a whole range of other inexplicable things and you spout this media nonsense!! Abiogenesis can’t even find a plausible starting point for what normal people call ‘the miracle of life’. By the way, did you know that some smart dude even proposed that abiogenesis was responsible for oil. It has been discredited. It involves the classic chicken and egg problem.

 

[honestquestions]

You need to do some more homework. Survival of the fittest and Social Darwinism are the same thing.

Here’s a great response: Skip to 7:15 youtube.com/user/Potholer54debunks#p/u/20/94f2h-5TvbM

UCLA, states that modern evolutionary theory is just that - still a theory.

The Theory of Evolution is a theory, but guess what? When scientists use the word theory, it has a different meaning to normal everyday use. It all comes down to the multiple meanings of the word theory. If you said to a scientist that you didn’t believe in evolution because it was “just a theory”, they’d probably be a bit puzzled.

Most uninformed think that theory means a guess or a hunch, something that maybe needs proof. In science, a theory is not a guess or a hunch. It’s a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations. It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions. In science, theory is the ultimate goal, the explanation. It’s as close to proven as anything in science can be.

Some people think that in science, you have a theory, and once it’s proven, it becomes a law. That’s not how it works. In science, we collect facts, or observations, we use laws to describe them, and a theory to explain them. You don’t promote a theory to a law by proving it. A theory never becomes a law.

This bears repeating. A theory never becomes a law. In fact, if there was a hierarchy of science, theories would be higher than laws. There is nothing higher, or better, than a theory. Laws describe things, theories explain them. An example will help you to understand this. There’s a law of gravity, which is the description of gravity. It basically says that if you let go of something it’ll fall. It doesn’t say why. Then there’s the theory of gravity, which is an attempt to explain why. Actually, Newton’s Theory of Gravity did a pretty good job, but Einstein’s Theory of Relativity does a better job of explaining it. These explanations are called theories, and will always be theories. They can’t be changed into laws, because laws are different things. Laws describe, and theories explain.

Just because it’s called a theory of gravity, doesn’t mean that it’s just a guess. It’s been tested. All our observations are supported by it, as well as its predictions that we’ve tested. Also, gravity is real! You can observe it for yourself. Just because it’s real doesn’t mean that the explanation is a law. The explanation, in scientific terms, is called a theory.

Evolution is the same. There’s the fact of evolution. Evolution (genetic change over generations) happens, just like gravity does. Don’t take my word for it. Research it. But that’s not the issue we are addressing here. The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is our best explanation for the fact of evolution. It has been tested and scrutinized for over 150 years, and is supported by all the relevant observations. It is both a theory and a fact.

Good, I’m glad you agree wiith the statement that science can’t tell us what is right and what is wrong.

Right, I never brought it up. You just randomly said it in your first post replying to me.

As for the bible passage you referred to, it doesn’t talk about stoning an unruly child.

Deuteronomy 21:18-21
“If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, 19 his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. 20 They shall say to the elders, “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a profligate and a drunkard.” 21 Then all the men of his town shall stone him to death.”

People still think God went ‘poof’ and there were humans.

I know, tell me about it

Science can’t prove otherwise.

You just disagreed with the theory of evolution. You do realize even the Catholic Church had to concede to still be taken seriously, so they did, and then said but God created it to work that way. So man never magically appeared out of the blue exactly as we are today…

I wager it never will.

It did so in 1859.

 

[samiam1611]

Amen!

 

[Shredderbeam]

The Theory of Evolution is a theory, but guess what? When scientists use the word theory, it has a different meaning to normal everyday use. It all comes down to the multiple meanings of the word theory. If you said to a scientist that you didn’t believe in evolution because it was “just a theory”, they’d probably be a bit puzzled.

Most uninformed think that theory means a guess or a hunch, something that maybe needs proof. In science, a theory is not a guess or a hunch. It’s a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations. It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions. In science, theory is the ultimate goal, the explanation. It’s as close to proven as anything in science can be.

Some people think that in science, you have a theory, and once it’s proven, it becomes a law. That’s not how it works. In science, we collect facts, or observations, we use laws to describe them, and a theory to explain them. You don’t promote a theory to a law by proving it. A theory never becomes a law.

This bears repeating. A theory never becomes a law. In fact, if there was a hierarchy of science, theories would be higher than laws. There is nothing higher, or better, than a theory. Laws describe things, theories explain them. An example will help you to understand this. There’s a law of gravity, which is the description of gravity. It basically says that if you let go of something it’ll fall. It doesn’t say why. Then there’s the theory of gravity, which is an attempt to explain why. Actually, Newton’s Theory of Gravity did a pretty good job, but Einstein’s Theory of Relativity does a better job of explaining it. These explanations are called theories, and will always be theories. They can’t be changed into laws, because laws are different things. Laws describe, and theories explain.

Great explanation! Personally, I like to link people to this website: notjustatheory.com/

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I hope that’s not the only thing about me that annoys you.

Thas really about it. Catholic forum and all.

I’ve exposed …

I understand, I don’t argue dogma and never really do. I am a big fan of critical thinking. I don’t know what you feel is your strongest argument, so give me the topic to start a thread with, or start a thread and PM me when you are ready.