I thought it would be good to post this...
Added Link: http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/Thread-Catholics-vs-TTA-Respectfully
Quoteevenheathen Online
Now with Bleach!
****
Likes Given: 1,118
Likes Received: 1,157 in 687 posts
Posts: 2,096
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 42
Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
So due to recent developments in the "Real debat with fundies" thread, I've decided to start this thread. I'd like to have a civil, respectful discussion with them, pertaining to the same issue that was discussed on their forum. I believe it was homosexuality. I didn't read the thread, so I don't know what all was laid out, but here's a chance to put it out there, without the usual threat of being banned for going against the grain.
I'd invite Chesterbelloc, LouisIX, and anyone else that might want to join in for the catholics to feel free to be heard here.
I'd like to ask the members of TTA to be respectful and civilized during this discussion, as I believe as human being we are capable of doing so in any circumstance, so long as we understand that these are just ideas that we are presenting in this particular argument.
Put your heartfelt emotion into your argument, not into petty insults.
So then, catholics........why do you see it as a moral right to be able to legislate against homosexuality?
As a heads up, Crimson has been unbanned.
But, this will be interesting to read/see.
I'd just ignore them over at that atheist forum. Crimson Flyboy is not being honest even in his first post over there. He posted;
"Great idea. The following story started that thread: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/09/05/burn-in-hell-you-racist-pigs-christian-baker-who-refused-to-make-lesbian-couples-wedding-cake-details-creepy-alleged-break-in-ongoing-challenges/
I made the statement that this is a violation of the cake shop's first amendment rights, and the Catholics explained that they hate religious liberty and homosexuals. The rest was craziness."
Meanwhile contrary to what Crimson Flyboy posted this is the story that started the thread. It says that not just the one company was forced to close down like the article that Crimson Flyboy posted over there, but at least 13 companies are listed in this article that were forced to close for the same reason.
http://www.crisismagazine.com/2013/gay-persecution-of-christians-the-latest-evidence
They have declared war. But people are just fed up to the ears with it, not just Catholics and not just Christians in general, but everyone is fed up with the militant atheist homosexual agenda. I've even seen some homosexuals that have posted their disgust with their militant actions. This can only end three different ways.
1. They back off with their militant actions.
2. Catholic persecution will increase.
3. We start to fight back and see victory.
The time of treating them with kid gloves is long past.
Lol no thanks Jeff. Athiest forums are hell holes. Self congratulatory ignoramuses high fiving each other for how rude, obnoxious and immoral they can be. I don't believe a word those snakes say. Too many times I've tried to debate with internet atheists. Have yet to come across one that was sincere. Think about it, if they were sincere God would have already rewarded them for their seeking truth. As it stands it's nothing more than mockery, ganging up and some pretended intellectual interest which is nothing more than an excuse later in life to tell someone "I know all your arguments you Jesus loving pedo". This is a bold and prideful forum war challenge not a meaningful and humble pursuit of truth.
In my opinion!
Quote from: Basilios on October 17, 2013, 11:51:25 PM
Lol no thanks Jeff. Athiest forums are hell holes. Self congratulatory ignoramuses high fiving each other for how rude, obnoxious and immoral they can be.
Nailed it IMO. "No thanks Jeff" was actually my same exact thought as soon as I saw the OP lol.
I'm back. Thank you Louis for letting me come back on y'all's forum. I am sorry for mocking y'all on The Thinking Atheist forum, that wasn't very nice of me. I have learned quite a lot from y'all, such as my need to brush up on philosophy. I have many assumptions in my philosophical world view which I struggle to explain adequately. Thanks for the help so far.
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 18, 2013, 02:12:29 AM
I'm back. Thank you Louis for letting me come back on y'all's forum. I am sorry for mocking y'all on The Thinking Atheist forum, that wasn't very nice of me. I have learned quite a lot from y'all, such as my need to brush up on philosophy. I have many assumptions in my philosophical world view which I struggle to explain adequately. Thanks for the help so far.
Your not fooling me...your insincere and deliberately obtuse
TRUTH is a toy to you...to sincere Catholics...Jesus Christ is Truth.....not A truth....but THE Truth. You want to redeem yourself? What say ye friend of Jesus Christ.?
From what I remember, The Thinking Atheist certainly isn't the worst atheist forum. You should've seen r/atheism in its heyday, or Dawkins' Facebook fanpage.
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 18, 2013, 02:12:29 AM
I'm back. Thank you Louis for letting me come back on y'all's forum. I am sorry for mocking y'all on The Thinking Atheist forum, that wasn't very nice of me. I have learned quite a lot from y'all, such as my need to brush up on philosophy. I have many assumptions in my philosophical world view which I struggle to explain adequately. Thanks for the help so far.
A fundamental of philosophy is getting it straight about what
objective "truth" is. Does the moon objectively exist, even if one is blind? Does a virus exist, objectively, for a newborn being that his mind is unaware of it? The answer is, yes.
What is truth's relationship to logic & reason? It brings us truth. If a=b and b=c, it is a truth that a=c.
However, logic and reason are not identical. You can have true logic that does not result in reasonableness or truth - if the premises for the logic are not entirely true, or are lacking the consideration of some other truth.
Truth and reason cannot bear contradiction. Truth is internally consistent. No truth, on any subject, can be inconsistent with another truth.
Demonstration and empirical evidence help us towards truth. The mind is made for truth as the eye is made for light. The mind is not really satisfied unless it knows something is true. A person who professes that lying is good, will get angry when he is lied to.
If one doesn't grasp these fundamentals, he will flounder in argument without as solid foundation.
Empirical evidence: 1917 at Fatima, Portugal. Scientists who pride themselves in reason and normally put empirical evidence on a pedestal, do not want to touch this. It is a glaring silence. From memory, over 25,000 people, religious and anti-religious, and documented in the anti-Catholic press, witnessed the sun spiral towards the earth, and flash out rainbow colors, witnesses thinking the sun was plummeting to the earth. The earth was just previously soaking wet due to heavy rains. Within minutes everything and everyone was dry. No sunburn, no harm to the eyes of the people looking at the sun.
Scientists don't really want to touch this empirical evidence. Atheists included. When what they normally put on a pedestal wholesale, and then perpetual fear in certain instances, we conclude great significance exists they don't want to face.
Quote from: Basilios on October 17, 2013, 11:51:25 PM
. Athiest forums are hell holes.
I believe you. And also boring beyond belief, judging by their ambassadors here.
Quote from: RobertJS on October 18, 2013, 07:35:09 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 18, 2013, 02:12:29 AM
I'm back. Thank you Louis for letting me come back on y'all's forum. I am sorry for mocking y'all on The Thinking Atheist forum, that wasn't very nice of me. I have learned quite a lot from y'all, such as my need to brush up on philosophy. I have many assumptions in my philosophical world view which I struggle to explain adequately. Thanks for the help so far.
A fundamental of philosophy is getting it straight about what objective "truth" is. Does the moon objectively exist, even if one is blind? Does a virus exist, objectively, for a newborn being that his mind is unaware of it? The answer is, yes.
What is truth's relationship to logic & reason? It brings us truth. If a=b and b=c, it is a truth that a=c.
However, logic and reason are not identical. You can have true logic that does not result in reasonableness or truth - if the premises for the logic are not entirely true, or are lacking the consideration of some other truth.
Truth and reason cannot bear contradiction. Truth is internally consistent. No truth, on any subject, can be inconsistent with another truth.
Demonstration and empirical evidence help us towards truth. The mind is made for truth as the eye is made for light. The mind is not really satisfied unless it knows something is true. A person who professes that lying is good, will get angry when he is lied to.
If one doesn't grasp these fundamentals, he will flounder in argument without as solid foundation.
Empirical evidence: 1917 at Fatima, Portugal. Scientists who pride themselves in reason and normally put empirical evidence on a pedestal, do not want to touch this. It is a glaring silence. From memory, over 25,000 people, religious and anti-religious, and documented in the anti-Catholic press, witnessed the sun spiral towards the earth, and flash out rainbow colors, witnesses thinking the sun was plummeting to the earth. The earth was just previously soaking wet due to heavy rains. Within minutes everything and everyone was dry. No sunburn, no harm to the eyes of the people looking at the sun.
