Why do Atheists/Agnostics come to CAF?

[yankee_doodle]

How do you think we can avoid human suffering if there’s free will?

that’s a two pronged question. The first, if there really was a garden of Eden, I wouldn’t have denied knowledge to my new creations. A loving god would have immersed his creation with knowledge, wisdom, and integrity. Yet, according to your bible, this loving god let two blank slates loose in a garden with a cunning serpent.

The second prong, how do I believe we can avoid human suffering in the future. A world guided by logic and reason, where ancient mythology or anything else untrue or illogical is no longer allowed to control public sentiment. Where all people are endowed with a brilliant education, beginning in early childhood.

These are just for starters.

 

[josie_L]

well, you guys don’t believe in science, yet you keep butting your noses into it? I would love a world where the religious kept their noses out of secular affairs (I sure wouldn’t be here expressing concern over these issue if the world were like that).

Yes, of course how stupid of me to forget that we don’t believe in science. Quite frankly, I’m tired of your tirades Yankee you have nothing but caricatures to offer of the CC and of theists in general. God bless.

 

[josie_L]

:harp:

“Father forgive them for they do not know what they do”.

 

[yankee_doodle]

I’m going to ask you a question, but did you notice when they spoke of sexual abuse in the Church that there was no mention that of the cases revealed (80%) most were committed by predatory gay priests? It speaks volumes that they showed a female abuse victim in a show that was ultimately promoting the gay agenda.

it doesn’t speak volumes of anything. The sex abuse scandal concerning priests molesting young boys has been played and replayed in the press ad nausea at this point … I’m not sure how they could have added value to the show by rehashing that scandal?

At any rate I notice you’re still not attacking the merits of their charges. Rather, you’re creating a speculative (probably false) nexus between the fact that they used a female sex abuse victim to allegedly promote a “gay agenda” … I guess inferring conspiratorial tactics or I don’t know?

However, I suspect you don’t mind when a member of your church is spewing hateful dogma and rhetoric against groups like gays, unmarried couples, etc. They deserve it right? Well, it shouldn’t be a surprise that they in turn don’t like you, and when given the opportunity they will express their sentiment. The idea that your attacks on these groups is really a loving gesture is a concept only your side buys into. They view it as hate; and they have no logical, objective reason not to.

 

[yankee_doodle]

“Father forgive them for they do not know what they do”.

 

[josie_L]

that’s a two pronged question. The first, if there really was a garden of Eden, I wouldn’t have denied knowledge to my new creations. A loving god would have immersed his creation with knowledge, wisdom, and integrity. Yet, according to your bible, this loving god let two blank slates loose in a garden with a cunning serpent.

That’s the problem they were not blank slates they had a keen understanding of what was good, I mean for criminy’s sakes they were in the garden of Paradise communing with God so they understood who He was and what He stood for. Furthermore, Adam and Eve could not claim ignorance of something they were told expressly not to do, in fact, God made them understand the dangers involved, death. They defied God because they were tempted by Satan to believe that God had lied to them.

The second prong, how do I believe we can avoid human suffering in the future. A world guided by logic and reason, where ancient mythology or anything else untrue or illogical is no longer allowed to control public sentiment. Where all people are endowed with a brilliant education, beginning in early childhood.

No, you misunderstood me, I’m asking what you would do if you were God to ease human suffering without violating human free will?

 

[lil_flower_luv]

Josie~

Your witness bears fruit, and you will be rewarded for it!

God Bless you.

 

[humble_maid]

“Father forgive them for they do not know what they do”.

My sentiments exactly. Even if you give them all the proof in the world they won’t digest it; maybe they have R-IBS(Religious Intolerance Bowel Syndrome).

Still, I and many others will continue to pray for them; as well as to perfect and strengthen our own beliefs.

God Bless Everyone

Here’s a song to uplift the spirit “I will carry you” by Michael Smith.
youtube.com/watch?v=EMZj0520v0g&feature=related

 

[josie_L]

it doesn’t speak volumes of anything. The sex abuse scandal concerning priests molesting young boys has been played and replayed in the press ad nausea at this point … I’m not sure how they could have added value to the show by rehashing that scandal?

