Open Discussion

  • Please comment and post whatever questions, topics, or general comments related to this blog that you wish to discuss.  
  • Please introduce yourself and keep it brief.  
Advertisements
This entry was posted in Atheism, Catholic, Faith, God, Reason, Science. Bookmark the permalink.

174 Responses to Open Discussion

  1. Allocutus says:

    On religion offering hope:

    I again repeat the very simple truth: Since we both agree that religion offers hope (and now RationallyFaith provides, conveniently for me, scientific evidence that religion helps battle depression), this gives us a very solid explanation for why billions of people believe in gods. This works AGAINST RationallyFaith's claim that this tendency is evidence of the actual existence of a supernatural Supreme Being. Religions is popular because it offers hope and hope is what people want to have.

    I AGAIN repeat that my claim wasn't that RationallyFaith is appealing to consequence on this point. Rather, my claim was (and remains) that believing because it offers hope is an appeal to consequence. This explains the fallacious reasons behind the great popularity of religion and it works against any claims of a god's existence in reality arising from said tendency.

    Like

  2. Allocutus says:

    RationallyFaith:
    You are reading Genesis in a fundamental manner. Eve from Adam's rib is an allegory for marriage and to show that man and woman are not only “connected,” but are equally of the same substance: humanity. The word used here is “tsalaw” which is translated as rib in Genesis, but not in other part of the Bible. This word describes something that is on the “side” or “supports from the side.” Eve did not literally come from a rib.

    Allocutus:

    Very nice. This proves my exact point. The Bible is NOT in line with science. In order to make the Bible APPEAR in line with science, you have to arbitrarily decide which bits of the Bible are to be taken literally and which are not. In this case, RationallyFaith has arbitrarily decided that the story of how Eve was created was meant as a metaphor to signify marriage. That's fine. But what gave him the right to make this distinction? If he had lived 2000 years ago, would he be saying the same thing? Or would he be claiming that the Genesis account is the literal account of how Eve came to be?

    The Bible CONTRADICTS science, unless we cherry-pick the Bible and dismiss incorrect parts as metaphor. This is exactly what I claimed from the start. Thank you for demonstrating it.

    Like

  3. Allocutus says:

    On why atheism is growing:

    Well no, you haven't produced ANY DATA as to why Catholics become atheists. You've only produced data about why Catholics leave the Catholic Church. We don't know where they go. They might leave structured religion altogether, being disappointed with liberal clergy who don't condemn homosexuality or women's priesthood. But you CAN'T TELL ME that these people stop believing that a god exists (and therefore become atheists). And THAT'S what you'd have to prove to support your claim.

    Either support your claim FOR WHAT IT IS or withdraw your claim.

    Like

  4. Allocutus says:

    On the Catholic Church's authority to interpret the Scriptures:

    Shakespeare has the highest aurhotity on the interpretation of his work. By the same token, the WRITERS of the Bible would have the highest authority on the meaning of what they said in it. If a Jesus did exist and the Scriptures relay what he actually said (very dubious claim, but let's play it for the sake of the argument) then JESUS would be the highest authority on what he meant when he spoke.

    The Catholic Church presumably DID NOT author the Scriptures. They only collated them into a canon. I could collate them in a different way, to fit in with my own purposes. Would that make me an exeprt on WHAT IN FACT was the intention of the writer(s)? I think not.

    By the way, I don't even understand WHY RationallyFaith would here claim that the Catholic Church is the AUTHOR of the Bible. Does he not see that this portrays Christianity as an utter scam?

    Like

  5. Allocutus says:

    On Christ, Matthew 5 and the 10 Commandments:

    Actually, the 10 Commandments appear IN Deuteronomy and IN Exodus. They appear in the very same books as does the rest of the Law.

    NOWHERE in Matthew 5:17-19 does Christ say (or even imply) that he's referring to the 10 Commandments only. What's more, Christ gives examples of laws (and changes a couple of them while at it) in Matthew 5:19+ and those are CLEARLY not limited to the 10 Commandments.

    If you're going to argue that Christ was ONLY referring to the 10 Commandments, you have to put an actual argument together. So far, no good. Your response simply doesn't address the issue, other than the UNTRUE claim that the 10 Commandments were not given in Exodus.

    What's more, MILLIONS of Christians interpret the passgae in Matt 5 as applying to the ENTIRE LAW. This goes to PROVE the VERY POINT I've been making (and why we're arguing this bit in the first place) that Christ's sayings are open to A WIDE ARRAY of interpretation.