Scientists don't really want to touch this empirical evidence. Atheists included. When what they normally put on a pedestal wholesale, and then perpetual fear in certain instances, we conclude great significance exists they don't want to face.
How can I look into the Fatima incident more? Where is the evidence that this actually was a miracle? I find it disappointing when a man refuses to look into something. What is there to be afraid of?
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on October 18, 2013, 04:11:00 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 18, 2013, 02:12:29 AM
I'm back. Thank you Louis for letting me come back on y'all's forum. I am sorry for mocking y'all on The Thinking Atheist forum, that wasn't very nice of me. I have learned quite a lot from y'all, such as my need to brush up on philosophy. I have many assumptions in my philosophical world view which I struggle to explain adequately. Thanks for the help so far.
Your not fooling me...your insincere and deliberately obtuse
TRUTH is a toy to you...to sincere Catholics...Jesus Christ is Truth.....not A truth....but THE Truth. You want to redeem yourself? What say ye friend of Jesus Christ.?
I agree with VP on this one. I think the TTAs are here looking for more ammo so they can run another snarky "who's craziest" poll. They're like children who ring the
the doorbell and run away. I guess that's par for the course from a bunch of wet-behind the-ears twenty somethings.
I've apologized for the poll, I was a bit upset about the name calling toward homosexuals. I have a homosexual in my family, and that can touch a nerve.
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 18, 2013, 08:03:39 AM
Quote from: RobertJS on October 18, 2013, 07:35:09 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 18, 2013, 02:12:29 AM
I'm back. Thank you Louis for letting me come back on y'all's forum. I am sorry for mocking y'all on The Thinking Atheist forum, that wasn't very nice of me. I have learned quite a lot from y'all, such as my need to brush up on philosophy. I have many assumptions in my philosophical world view which I struggle to explain adequately. Thanks for the help so far.
A fundamental of philosophy is getting it straight about what objective "truth" is. Does the moon objectively exist, even if one is blind? Does a virus exist, objectively, for a newborn being that his mind is unaware of it? The answer is, yes.
What is truth's relationship to logic & reason? It brings us truth. If a=b and b=c, it is a truth that a=c.
However, logic and reason are not identical. You can have true logic that does not result in reasonableness or truth - if the premises for the logic are not entirely true, or are lacking the consideration of some other truth.
Truth and reason cannot bear contradiction. Truth is internally consistent. No truth, on any subject, can be inconsistent with another truth.
Demonstration and empirical evidence help us towards truth. The mind is made for truth as the eye is made for light. The mind is not really satisfied unless it knows something is true. A person who professes that lying is good, will get angry when he is lied to.
If one doesn't grasp these fundamentals, he will flounder in argument without as solid foundation.
Empirical evidence: 1917 at Fatima, Portugal. Scientists who pride themselves in reason and normally put empirical evidence on a pedestal, do not want to touch this. It is a glaring silence. From memory, over 25,000 people, religious and anti-religious, and documented in the anti-Catholic press, witnessed the sun spiral towards the earth, and flash out rainbow colors, witnesses thinking the sun was plummeting to the earth. The earth was just previously soaking wet due to heavy rains. Within minutes everything and everyone was dry. No sunburn, no harm to the eyes of the people looking at the sun.
Scientists don't really want to touch this empirical evidence. Atheists included. When what they normally put on a pedestal wholesale, and then perpetual fear in certain instances, we conclude great significance exists they don't want to face.
How can I look into the Fatima incident more? Where is the evidence that this actually was a miracle? I find it disappointing when a man refuses to look into something. What is there to be afraid of?
I didn't use the word "miracle". So, apparently you have heard of it. How can you look more into it? Try google.com
Don't disappoint yourself and look into it. Do not be afraid. It is obvious from the points I gave from memory that I had looked into it already.
Quote from: RobertJS on October 18, 2013, 08:08:52 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 18, 2013, 08:03:39 AM
Quote from: RobertJS on October 18, 2013, 07:35:09 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 18, 2013, 02:12:29 AM
I'm back. Thank you Louis for letting me come back on y'all's forum. I am sorry for mocking y'all on The Thinking Atheist forum, that wasn't very nice of me. I have learned quite a lot from y'all, such as my need to brush up on philosophy. I have many assumptions in my philosophical world view which I struggle to explain adequately. Thanks for the help so far.
A fundamental of philosophy is getting it straight about what objective "truth" is. Does the moon objectively exist, even if one is blind? Does a virus exist, objectively, for a newborn being that his mind is unaware of it? The answer is, yes.
What is truth's relationship to logic & reason? It brings us truth. If a=b and b=c, it is a truth that a=c.
However, logic and reason are not identical. You can have true logic that does not result in reasonableness or truth - if the premises for the logic are not entirely true, or are lacking the consideration of some other truth.
Truth and reason cannot bear contradiction. Truth is internally consistent. No truth, on any subject, can be inconsistent with another truth.
Demonstration and empirical evidence help us towards truth. The mind is made for truth as the eye is made for light. The mind is not really satisfied unless it knows something is true. A person who professes that lying is good, will get angry when he is lied to.
If one doesn't grasp these fundamentals, he will flounder in argument without as solid foundation.
Empirical evidence: 1917 at Fatima, Portugal. Scientists who pride themselves in reason and normally put empirical evidence on a pedestal, do not want to touch this. It is a glaring silence. From memory, over 25,000 people, religious and anti-religious, and documented in the anti-Catholic press, witnessed the sun spiral towards the earth, and flash out rainbow colors, witnesses thinking the sun was plummeting to the earth. The earth was just previously soaking wet due to heavy rains. Within minutes everything and everyone was dry. No sunburn, no harm to the eyes of the people looking at the sun.
Scientists don't really want to touch this empirical evidence. Atheists included. When what they normally put on a pedestal wholesale, and then perpetual fear in certain instances, we conclude great significance exists they don't want to face.
How can I look into the Fatima incident more? Where is the evidence that this actually was a miracle? I find it disappointing when a man refuses to look into something. What is there to be afraid of?
I didn't use the word "miracle". So, apparently you have heard of it. How can you look more into it? Try google.com
Don't disappoint yourself and look into it. Do not be afraid. It is obvious from the points I gave from memory that I had looked into it already.
Yes I have heard of it, and even though toy didn't use the word miracle, what you described would be called a miracle since that sort of thing doesn't normally happen. I believe in looking into matters skeptically, so one shouldn't accept or reject something without evidence. I would of course have questions going in, how can it be proved that all 25,000 people saw the same thing? Were 25,000 testimonies taken?
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 18, 2013, 08:17:33 AM
Quote from: RobertJS on October 18, 2013, 08:08:52 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 18, 2013, 08:03:39 AM
Quote from: RobertJS on October 18, 2013, 07:35:09 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 18, 2013, 02:12:29 AM
I'm back. Thank you Louis for letting me come back on y'all's forum. I am sorry for mocking y'all on The Thinking Atheist forum, that wasn't very nice of me. I have learned quite a lot from y'all, such as my need to brush up on philosophy. I have many assumptions in my philosophical world view which I struggle to explain adequately. Thanks for the help so far.
A fundamental of philosophy is getting it straight about what objective "truth" is. Does the moon objectively exist, even if one is blind? Does a virus exist, objectively, for a newborn being that his mind is unaware of it? The answer is, yes.
What is truth's relationship to logic & reason? It brings us truth. If a=b and b=c, it is a truth that a=c.
However, logic and reason are not identical. You can have true logic that does not result in reasonableness or truth - if the premises for the logic are not entirely true, or are lacking the consideration of some other truth.
Truth and reason cannot bear contradiction. Truth is internally consistent. No truth, on any subject, can be inconsistent with another truth.
Demonstration and empirical evidence help us towards truth. The mind is made for truth as the eye is made for light. The mind is not really satisfied unless it knows something is true. A person who professes that lying is good, will get angry when he is lied to.
If one doesn't grasp these fundamentals, he will flounder in argument without as solid foundation.