At any rate I notice you’re still not attacking the merits of their charges. Rather, you’re creating a speculative (probably false) nexus between the fact that they used a female sex abuse victim to allegedly promote a “gay agenda” … I guess inferring conspiratorial tactics or I don’t know?

However, I suspect you don’t mind when a member of your church is spewing hateful dogma and rhetoric against groups like gays, unmarried couples, etc. They deserve it right? Well, it shouldn’t be a surprise that they in turn don’t like you, and when given the opportunity they will express their sentiment. The idea that your attacks on these groups is really a loving gesture is a concept only your side buys into. They view it as hate; and they have no logical, objective reason not to.

What hateful dogma against gays? I mean do you actually believe that the CC wouldn’t want to help gays from being persecuted if that were the real intent behind the U.N. resolution? Did it ever occur to you to know why the CC refused to go with the resolution set by the U.N. that was advanced by the EU?

 

[josie_L]

it doesn’t speak volumes of anything. The sex abuse scandal concerning priests molesting young boys has been played and replayed in the press ad nausea at this point … I’m not sure how they could have added value to the show by rehashing that scandal?

At any rate I notice you’re still not attacking the merits of their charges. Rather, you’re creating a speculative (probably false) nexus between the fact that they used a female sex abuse victim to allegedly promote a “gay agenda” … I guess inferring conspiratorial tactics or I don’t know?

However, I suspect you don’t mind when a member of your church is spewing hateful dogma and rhetoric against groups like gays, unmarried couples, etc. They deserve it right? Well, it shouldn’t be a surprise that they in turn don’t like you, and when given the opportunity they will express their sentiment. The idea that your attacks on these groups is really a loving gesture is a concept only your side buys into. They view it as hate; and they have no logical, objective reason not to.

Oh and as for my conspiratorial tactics, let me rehash this quote by a member of the gay community:

"The secular media in the United States are overwhelmingly sympathetic to the homosexual movement. This was admitted recently by Al Rantel, a talk-show host on KABC, a major Los Angeles radio station, during a June 14 interview on CNN:

"I do not say this happily . . . because, as you may know, I happen to be gay myself. I’m openly gay here on the radio in Los Angeles and have been for many years.

"But I have to tell you that, you know, even if you are gay, two and two is still four, and there’s this proverbial 3,000-pound elephant sitting in the room that no one wants to talk about. This is not a pedophile issue, although the media called it a pedophile issue, because they do not want to insult the gay community. They do not want to be politically incorrect.

“But what you have here are not pedophiles. You have predatory gay men—and there are some of us, believe me. I do not happen to be one of them, but there are some, and we should all admit they’re there. And these predatory gay men found their way into the Catholic priesthood in inordinately large numbers—you know, it makes the Boy Scouts look prescient with what they did. And these gay men have gone after young males. And I think it’s disgraceful, and I think the media needs to address this. The gay community needs to address this.” (For the program transcript, see www.cnn.com/transcripts/0206/14/tl.00.html. )"

 

[yankee_doodle]

Oh and as for my conspiratorial tactics, let me rehash this quote by a member of the gay community:

"The secular media in the United States are overwhelmingly sympathetic to the homosexual movement. This was admitted recently by Al Rantel, a talk-show host on KABC, a major Los Angeles radio station, during a June 14 interview on CNN:

"I do not say this happily . . . because, as you may know, I happen to be gay myself. I’m openly gay here on the radio in Los Angeles and have been for many years.

"But I have to tell you that, you know, even if you are gay, two and two is still four, and there’s this proverbial 3,000-pound elephant sitting in the room that no one wants to talk about. This is not a pedophile issue, although the media called it a pedophile issue, because they do not want to insult the gay community. They do not want to be politically incorrect.