    Like

  6. Allocutus says:

    One more bit on Genesis and scientific accuracy:

    You have somehow forgotten to address my question! I asked you to explain how the creation of the Sun and the Moon AFTER the plants is cientifically correct.

    Or is this yet another “metaphorical” bit? If so, what's the metaphorical meaning this time around?

    Like

  7. Allocutus says:

    On VMAT2:

    No, the reason why I called the theory “controversial” is not becaue it “touches on the supernatural”. I called it controversial because it's been proposed by a single scientist, is far from being confirmed and has met much opposition with other scientists.
    In fact, if the theory were true, it WOLD NOT TOUCH ON THE SUPERNATURAL. It would do THE OPPOSITE. It would provide a PERFECTLY NATURAL (genetic!) explanation for people's tendency to believe in weird and supernatural things (including, but not limited to, gods). If people believe in the spooky because they're genetically programmed to, your “hunger for god” argument is out the window. We have EVOLVED the belief in the supernatural. The belief itself has no supernatural source. It's simply part of the way we function.
    All this would leave us to do is to identify the selective pressure that would encourage such a mutation to succeed in the genotype of humans. Of course, that's not necessary, given that we know of GENETIC DRIFT. Some genes simply succeed due to random luck and nothing else. That said, scientists have for ALREADY (even BEFORE the discovery of the claimed “spooky gene”) proposed a number of selective pressures that favour the belief in the supernatural or are tangental to other beneficial traits.
    To sum it up: VMAT2 (if it DOES have a “spooky element” to it) KILLS your argument from ubiquity.

    Like

  8. Allocutus says:

    RationallyFaith:

    You have spent over 5 comments re-circulating the same material – the same inquiries. When will you stop? You are making yourself and Atheism look extremely foolish. A judge would hold you in contempt if you were to play these silly games in a court of law.

    Allocutus:

    No. If you gave evidence in which you repeatedly failed to answer the question (thereby forcing me to repeat it), YOU might find yourself in contempt.

    Like

  9. Anonymous says:

    so the antichrist papacy accepts evolution ? So what ? Christians dont accept evolution

    Like

  10. Sacerdotus says:

    The Papacy is NOT the anti Christ.

    Like

  11. Martin Rose says:

    How do you think God feels when he hears reports of his ministers/priests & other religious laymen sexually abusing children? Do you think he feels,

    a). this is a good idea, but they just shouldn't have gotten themselves caught,
    b). it is wrong to sexually abuse children using the Church as a cover for their actions, and that those responsible will go to HELL.

    Like

  12. Sacerdotus says:

    I will not pretend to speak for God, but I think Matthew 18:6 answers your question.

    Like

  13. Sacerdotus says:

    The contingency of the universe I believe answers your question. The people of the past knew the universe had a beginning. They had no need for telescopes, space crafts etc. They came to this conclusion via reason. Now if the universe had a beginning and it is ordered and ordered things are the result of a guided intelligence, then naturally they will describe the “creator” as a intelligent self aware being that exists outside of space-time-matter. Science can never disprove God because it can only measure the here and now, not the before and beyond the here and now.

    Like

  14. Martin Rose says:

    But I want to hear YOUR opinion on what God thinks!

    Like

  15. Martin Rose says:

    You never prove a negative, dude.

    It's up to you to prove the positive, ie; that there is a God.

    Like

  16. Sacerdotus says:

    I have already answered this.

    Like

  17. Sacerdotus says:

    Where is the negative? I think you are replying to a different comment. In any even, Universal quantification is often used to disprove/prove a negative.

    Like

  18. Martin Rose says:

    I want to hear YOUR opinion, typed from your own fingers. A reference to an entry elsewhere is not your own PERSONAL opinion!

    Like

  19. Martin Rose says:

    You said “Science can never disprove God”.

    Of course not. You cannot prove a negative.

    Like

  20. Sacerdotus says:

    MY OPINION IS: “I will not pretend to speak for God, but I think Matthew 18:6 answers your question. “

    Like

  21. Sacerdotus says:

    Science cannot disprove God because it is only concerned with things observable in the natural world. Unless it finds a way to test things outside of the universe, it has its hands tied, so to speak. It is like “Bugs Bunny” trying to figure out what's outside of the TV he is being watched on.

    Like

  22. Martin Rose says:

    Why is your stance the same as the pope's?
    Is it because you're too lazy to think it thru yourself?

    Like

  23. +Moontanman says:

    Sacerdotus you do realize the bible is not evidence of a claim, it is the claim…

    Like

  24. +Moontanman says:

    No, physics does not provide evidence for god or anything else supernatural. Simply not knowing the answer does not mean god did it.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s