Empirical evidence: 1917 at Fatima, Portugal. Scientists who pride themselves in reason and normally put empirical evidence on a pedestal, do not want to touch this. It is a glaring silence. From memory, over 25,000 people, religious and anti-religious, and documented in the anti-Catholic press, witnessed the sun spiral towards the earth, and flash out rainbow colors, witnesses thinking the sun was plummeting to the earth. The earth was just previously soaking wet due to heavy rains. Within minutes everything and everyone was dry. No sunburn, no harm to the eyes of the people looking at the sun.
Scientists don't really want to touch this empirical evidence. Atheists included. When what they normally put on a pedestal wholesale, and then perpetual fear in certain instances, we conclude great significance exists they don't want to face.
How can I look into the Fatima incident more? Where is the evidence that this actually was a miracle? I find it disappointing when a man refuses to look into something. What is there to be afraid of?
I didn't use the word "miracle". So, apparently you have heard of it. How can you look more into it? Try google.com
Don't disappoint yourself and look into it. Do not be afraid. It is obvious from the points I gave from memory that I had looked into it already.
Yes I have heard of it, and even though toy didn't use the word miracle, what you described would be called a miracle since that sort of thing doesn't normally happen. I believe in looking into matters skeptically, so one shouldn't accept or reject something without evidence. I would of course have questions going in, how can it be proved that all 25,000 people saw the same thing? Were 25,000 testimonies taken?
There are amazing things in science that are rare and natural that are not termed miracles. So, lets just consider this a naturally amazing thing. Do you start looking at naturally amazing things with skepticism that they even occured?
The anti-Catholic press of that area reported it immediately, and never rescinded it. A court of law allows, what, two testimonies? It is obvious from the historical record, with no challenges to the fact of it, that it occurred. No one questons the empirical evidence.
Quote from: Basilios on October 17, 2013, 11:51:25 PM
Lol no thanks Jeff. Athiest forums are hell holes. Self congratulatory ignoramuses high fiving each other for how rude, obnoxious and immoral they can be. I don't believe a word those snakes say. Too many times I've tried to debate with internet atheists. Have yet to come across one that was sincere. Think about it, if they were sincere God would have already rewarded them for their seeking truth. As it stands it's nothing more than mockery, ganging up and some pretended intellectual interest which is nothing more than an excuse later in life to tell someone "I know all your arguments you Jesus loving pedo". This is a bold and prideful forum war challenge not a meaningful and humble pursuit of truth.
In my opinion!
That has been my experience too, at least recently. It was not always like this. Back in the early 90s I had thoughtful, friendly online discussions with atheists on Usenet. I was even a welcome participant in an atheist newsgroup. The Internet is very different now and finding intelligent discussion on any topic is a challenge.
One of the side-benefits of being a traditional Catholic is that there are a fair number of people around who are attracted by the intellectual tradition of the Church. These tend to be knowledgeable in philosophy and theology, and able to carry on interesting discussions.
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 18, 2013, 08:08:23 AM
I've apologized for the poll, I was a bit upset about the name calling toward homosexuals. I have a homosexual in my family, and that can touch a nerve.
I forgive you for the poll. (Even though I was especially annoyed that you did not include me in it. :P )
Thanks for making this point about name-calling. I objected to the name-calling at the time, but when I was explaining why it was a bad idea, I did not mention the reason that your comment illustrates. It creates bad feelings, hardens people's hearts and makes them less open to anything one has to say.
As long as there are people like Voxpop shooting off their mouths it will be extremely difficult to convince anyone of the Catholic position.
Quote from: mikemac on October 17, 2013, 10:44:41 PM
They have declared war. But people are just fed up to the ears with it, not just Catholics and not just Christians in general, but everyone is fed up with the militant atheist homosexual agenda. I've even seen some homosexuals that have posted their disgust with their militant actions. This can only end three different ways.
1. They back off with their militant actions.
2. Catholic persecution will increase.
3. We start to fight back and see victory.
The time of treating them with kid gloves is long past.
What exactly do you mean by fight back? Calling them names and throwing rotten fruit at them? Because if that is what you are talking about, the only victory we will see is theirs.
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 18, 2013, 08:17:33 AM
Quote from: RobertJS on October 18, 2013, 08:08:52 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 18, 2013, 08:03:39 AM
Quote from: RobertJS on October 18, 2013, 07:35:09 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 18, 2013, 02:12:29 AM
I'm back. Thank you Louis for letting me come back on y'all's forum. I am sorry for mocking y'all on The Thinking Atheist forum, that wasn't very nice of me. I have learned quite a lot from y'all, such as my need to brush up on philosophy. I have many assumptions in my philosophical world view which I struggle to explain adequately. Thanks for the help so far.
A fundamental of philosophy is getting it straight about what objective "truth" is. Does the moon objectively exist, even if one is blind? Does a virus exist, objectively, for a newborn being that his mind is unaware of it? The answer is, yes.
What is truth's relationship to logic & reason? It brings us truth. If a=b and b=c, it is a truth that a=c.
However, logic and reason are not identical. You can have true logic that does not result in reasonableness or truth - if the premises for the logic are not entirely true, or are lacking the consideration of some other truth.
Truth and reason cannot bear contradiction. Truth is internally consistent. No truth, on any subject, can be inconsistent with another truth.
Demonstration and empirical evidence help us towards truth. The mind is made for truth as the eye is made for light. The mind is not really satisfied unless it knows something is true. A person who professes that lying is good, will get angry when he is lied to.
If one doesn't grasp these fundamentals, he will flounder in argument without as solid foundation.
Empirical evidence: 1917 at Fatima, Portugal. Scientists who pride themselves in reason and normally put empirical evidence on a pedestal, do not want to touch this. It is a glaring silence. From memory, over 25,000 people, religious and anti-religious, and documented in the anti-Catholic press, witnessed the sun spiral towards the earth, and flash out rainbow colors, witnesses thinking the sun was plummeting to the earth. The earth was just previously soaking wet due to heavy rains. Within minutes everything and everyone was dry. No sunburn, no harm to the eyes of the people looking at the sun.
Scientists don't really want to touch this empirical evidence. Atheists included. When what they normally put on a pedestal wholesale, and then perpetual fear in certain instances, we conclude great significance exists they don't want to face.
How can I look into the Fatima incident more? Where is the evidence that this actually was a miracle? I find it disappointing when a man refuses to look into something. What is there to be afraid of?
I didn't use the word "miracle". So, apparently you have heard of it. How can you look more into it? Try google.com
Don't disappoint yourself and look into it. Do not be afraid. It is obvious from the points I gave from memory that I had looked into it already.
Yes I have heard of it, and even though toy didn't use the word miracle, what you described would be called a miracle since that sort of thing doesn't normally happen. I believe in looking into matters skeptically, so one shouldn't accept or reject something without evidence. I would of course have questions going in, how can it be proved that all 25,000 people saw the same thing? Were 25,000 testimonies taken?
If you have the patience you might listen to this homily, it approaches the event of Fatima from a historical and scientific point of view
http://www.audiosancto.org/sermon/20120513-Fatima-The-Miracle-of-the-Sun.html (http://www.audiosancto.org/sermon/20120513-Fatima-The-Miracle-of-the-Sun.html)
If you are interested in reading some of the testimonies there is a book on it
http://www.amazon.com/Meet-Witnesses-Miracle-John-Haffert/dp/1877905356/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1382110874&sr=8-1&keywords=meet+the+witnesses (http://www.amazon.com/Meet-Witnesses-Miracle-John-Haffert/dp/1877905356/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1382110874&sr=8-1&keywords=meet+the+witnesses)
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 18, 2013, 08:17:33 AM
Quote from: RobertJS on October 18, 2013, 08:08:52 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 18, 2013, 08:03:39 AM
Quote from: RobertJS on October 18, 2013, 07:35:09 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 18, 2013, 02:12:29 AM
I'm back. Thank you Louis for letting me come back on y'all's forum. I am sorry for mocking y'all on The Thinking Atheist forum, that wasn't very nice of me. I have learned quite a lot from y'all, such as my need to brush up on philosophy. I have many assumptions in my philosophical world view which I struggle to explain adequately. Thanks for the help so far.
A fundamental of philosophy is getting it straight about what objective "truth" is. Does the moon objectively exist, even if one is blind? Does a virus exist, objectively, for a newborn being that his mind is unaware of it? The answer is, yes.