“But what you have here are not pedophiles. You have predatory gay men—and there are some of us, believe me. I do not happen to be one of them, but there are some, and we should all admit they’re there. And these predatory gay men found their way into the Catholic priesthood in inordinately large numbers—you know, it makes the Boy Scouts look prescient with what they did. And these gay men have gone after young males. And I think it’s disgraceful, and I think the media needs to address this. The gay community needs to address this.” (For the program transcript, see www.cnn.com/transcripts/0206/14/tl.00.html. )"

oh I get it … you want to use the Catholic sex abuse scandal, which your church is now known to have conspired to cover up since the 1960’s (and your current pope was apparently one of the leaders who spearheaded the cover up) as a sledge hammer to promote bigotry against homosexuals?

This is just over the top. I can’t say what I want to say … so I’m going to grab some breakfast.

 

[lil_flower_luv]

This is just over the top. I can’t say what I want to say … so I’m going to grab some breakfast.

I can’t say what I would like to say either.
You get your breakfast. And *we *shall pray for you!

 

[josie_L]

oh I get it … you want to use the Catholic sex abuse scandal, which your church is now known to have conspired to cover up since the 1960’s (and your current pope was apparently one of the leaders who spearheaded the cover up) as a sledge hammer to promote bigotry against homosexuals?

This is just over the top. I can’t say what I want to say … so I’m going to grab some breakfast.

Key words: “was apparently”. And we’ve already discussed the sex scandals ad naseum. And if you can’t say what you want to say here and now you can always p.m.

 

[yankee_doodle]

I’m so appalled at this point, I’m at a loss. I’ve become exceedingly convinced, through my dialog here, the CC is a wicked institution; and its members enable and defend its horrendous conduct (and collude to sustain this institution that has so violated so many people in the most vile way imaginable).

According to the video Pope Benedict was the church leader who spearheaded the effort to cover up sexual abuse among the clergy. I haven’t fact checked that claim (which is why I said apparently); however, given the credibility of the CC on this issue (and in general), I assume the assertion is true (they did produce documentation issued by the church evidencing their claims).

I bet you guys think the priest who handed that documentation over to lawyers is the real traitor. You’ll probably point out how that priest was himself accused of sex crimes, and did what he did due to his anger at the church (I suspect he was angry because he wasn’t the beneficiary of the same favoritism that other priests, accused of predatory sexual conduct, received previously). However, anger and acts of spite are in many cases how investigators get their hands on incriminating information.

But of course this plays in with your apologetics for your churches criminal behavior (and by any reasonable standard criminal conspiracy, at all levels of the organization, of the most vile sort). And you wonder why Americans are turning away from the CC in droves? Unfortunately the statute of limitations has tolled, because if it hadn’t prosecutors would likely have enough evidence to issue an international arrest warrant for the Pope. In other words, the allegations made by that video (unless rebutted) show the Pope is guilty of a felony under American law (notwithstanding tolling of the SOL, he still did it).

 

[AnotherAtheist]

My sentiments exactly. Even if you give them all the proof in the world they won’t digest it; maybe they have R-IBS(Religious Intolerance Bowel Syndrome).

Oh I like this one and I’m just going to have to comment.

I believe you are correct. I do have Religious Intolerance Bowel Syndrome. Every time I am exposed to the intolerance espoused by any of the Abrahamic religions I get the runs. I just never knew there was a name for this condition until now.

I have never seen a single shred of proof supporting the dogma of the Catholicism. All you have is faith, and your faith no matter how strong does not equate to proof. So if you do have some proof then please share it with us here.

 

[HappyRevert]

Oh I like this one and I’m just going to have to comment.

I have never seen a single shred of proof supporting the dogma of the Catholicism. All you have is faith, and your faith no matter how strong does not equate to proof. So if you do have some proof then please share it with us here.

I saw this one and thought we could provide a shred of proof, but we’d have to start at the very beginning. So that would mean starting at theism in general and not Christianity specifically. The shred of proof that we have is our universe and planet’s very existence.