What is truth's relationship to logic & reason? It brings us truth. If a=b and b=c, it is a truth that a=c.
However, logic and reason are not identical. You can have true logic that does not result in reasonableness or truth - if the premises for the logic are not entirely true, or are lacking the consideration of some other truth.
Truth and reason cannot bear contradiction. Truth is internally consistent. No truth, on any subject, can be inconsistent with another truth.
Demonstration and empirical evidence help us towards truth. The mind is made for truth as the eye is made for light. The mind is not really satisfied unless it knows something is true. A person who professes that lying is good, will get angry when he is lied to.
If one doesn't grasp these fundamentals, he will flounder in argument without as solid foundation.
Empirical evidence: 1917 at Fatima, Portugal. Scientists who pride themselves in reason and normally put empirical evidence on a pedestal, do not want to touch this. It is a glaring silence. From memory, over 25,000 people, religious and anti-religious, and documented in the anti-Catholic press, witnessed the sun spiral towards the earth, and flash out rainbow colors, witnesses thinking the sun was plummeting to the earth. The earth was just previously soaking wet due to heavy rains. Within minutes everything and everyone was dry. No sunburn, no harm to the eyes of the people looking at the sun.
Scientists don't really want to touch this empirical evidence. Atheists included. When what they normally put on a pedestal wholesale, and then perpetual fear in certain instances, we conclude great significance exists they don't want to face.
How can I look into the Fatima incident more? Where is the evidence that this actually was a miracle? I find it disappointing when a man refuses to look into something. What is there to be afraid of?
I didn't use the word "miracle". So, apparently you have heard of it. How can you look more into it? Try google.com
Don't disappoint yourself and look into it. Do not be afraid. It is obvious from the points I gave from memory that I had looked into it already.
Yes I have heard of it, and even though toy didn't use the word miracle, what you described would be called a miracle since that sort of thing doesn't normally happen. I believe in looking into matters skeptically, so one shouldn't accept or reject something without evidence. I would of course have questions going in, how can it be proved that all 25,000 people saw the same thing? Were 25,000 testimonies taken?
Actually the number of witnesses was 75,000 plus.
Here is some info I came up with by googling it, sounds rather dubious to me. The claims of the size of the crowd range from 30,000 to 100,000, with the number 70,000 coming up a lot. There seems to be no consensus of how many people were there. Not everyone saw the same thing, and reports vary wildly. Some saw nothing at all. The claim that the miracle was foretold doesn't really hold up, as the claim was simply that a miracle would occur, not what the miracle would be.
The claim:
http://www.fatima.org/essentials/facts/miracle.asp
Pope Pius XII claimed to have seen something similar at a different time:
http://www.zenit.org/en/articles/pius-xii-saw-miracle-of-the-sun
And the skeptics weigh in:
http://skeptoid.com/mobile/4110
http://www.livescience.com/29290-fatima-miracle.html
Can we keep the vitriol down?
Post charitably, please.
Sent from my HTC Sensation using Tapatalk
Quote from: RealJayneK on October 18, 2013, 09:24:20 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 18, 2013, 08:08:23 AM
I've apologized for the poll, I was a bit upset about the name calling toward homosexuals. I have a homosexual in my family, and that can touch a nerve.
I forgive you for the poll. (Even though I was especially annoyed that you did not include me in it. :P )
Thanks for making this point about name-calling. I objected to the name-calling at the time, but when I was explaining why it was a bad idea, I did not mention the reason that your comment illustrates. It creates bad feelings, hardens people's hearts and makes them less open to anything one has to say.
As long as there are people like Voxpop shooting off their mouths it will be extremely difficult to convince anyone of the Catholic position.
Excuse me...as long as there are capitulators and limp wristed cowards like yourself trating violent savage aggressors like homosodomites with kit gloves they will grow exponentially. And I guarantee you that in any face to face encounter with sincere seeking individuals I can defend the faith better than you....sticky saccharrin catholic neocons attract no one. Further if your fooled by crimson flyboy it just proves what a sap you can be.
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 18, 2013, 10:23:53 AM
Here is some info I came up with by googling it, sounds rather dubious to me. The claims of the size of the crowd range from 30,000 to 100,000, with the number 70,000 coming up a lot. There seems to be no consensus of how many people were there. Not everyone saw the same thing, and reports vary wildly. Some saw nothing at all. The claim that the miracle was foretold doesn't really hold up, as the claim was simply that a miracle would occur, not what the miracle would be.
The claim:
http://www.fatima.org/essentials/facts/miracle.asp
Pope Pius XII claimed to have seen something similar at a different time:
http://www.zenit.org/en/articles/pius-xii-saw-miracle-of-the-sun
And the skeptics weigh in:
http://skeptoid.com/mobile/4110
http://www.livescience.com/29290-fatima-miracle.html
Um, they didn't just say a miracle would occur. They said when. And where. And convinced 10s of thousands to check it out. In the pastureland of Portugal! Crap, even with the Internet and modern transportation most groups can't get that to happen in Washington, DC. And there are plenty of occurrences in history that we accept as firm truth that don't require the whole of 70,000 people to report an identical experience. Battle of Monmouth? What Battle of Monmouth? Who says? And the Statue of Liberty from France!? Pfft.
Cha-asif. Get me 70,000 witnesses and then we'll talk. I think I'd go crazy living in a world like that...
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on October 18, 2013, 10:29:59 AM
Quote from: RealJayneK on October 18, 2013, 09:24:20 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 18, 2013, 08:08:23 AM
I've apologized for the poll, I was a bit upset about the name calling toward homosexuals. I have a homosexual in my family, and that can touch a nerve.
I forgive you for the poll. (Even though I was especially annoyed that you did not include me in it. :P )
Thanks for making this point about name-calling. I objected to the name-calling at the time, but when I was explaining why it was a bad idea, I did not mention the reason that your comment illustrates. It creates bad feelings, hardens people's hearts and makes them less open to anything one has to say.
As long as there are people like Voxpop shooting off their mouths it will be extremely difficult to convince anyone of the Catholic position.
Excuse me...as long as there are capitulators and limp wristed cowards like yourself trating violent savage aggressors like homosodomites with kit gloves they will grow exponentially. And I guarantee you that in any face to face encounter with sincere seeking individuals I can defend the faith better than you....sticky saccharrin catholic neocons attract no one. Further if your fooled by crimson flyboy it just proves what a sap you can be.
I am so glad that you were keeping down the vitriol. ;D
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 18, 2013, 10:23:53 AM
Here is some info I came up with by googling it, sounds rather dubious to me. The claims of the size of the crowd range from 30,000 to 100,000, with the number 70,000 coming up a lot. There seems to be no consensus of how many people were there. Not everyone saw the same thing, and reports vary wildly. Some saw nothing at all. The claim that the miracle was foretold doesn't really hold up, as the claim was simply that a miracle would occur, not what the miracle would be.
The claim:
http://www.fatima.org/essentials/facts/miracle.asp
Pope Pius XII claimed to have seen something similar at a different time:
http://www.zenit.org/en/articles/pius-xii-saw-miracle-of-the-sun
And the skeptics weigh in:
http://skeptoid.com/mobile/4110
http://www.livescience.com/29290-fatima-miracle.html
The nonsensical explanations for the Miracle of the Sun that the skeptics come up with are harder to believe than the miracle itself. Also, the miracle was seen by people who weren't even present at the Cova. One of them was the poet Alfonso Lopes Vieira, who saw it(with others in his company) from another small village close to Fatima. And why would the anti Catholic reporters in attendance also report that they saw the Miracle if, in fact, something unusual didn't occur?
ReRev, what I meant was that although they said when and where, they did not say what the miracle was going to be before hand. It would have been more convincing if they had said before the event that the event was going to involve the sun, instead they just said a miracle would occur.
From the liberal, anti clerical newspaper O Seculo(the reporter was present at the event, and sneered at the apparitions in past reports):
Quote"One could see the immense multitude turn towards the sun, which appeared free from clouds and at its zenith. It looked like a plaque of dull silver and it was possible to look at it without the least discomfort. Before the astonished eyes of the crowd, whose aspect was Biblical as they stood bareheaded, eagerly searching the sky, the sun trembled, made sudden incredible movements outside all cosmic laws - the sun 'danced' according to the typical expression of the people..."
[/b]
And from O DIA, another anti Catholic secular paper present at the Cova on October 13, 1917:
Quote"The silver sun enveloped in a gauzy grey light was seen to whirl and turn in the circle of broken clouds...the light turned a beautiful blue as if it had come through the stained glass windows of a cathedral...as the blue faded the light seemed to pass through yellow glass. Yellow stains fell on the white handkerchiefs and the dark skirts of the women. They were repeated on the trees, stones and the ground .People wept and prayed in the presence of a miracle they had awaited. The seconds seemed like hours..."
[/b]
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 18, 2013, 10:59:11 AM
ReRev, what I meant was that although they said when and where, they did not say what the miracle was going to be before hand. It would have been more convincing if they had said before the event that the event was going to involve the sun, instead they just said a miracle would occur.
Call me crazy, but I think if they had said it would involve the sun then skeptics wouldn't have just dropped all their objections, they would just shift them saying they put ideas in people's heads. It was a premeditated and initiated group delusion. I think it's much more plausible seeing as they
didn't say what it would be. Individuals found out all on their own. Independently. Weird.
Quote from: Basilios on October 17, 2013, 11:51:25 PM
Lol no thanks Jeff. Athiest forums are hell holes. Self congratulatory ignoramuses high fiving each other for how rude, obnoxious and immoral they can be. I don't believe a word those snakes say. Too many times I've tried to debate with internet atheists. Have yet to come across one that was sincere. Think about it, if they were sincere God would have already rewarded them for their seeking truth. As it stands it's nothing more than mockery, ganging up and some pretended intellectual interest which is nothing more than an excuse later in life to tell someone "I know all your arguments you Jesus loving pedo". This is a bold and prideful forum war challenge not a meaningful and humble pursuit of truth.
In my opinion!
I must agree with Bas, mikemac and others. Just look at the 20th Century: atheists always,
always say one thing but do another. They will say and do absolutely anything to win, and then whenever they wield power they employ it in the most selfish and brutal way possible. The names Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Ho and Pol Pot easily come to the lips, but what also of their millions of followers? It is a philosophy of narcissism, self-deceit and raw power. They have no principles or morality and in fact they explicitly decry these things as mere inventions.
It is merely a matter of logical and levelheaded reasoning to conclude that the majority of them are barely salvageable as human beings, let alone as conversationalists. They will employ every fallacy and sophism, as well as outright fabrications, to bolster their jejune and ahistorical beliefs. If cornered, they will resort to abuse. Expect this forum to be hacked eventually if one of them gets particularly embarrassed.
In short, don't waste your breath.
Quote from: ResRev on October 18, 2013, 11:04:10 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 18, 2013, 10:59:11 AM
ReRev, what I meant was that although they said when and where, they did not say what the miracle was going to be before hand. It would have been more convincing if they had said before the event that the event was going to involve the sun, instead they just said a miracle would occur.
Call me crazy, but I think if they had said it would involve the sun then skeptics wouldn't have just dropped all their objections, they would just shift them saying they put ideas in people's heads. It was a premeditated and initiated group delusion. I think it's much more plausible seeing as they didn't say what it would be. Individuals found out all on their own. Independently. Weird.
That's fair enough.
Nein, Danke.
Quote from: Adeodatus on October 18, 2013, 11:19:12 AM
I must agree with Bas, mikemac and others. Just look at the 20th Century: atheists always, always say one thing but do another. They will say and do absolutely anything to win, and then whenever they wield power they employ it in the most selfish and brutal way possible. The names Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Ho and Pol Pot easily come to the lips, but what also of their millions of followers? It is a philosophy of narcissism, self-deceit and raw power. They have no principles or morality and in fact they explicitly decry these things as mere inventions.
It is merely a matter of logical and levelheaded reasoning to conclude that the majority of them are barely salvageable as human beings, let alone as conversationalists. They will employ every fallacy and sophism, as well as outright fabrications, to bolster their jejune and ahistorical beliefs. If cornered, they will resort to abuse. Expect this forum to be hacked eventually if one of them gets particularly embarrassed.
In short, don't waste your breath.
I have looked at more of their posts since I last wrote, and I was encouraged to see a few of them of them who reminded me of the atheists I used to know online.
Back when atheism was less socially acceptable, most of the self-identified atheists I encountered had really thought things through. Calling oneself an atheist carried a cost, so these people were making a commitment. They were interesting to talk to.
Now, atheism is more like a fashion accessory that people put on because their friends do. Part of this stylish atheism is nastiness to theists. These people are not fun.
There was a time when I would have described most of the atheists I knew as a thinking atheist. Now it is only a name for a forum. Still, seeing the few people there who deserved the title brought back fond memories for me.
Quote from: RealJayneK on October 18, 2013, 10:46:20 AM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on October 18, 2013, 10:29:59 AM
Quote from: RealJayneK on October 18, 2013, 09:24:20 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 18, 2013, 08:08:23 AM
I've apologized for the poll, I was a bit upset about the name calling toward homosexuals. I have a homosexual in my family, and that can touch a nerve.
I forgive you for the poll. (Even though I was especially annoyed that you did not include me in it. :P )
Thanks for making this point about name-calling. I objected to the name-calling at the time, but when I was explaining why it was a bad idea, I did not mention the reason that your comment illustrates. It creates bad feelings, hardens people's hearts and makes them less open to anything one has to say.
As long as there are people like Voxpop shooting off their mouths it will be extremely difficult to convince anyone of the Catholic position.
Excuse me...as long as there are capitulators and limp wristed cowards like yourself trating violent savage aggressors like homosodomites with kit gloves they will grow exponentially. And I guarantee you that in any face to face encounter with sincere seeking individuals I can defend the faith better than you....sticky saccharrin catholic neocons attract no one. Further if your fooled by crimson flyboy it just proves what a sap you can be.
I am so glad that you were keeping down the vitriol. ;D
Your an extreamly dishonest person...you take cheap shot at me then run back to your ivory tower
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on October 18, 2013, 11:46:01 AM
Quote from: RealJayneK on October 18, 2013, 10:46:20 AM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on October 18, 2013, 10:29:59 AM
Quote from: RealJayneK on October 18, 2013, 09:24:20 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 18, 2013, 08:08:23 AM
I've apologized for the poll, I was a bit upset about the name calling toward homosexuals. I have a homosexual in my family, and that can touch a nerve.
I forgive you for the poll. (Even though I was especially annoyed that you did not include me in it. :P )
Thanks for making this point about name-calling. I objected to the name-calling at the time, but when I was explaining why it was a bad idea, I did not mention the reason that your comment illustrates. It creates bad feelings, hardens people's hearts and makes them less open to anything one has to say.
As long as there are people like Voxpop shooting off their mouths it will be extremely difficult to convince anyone of the Catholic position.
Excuse me...as long as there are capitulators and limp wristed cowards like yourself trating violent savage aggressors like homosodomites with kit gloves they will grow exponentially. And I guarantee you that in any face to face encounter with sincere seeking individuals I can defend the faith better than you....sticky saccharrin catholic neocons attract no one. Further if your fooled by crimson flyboy it just proves what a sap you can be.
I am so glad that you were keeping down the vitriol. ;D
Your an extreamly dishonest person...you take cheap shot at me then run back to your ivory tower
Voxpop, you make Catholics look bad. That is the truth. I do not know why it is a cheap shot to say so.
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 18, 2013, 08:08:23 AMI have a homosexual in my family, and that can touch a nerve.
You're not the only one.
Quote from: RealJayneK on October 18, 2013, 12:03:14 PM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on October 18, 2013, 11:46:01 AM
Quote from: RealJayneK on October 18, 2013, 10:46:20 AM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on October 18, 2013, 10:29:59 AM
Quote from: RealJayneK on October 18, 2013, 09:24:20 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 18, 2013, 08:08:23 AM
I've apologized for the poll, I was a bit upset about the name calling toward homosexuals. I have a homosexual in my family, and that can touch a nerve.