1. The laws of thermodynamics states that energy systems have a tendency to increase entropy. Our universe happens to be an extremely large energy system, but instead of being very disordered, it is incredibly and magnificently ordered. The way the planets move around the sun and the galaxies move is more like a symphony than something random and disordered. I don’t see entropy working there, so something must be creating order.
2. Those people who have taken the time to calculate the probability that our universe, planet and humans would exist through random events have found that it is so infinitesimally small it is negligible. Even those supporting evolution evolutionfaq.com/articles/probability-life and trying to refute those arguments agree that it is NON RANDOM. They cite Natural Selection and chemistry as being non-random but if things move toward entropy than Natural Selection should be random too. Why isn’t it? Our answer is that there is a force that we don’t understand which is ordering the universe.

I would like to know if you agree with those from a scientific point of view and nothing else. Is there some force that we don’t completely understand that is creating order where there should not be any?

 

[josie_L]

I’m so appalled at this point, I’m at a loss. I’ve become exceedingly convinced, through my dialog here, the CC is a wicked institution; and its members enable and defend its horrendous conduct (and collude to sustain this institution that has so violated so many people in the most vile way imaginable).

According to the video Pope Benedict was the church leader who spearheaded the effort to cover up sexual abuse among the clergy. I haven’t fact checked that claim (which is why I said apparently); however, given the credibility of the CC on this issue (and in general), I assume the assertion is true (they did produce documentation issued by the church evidencing their claims).

I bet you guys think the priest who handed that documentation over to lawyers is the real traitor. You’ll probably point out how that priest was himself accused of sex crimes, and did what he did due to his anger at the church (I suspect he was angry because he wasn’t the beneficiary of the same favoritism that other priests, accused of predatory sexual conduct, received previously). However, anger and acts of spite are in many cases how investigators get their hands on incriminating information.

But of course this plays in with your apologetics for your churches criminal behavior (and by any reasonable standard criminal conspiracy, at all levels of the organization, of the most vile sort). And you wonder why Americans are turning away from the CC in droves? Unfortunately the statute of limitations has tolled, because if it hadn’t prosecutors would likely have enough evidence to issue an international arrest warrant for the Pope. In other words, the allegations made by that video (unless rebutted) show the Pope is guilty of a felony under American law (notwithstanding tolling of the SOL, he still did it).

May you come to know His love and peace, God bless Yankee.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

I saw this one and thought we could provide a shred of proof, but we’d have to start at the very beginning. So that would mean starting at theism in general and not Christianity specifically. The shred of proof that we have is our universe and planet’s very existence.

1. The laws of thermodynamics states that energy systems have a tendency to increase entropy. Our universe happens to be an extremely large energy system, but instead of being very disordered, it is incredibly and magnificently ordered. The way the planets move around the sun and the galaxies move is more like a symphony than something random and disordered. I don’t see entropy working there, so something must be creating order.
2. Those people who have taken the time to calculate the probability that our universe, planet and humans would exist through random events have found that it is so infinitesimally small it is negligible. Even those supporting evolution evolutionfaq.com/articles/probability-life and trying to refute those arguments agree that it is NON RANDOM. They cite Natural Selection and chemistry as being non-random but if things move toward entropy than Natural Selection should be random too. Why isn’t it? Our answer is that there is a force that we don’t understand which is ordering the universe.

I would like to know if you agree with those from a scientific point of view and nothing else. Is there some force that we don’t completely understand that is creating order where there should not be any?

1. Your entire premise is an argument from personal incredulity. I don’t understand how it works therefore God.

I don’t think you have a good understanding of the “science” you are referring too.