I forgive you for the poll. (Even though I was especially annoyed that you did not include me in it. :P )
Thanks for making this point about name-calling. I objected to the name-calling at the time, but when I was explaining why it was a bad idea, I did not mention the reason that your comment illustrates. It creates bad feelings, hardens people's hearts and makes them less open to anything one has to say.
As long as there are people like Voxpop shooting off their mouths it will be extremely difficult to convince anyone of the Catholic position.
Excuse me...as long as there are capitulators and limp wristed cowards like yourself trating violent savage aggressors like homosodomites with kit gloves they will grow exponentially. And I guarantee you that in any face to face encounter with sincere seeking individuals I can defend the faith better than you....sticky saccharrin catholic neocons attract no one. Further if your fooled by crimson flyboy it just proves what a sap you can be.
I am so glad that you were keeping down the vitriol. ;D
Your an extreamly dishonest person...you take cheap shot at me then run back to your ivory tower
Voxpop, you make Catholics look bad. That is the truth. I do not know why it is a cheap shot to say so.
Jaynie, Jaynie, Jayne. If anything, Voxxpop exemplifies what a Catholic man should be. Shame on you for saying this. Especially as you yourself support transexualism and are a completely dishonest fraud. I always, always wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt when being smeared by your detractors(you know who and about what) but now I am beginning to think they are right.
Quote from: Heinrich on October 18, 2013, 11:24:28 AM
Nein, Danke.
"No, thank you"
Hey I'm learning German here too. :)
voxxpopulisuxx, I've been meaning to ask. Why are you against the will of the people? (from your name)
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 18, 2013, 02:31:00 PM
voxxpopulisuxx, I've been meaning to ask. Why are you against the will of the people? (from your name)
You di int ask me, but I will tell you: because people like you can vote. And that's just not a good thing.
Quote from: Heinrich on October 18, 2013, 02:08:45 PM
Jaynie, Jaynie, Jayne. If anything, Voxxpop exemplifies what a Catholic man should be. Shame on you for saying this. Especially as you yourself support transexualism and are a completely dishonest fraud. I always, always wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt when being smeared by your detractors(you know who and about what) but now I am beginning to think they are right.
My husband exemplifies what a Catholic man should be and I am sorry for you that you don't know him. For examples from this forum, I point you to our male moderators. All of these men are thoughtful, reasonable and articulate - qualities that make them better able to share our Faith with others.
I do not support transsexualism and I am tired of people on this forum saying that I do, presumably based on an incident that I am not allowed to talk about. Read my posts in this thread concerning a recent news item: http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/index.php/topic,3461438.0.html (http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/index.php/topic,3461438.0.html) and see if I support it.
Well I suppose I can chip in here. I'm a Super-Mod and former Admin of TTA, I'm also a member of two and a half years.
I would say that Crimson's poll was rather ill-advised. However, if we ostracised everyone who ever did something stupid because of a moment of strong emotion I doubt society would exist at all. The team running this forum have grown immeasurably in my eyes for allowing him to return (and I already held them in high regard).
Unfortunately some of the criticisms levelled at the atheist community in this thread have some truth to them. There are atheists around these days who are hostile to theists for no reason and seem to see it as a positive thing, and that saddens me. TTA used to be more tolerant of the religious than it currently is and that's a shame. Don't get me wrong, I still thing we are one of the more theist-friendly atheism forums on the internet but we're not just quite as theist-friendly as when I joined. We seem to have acquired a few very vocal anti-theists who can't help acting with hostility towards any theists they encounter. They are a minority but they also seem to be the quickest to post and the most vocal in the 'Atheism & Theism" section and I think they can detract from the forum by devolving potentially valuable debates into insults and putting potential theist members off. It's rather sad really.
However, I think some of the attacks in this thread are a little far-fetched. To accuse all atheists of being immoral liars isn't any better than atheists attacking theists, and it's just as incorrect.
Perhaps the world would be a better and more tolerant place if people with opposing views were all prepared to engage with each other in a civil manner. I'm not holding my breath that it will happen any time soon though. :(
Quote from: Hughsie on October 18, 2013, 02:40:24 PM
Well I suppose I can chip in here. I'm a Super-Mod and former Admin of TTA, I'm also a member of two and a half years.
I would say that Crimson's poll was rather ill-advised. However, if we ostracised everyone who ever did something stupid because of a moment of strong emotion I doubt society would exist at all. The team running this forum have grown immeasurably in my eyes for allowing him to return (and I already held them in high regard).
Unfortunately some of the criticisms levelled at the atheist community in this thread have some truth to them. There are atheists around these days who are hostile to theists for no reason and seem to see it as a positive thing, and that saddens me. TTA used to be more tolerant of the religious than it currently is and that's a shame. Don't get me wrong, I still thing we are one of the more theist-friendly atheism forums on the internet but we're not just quite as theist-friendly as when I joined. We seem to have acquired a few very vocal anti-theists who can't help acting with hostility towards any theists they encounter. They are a minority but they also seem to be the quickest to post and the most vocal in the 'Atheism & Theism" section and I think they can detract from the forum by devolving potentially valuable debates into insults and putting potential theist members off. It's rather sad really.
However, I think some of the attacks in this thread are a little far-fetched. To accuse all atheists of being immoral liars isn't any better than atheists attacking theists, and it's just as incorrect.
Perhaps the world would be a better and more tolerant place if people with opposing views were all prepared to engage with each other in a civil manner. I'm not holding my breath that it will happen any time soon though. :(
(https://cdn1.iconfinder.com/data/icons/fatcow/32x32/thumb_up.png)
There's a lot of needless hostility from both sides, and those who are hostile tend to be the most vocal. We ought to be more mellow.
Quote from: Hughsie on October 18, 2013, 02:40:24 PM
Well I suppose I can chip in here. I'm a Super-Mod and former Admin of TTA, I'm also a member of two and a half years.
I would say that Crimson's poll was rather ill-advised. However, if we ostracised everyone who ever did something stupid because of a moment of strong emotion I doubt society would exist at all. The team running this forum have grown immeasurably in my eyes for allowing him to return (and I already held them in high regard).
I was impressed by our mods doing that too.
Quote from: Hughsie on October 18, 2013, 02:40:24 PM
Unfortunately some of the criticisms levelled at the atheist community in this thread have some truth to them. There are atheists around these days who are hostile to theists for no reason and seem to see it as a positive thing, and that saddens me. TTA used to be more tolerant of the religious than it currently is and that's a shame. Don't get me wrong, I still thing we are one of the more theist-friendly atheism forums on the internet but we're not just quite as theist-friendly as when I joined. We seem to have acquired a few very vocal anti-theists who can't help acting with hostility towards any theists they encounter. They are a minority but they also seem to be the quickest to post and the most vocal in the 'Atheism & Theism" section and I think they can detract from the forum by devolving potentially valuable debates into insults and putting potential theist members off. It's rather sad really.
It is interesting that you say the hostile ones are a minority. They quite dominated my impression of TTA. I agree that is sad. I greatly enjoyed my discussions with atheists 20 years ago and I am sad that it no longer seems possible.
Quote from: Hughsie on October 18, 2013, 02:40:24 PM
However, I think some of the attacks in this thread are a little far-fetched. To accuse all atheists of being immoral liars isn't any better than atheists attacking theists, and it's just as incorrect.
Yes, I agree with this. I meant to say something at the time but got distracted by making other points.
Quote from: Hughsie on October 18, 2013, 02:40:24 PM
Perhaps the world would be a better and more tolerant place if people with opposing views were all prepared to engage with each other in a civil manner. I'm not holding my breath that it will happen any time soon though. :(
Unfortunately there are too many uncivil people among both atheists and traditional Catholics. I applaud your efforts to rise above the incivility.
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 18, 2013, 02:31:00 PM
voxxpopulisuxx, I've been meaning to ask. Why are you against the will of the people? (from your name)
I had just finished reading Democracy the God that Failed....and was impressed enough with its conclusions to despise democracy. The latin is for the VOICE of the peopl not the will....the will of the people in the USA is completely corrupt and contemptable...as are thier so called representatives in the federal govt...so they sux 8)
Quote from: RealJayneK on October 18, 2013, 02:36:05 PM
Quote from: Heinrich on October 18, 2013, 02:08:45 PM
Jaynie, Jaynie, Jayne. If anything, Voxxpop exemplifies what a Catholic man should be. Shame on you for saying this. Especially as you yourself support transexualism and are a completely dishonest fraud. I always, always wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt when being smeared by your detractors(you know who and about what) but now I am beginning to think they are right.
My husband exemplifies what a Catholic man should be and I am sorry for you that you don't know him. For examples from this forum, I point you to our male moderators. All of these men are thoughtful, reasonable and articulate - qualities that make them better able to share our Faith with others.
I do not support transsexualism and I am tired of people on this forum saying that I do, presumably based on an incident that I am not allowed to talk about. Read my posts in this thread concerning a recent news item: http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/index.php/topic,3461438.0.html (http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/index.php/topic,3461438.0.html) and see if I support it.
well Jayne im sorry you dont actually know me...because only then would you be in a position to make such a sweeping judgment of me. My ascerbic and direct style of writing and unwillingness to mollycoddle like a woman does gives you no right to say I give catholics a bad name. Shall I supply my bonofides (some which outstrip even the respectable moderators of a website)...no never mind...the Lord said not to cast pearls before swine. >:(
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on October 18, 2013, 03:06:21 PM
well Jayne im sorry you dont actually know me...because only then would you be in a position to make such a sweeping judgment of me. My ascerbic and direct style of writing and unwillingness to mollycoddle like a woman does gives you no right to say I give catholics a bad name. Shall I supply my bonofides (some which outstrip even the respectable moderators of a website)...no never mind...the Lord said not to cast pearls before swine. >:(
I spoke only of your online presence. You may very well be a fine man in real life.
Why is it that being direct is a virtue when you do it, but it is a terrible thing when I tell you bluntly what I think of you? Apparently you can dish it out, but not take it. Why should I mollycoddle you? You can't spell or form grammatical sentences or make coherent arguments. You are needlessly offensive. Do you think this makes us look good?
Quote from: RealJayneK on October 18, 2013, 09:28:57 AM
Quote from: mikemac on October 17, 2013, 10:44:41 PM
They have declared war. But people are just fed up to the ears with it, not just Catholics and not just Christians in general, but everyone is fed up with the militant atheist homosexual agenda. I've even seen some homosexuals that have posted their disgust with their militant actions. This can only end three different ways.
1. They back off with their militant actions.
2. Catholic persecution will increase.
3. We start to fight back and see victory.
The time of treating them with kid gloves is long past.
What exactly do you mean by fight back? Calling them names and throwing rotten fruit at them? Because if that is what you are talking about, the only victory we will see is theirs.
By fighting back I mean doing something other than treating them with kid gloves. You know because it hasn't worked over the past 30 years.
The characters at that "thinking" atheist forum remind me of the League of Militant Atheists that developed in Soviet Russia under the influence of the ideological and cultural views and policies of the Soviet Communist Party from 1925 to 1947. Other names for the League of Militant Atheists were Society of the Godless or Union of the Godless. If I were to go to that forum the first thing that I would ask them is to "put your hand up if you are a communist".
League of Militant Atheists
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Militant_Atheists
Why don't you put your kid gloves on and go hold hands with the "thinking" atheists at their forum.
gute Erlösung
Quote from: mikemac on October 18, 2013, 03:25:29 PM
Quote from: RealJayneK on October 18, 2013, 09:28:57 AM
What exactly do you mean by fight back? Calling them names and throwing rotten fruit at them? Because if that is what you are talking about, the only victory we will see is theirs.
By fighting back I mean doing something other than treating them with kid gloves. You know because it hasn't worked over the past 30 years.
And what do you mean by "treating them with kid gloves"? Refraining from using crude language and name-calling?
I wonder if you even know what you mean.
Quote from: RealJayneK on October 18, 2013, 02:59:22 PM
It is interesting that you say the hostile ones are a minority. They quite dominated my impression of TTA. I agree that is sad. I greatly enjoyed my discussions with atheists 20 years ago and I am sad that it no longer seems possible.
That doesn't surprise me. In my opinion our reasonable majority either get drowned out by the unreasonable minority or don't bother trying to debate theists too much because they feel the unreasonable minority will gate-crash any good discussion anyway.
Quote from: mikemac on October 18, 2013, 03:25:29 PM
You know because it hasn't worked over the past 30 years.
Bad behaviour and communist conspiracy theories, those'll work for certain, right?
Quote from: Hughsie on October 18, 2013, 03:39:49 PM
Quote from: RealJayneK on October 18, 2013, 02:59:22 PM
It is interesting that you say the hostile ones are a minority. They quite dominated my impression of TTA. I agree that is sad. I greatly enjoyed my discussions with atheists 20 years ago and I am sad that it no longer seems possible.
That doesn't surprise me. In my opinion our reasonable majority either get drowned out by the unreasonable minority or don't bother trying to debate theists too much because they feel the unreasonable minority will gate-crash any good discussion anyway.
This whole discussion is making me feel very old. I feel like an old lady mumbling into my soup, "They just don't make atheists like they used to in the old days." :(
Quote from: Othmar on October 18, 2013, 03:41:08 PM
Quote from: mikemac on October 18, 2013, 03:25:29 PM
You know because it hasn't worked over the past 30 years.
Bad behaviour and communist conspiracy theories, those'll work for certain, right?
That is rich coming from someone that agrees with those over at the "thinking" atheist forum.
Quote from: mikemac on October 18, 2013, 04:15:06 PM
That is rich coming from someone that agrees with those over at the "thinking" atheist forum.
Who are "those" I agree with? Or do you actually believe that nonsense about every atheist being a communist? I had hoped that was just nonsense to mask your lack of arguments... ???
Putting thinking between quotation marks, should I see that as a confession of your anti-intellectual behaviour?
I am unable to grasp what you are trying to achieve? Are you trying to make us look bad?
I took the invitation and was disappointed, I would discourage everyone from going over there.
Quote from: RealJayneK on October 18, 2013, 03:19:18 PM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on October 18, 2013, 03:06:21 PM
well Jayne im sorry you dont actually know me...because only then would you be in a position to make such a sweeping judgment of me. My ascerbic and direct style of writing and unwillingness to mollycoddle like a woman does gives you no right to say I give catholics a bad name. Shall I supply my bonofides (some which outstrip even the respectable moderators of a website)...no never mind...the Lord said not to cast pearls before swine. >:(
I spoke only of your online presence. You may very well be a fine man in real life.
Why is it that being direct is a virtue when you do it, but it is a terrible thing when I tell you bluntly what I think of you? Apparently you can dish it out, but not take it. Why should I mollycoddle you? You can't spell or form grammatical sentences or make coherent arguments. You are needlessly offensive. Do you think this makes us look good?
I can handle any insult to my crazy opinions and writing style and even grammer issues...but saying I give catholics a bad name was a low blow. I also committed a low blow to you and when you pointed it out I apologised (and still do) but not you...stubborn woman...not you....you merely rationalise...your husband must be a fine Catholic a suffering soul I would say....
Further dont you see how instead of ignoring my rantings with which you find offensive...you sided with the atheist against me was wrong? ...have you ever known or read a post from me that threw you under the bus to an enemy voice.
Quote from: Othmar on October 18, 2013, 04:21:03 PM
Quote from: mikemac on October 18, 2013, 04:15:06 PM
That is rich coming from someone that agrees with those over at the "thinking" atheist forum.
Who are "those" I agree with? Or do you actually believe that nonsense about every atheist being a communist? I had hoped that was just nonsense to mask your lack of arguments... ???
Putting thinking between quotation marks, should I see that as a confession of your anti-intellectual behaviour?
I am unable to grasp what you are trying to achieve? Are you trying to make us look bad?
No, putting thinking between quotation marks when describing the "thinking" atheist is my way of saying that it is not possible to have a rational intelligent conversation with militant atheists. See nmoerbeek's last post for confirmation of that.
So Othmar, you agree with same sex marriage then eh. How Catholic of you. Not.
Are you trying to make us look bad?