The following is summarized from here: talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001.html

The second law of thermodynamics says that heat will not spontaneously flow from a colder body to a warmer one or, equivalently, that total entropy (a measure of useful energy) in a closed system will not decrease. This does not prevent increasing order because entropy is not the same as disorder. Sometimes the two correspond, but sometimes order increases as entropy increases. (Aranda-Espinoza et al. 1999; Kestenbaum 1998) Entropy can even be used to produce order, such as in the sorting of molecules by size (Han and Craighead 2000). even in a closed system, pockets of lower entropy can form if they are offset by increased entropy elsewhere in the system. Several scientists have proposed that evolution and the origin of life is driven by entropy (McShea 1998). Some see the information content of organisms subject to diversification according to the second law (Brooks and Wiley 1988), so organisms diversify to fill empty niches much as a gas expands to fill an empty container. Others propose that highly ordered complex systems emerge and evolve to dissipate energy (and increase overall entropy) more efficiently (Schneider and Kay 1994).

1. The odds of the formation of everything are so small it is impossible therefore God.

talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE441.html

The total entropy of the universe at the start of the big bang was minimal, perhaps almost zero. Because it was so compact, it had considerably more order than the universe we are in now. The complexity we observe around us today can be produced from the ultimate order of the hot but cooling gas of the big bang.

Abiogenesis

talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB010.html

1. The calculation of odds assumes that the protein molecule formed by chance. However, biochemistry is not chance, making the calculated odds meaningless. Biochemistry produces complex products, and the products themselves interact in complex ways. For example, complex organic molecules are observed to form in the conditions that exist in space, and it is possible that they played a role in the formation of the first life (Spotts 2001).
2. The calculation of odds assumes that the protein molecule must take one certain form. However, there are innumerable possible proteins that promote biological activity. Any calculation of odds must take into account all possible molecules (not just proteins) that might function to promote life.
3. The calculation of odds assumes the creation of life in its present form. The first life would have been very much simpler.
4. The calculation of odds ignores the fact that innumerable trials would have been occurring simultaneously.
5. There is no reason to think that the life around today is comparable in complexity to the earliest life. All of the simplest life would almost certainly be extinct by now, outcompeted by more complex forms.
6. Self-replicators can be incredibly simple, as simple as a strand of six DNA nucleotides (Sievers and von Kiedrowski 1994). This is simple enough to form via prebiotic chemistry. Self-replication sets the stage for evolution to begin, whether or not you call the molecules “life.”
7. Nobody claims the first life arose by chance. To jump from the fact that the origin is unknown to the conclusion that it could not have happened naturally is the argument from incredulity.
8. Biochemistry is not chance. It inevitably produces complex products. Amino acids and other complex molecules are even known to form in space.
9. Nobody knows what the most primitive cells looked like. All the cells around today are the product of billions of years of evolution. The earliest self-replicator was likely very much simpler than anything alive today; self-replicating molecules need not be all that complex (Lee et al. 1996), and protein-building systems can also be simple (Ball 2001; Tamura and Schimmel 2001). This claim is an example of the argument from incredulity.
10. Nobody denies that the origin of life is an extremely difficult problem. That it has not been solved, though, does not mean it is impossible. In fact, there has been much work in this area, leading to several possible origins for life on earth:

The answer to your final question is no. I do not believe there is some unknown hand creating order where there should be none. There is no indication that there is order where there should be none. The order that we see should be there.

 

[HappyRevert]

The answer to your final question is no. I do not believe there is some unknown hand creating order where there should be none. There is no indication that there is order where there should be none. The order that we see should be there.

Actually I wasn’t arguing for God yet, just asking you if there is some unknown force creating order. From your answer the answer is yes since you say “The order that we see should be there”. Why would you say “should” as opposed to “is”? The “should” implies things as they ought to be which in itself is a value judgment, not simply an observation of what exists.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

Actually I wasn’t arguing for God yet, just asking you if there is some unknown force creating order. From your answer the answer is yes since you say “The order that we see should be there”. Why would you say “should” as opposed to “is”? The “should” implies things as they ought to be which in itself is a value judgment, not simply an observation of what exists.

In my opinion you are arguing for god already. How else do you propose to account for your hypothesis of the creation of order where there should be none? On the other hand I do not agree that there is order where there should be none. My position is that any perceived order is naturally occurring. Your unknown force is not required because there is nothing that is not as it should be without it.