Quote from: Adeodatus on October 18, 2013, 11:19:12 AM
I must agree with Bas, mikemac and others. Just look at the 20th Century: atheists always, always say one thing but do another. They will say and do absolutely anything to win, and then whenever they wield power they employ it in the most selfish and brutal way possible. The names Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Ho and Pol Pot easily come to the lips, but what also of their millions of followers? It is a philosophy of narcissism, self-deceit and raw power. They have no principles or morality and in fact they explicitly decry these things as mere inventions.
It is merely a matter of logical and levelheaded reasoning to conclude that the majority of them are barely salvageable as human beings, let alone as conversationalists. They will employ every fallacy and sophism, as well as outright fabrications, to bolster their jejune and ahistorical beliefs. If cornered, they will resort to abuse. Expect this forum to be hacked eventually if one of them gets particularly embarrassed.
In short, don't waste your breath.
I have to agree with this assessment. Unless you personally know an atheist with whom you have more than an internet relationship, I would not seek out engagements with them. I don't want to paint with too broad a brush, but there is something to what Adeodatus is saying about their self-centeredness and narcissism. As much as they say they are interested in the truth, in my experience, if you point out a contradiction in their beliefs, they will respond with insults, change the subject, or ignore you altogether. They will never concede a point that threatens their world view.
Ultimately, I think most atheists suffer from an elitist mentality. They feel that they have joined an esoteric class who are smarter than everyone else, because they haven't joined the masses of humanity who have been fooled by religion. Yet, why is it that the most notorious atheists, like Richard Dawkins, rely on arguments from emotion or outright insults in their attacks on religion? The reason men like Dawkins resort to insults is because they cherish their elite status dearly. You can't take away from them what makes them "special." They need their atheism as a sort of self affirmation that they're really smarter than everyone else.
I will continue to engage with Crimson Flyboy since he has come here, but even he has been bad about dodging difficult questions or letting certain lines of argument die if he has no answer. This is not my first rodeo. I attended public schools my whole life, including college. I've seen this behavior before, and it's very predictable.
Quote from: nmoerbeek on October 18, 2013, 04:22:27 PM
I took the invitation and was disappointed, I would discourage everyone from going over there.
You did a great job. I was impressed with how patient you were. Perhaps some of the quiet majority noticed.
Quote from: mikemac on October 18, 2013, 04:41:30 PM
No, putting thinking between quotation marks when describing the "thinking" atheist is my way of saying that it is not possible to have a rational intelligent conversation with militant atheists.
I doubt that you are capable of having a rational intelligent conversation with anyone, by the way you act.
Quote from: mikemac on October 18, 2013, 04:41:30 PMSo Othmar, you agree with same sex marriage then eh.
What do they call it in English? Reading comprehension.
Quote from: mikemac on October 18, 2013, 04:41:30 PM
How Catholic of you. Not.
So, is this the tradbashing thing?
Look, Mike, the only thing you're achieving with your tirades is showing your rudeness. Has anyone ever convinced you of something by repeatedly spouting insults and ad hominems? Compare your behaviour with Hughsie.
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on October 18, 2013, 04:25:55 PM
I can handle any insult to my crazy opinions and writing style and even grammer issues...but saying I give catholics a bad name was a low blow. I also committed a low blow to you and when you pointed it out I apologised (and still do) but not you...stubborn woman...not you....you merely rationalise...your husband must be a fine Catholic a suffering soul I would say....
Further dont you see how instead of ignoring my rantings with which you find offensive...you sided with the atheist against me was wrong? ...have you ever known or read a post from me that threw you under the bus to an enemy voice.
I had to agree with the atheist. If I had agreed with you we would both be wrong.
(Yes, my husband is amazing.)
Quote from: RealJayneK on October 18, 2013, 02:36:05 PM
I do not support transsexualism and I am tired of people on this forum saying that I do, presumably based on an incident that I am not allowed to talk about. Read my posts in this thread concerning a recent news item: http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/index.php/topic,3461438.0.html (http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/index.php/topic,3461438.0.html) and see if I support it.
I read your replies in that thread Jayne and it is nice to see that you are finally starting to come around. Eight months late, but it is still nice to see. Although I don't think a link to that place should even be posted in this forum.
Quote from: RealJayneK on October 18, 2013, 04:50:50 PM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on October 18, 2013, 04:25:55 PM
I can handle any insult to my crazy opinions and writing style and even grammer issues...but saying I give catholics a bad name was a low blow. I also committed a low blow to you and when you pointed it out I apologised (and still do) but not you...stubborn woman...not you....you merely rationalise...your husband must be a fine Catholic a suffering soul I would say....
Further dont you see how instead of ignoring my rantings with which you find offensive...you sided with the atheist against me was wrong? ...have you ever known or read a post from me that threw you under the bus to an enemy voice.
I had to agree with the atheist. If I had agreed with you we would both be wrong.
(Yes, my husband is amazing.)
good one 8)
Quote from: mikemac on October 18, 2013, 04:50:58 PM
Quote from: RealJayneK on October 18, 2013, 02:36:05 PM
I do not support transsexualism and I am tired of people on this forum saying that I do, presumably based on an incident that I am not allowed to talk about. Read my posts in this thread concerning a recent news item: http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/index.php/topic,3461438.0.html (http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/index.php/topic,3461438.0.html) and see if I support it.
I read your replies in that thread Jayne and it is nice to see that you are finally starting to come around. Eight months late, but it is still nice to see. Although I don't think a link to that place should even be posted in this forum.
My beliefs did not change. You misunderstood them 8 months ago.
I will happily comply with whatever the moderators decide about linking there.
Quote from: Othmar on October 18, 2013, 04:50:26 PM
Quote from: mikemac on October 18, 2013, 04:41:30 PM
No, putting thinking between quotation marks when describing the "thinking" atheist is my way of saying that it is not possible to have a rational intelligent conversation with militant atheists.
I doubt that you are capable of having a rational intelligent conversation with anyone, by the way you act.
Quote from: mikemac on October 18, 2013, 04:41:30 PMSo Othmar, you agree with same sex marriage then eh.
What do they call it in English? Reading comprehension.
Quote from: mikemac on October 18, 2013, 04:41:30 PM
How Catholic of you. Not.
So, is this the tradbashing thing?
Look, Mike, the only thing you're achieving with your tirades is showing your rudeness. Has anyone ever convinced you of something by repeatedly spouting insults and ad hominems? Compare your behaviour with Hughsie.
"tradbashing"? Are you trying to say that you didn't post "I don't think we should legislate against homosexuality" and "My argument boils down to let's-just-don't-care" at the "thinking" atheist forum?
Listen Othmar they are not coming to this forum to talk about God. If they were it would be different. I'm not interested in going to their forum to talk about atheism. If you are then ...
I didn't say Hughsie was a militant atheist. If you read his posts you will realize that he is saying the same as I am, that it is not possible for a Catholic to have a rational intelligent conversation with a militant atheist. Although with experience I don't agree with Hughsie when he says that militant atheists are the minority. I don't even know Hughsie. He seems pleasant enough in here but so did Cathy to start with. He could be a wolf in sheep's clothes and change his attitude completely in a different environment. If you want to hang around with them at that forum Othmar then go for it. Have a ball.
Quote from: mikemac on October 18, 2013, 05:07:53 PM
"tradbashing"? Are you trying to say that you didn't post "I don't think we should legislate against homosexuality" and "My argument boils down to let's-just-don't-care" at the "thinking" atheist forum?
Are you trying to say that those two statements are the same as "agree[ing] with same sex marriage"?
Quote from: mikemac on October 18, 2013, 05:07:53 PM
"tradbashing"? Are you trying to say that you didn't post "I don't think we should legislate against homosexuality" and "My argument boils down to let's-just-don't-care" at the "thinking" atheist forum?
Catholics are not obliged to legislate against immoral behaviour. It depends on the circumstances. For example, St. Thomas recommended that prostitution not be illegal.
It is quite possible to make a traditional Catholic argument for not legislating against homosexual behaviour and, in fact, that is what Othmar did. He argued from Catholic principles.
Othmar says "My argument boils down to let's-just-don't-care, as long as religions aren't forced to change their definitions."
But I think legislating same sex marriage is a slippery slope. We have seen companies forced to close at the mere complaint from homosexuals and lesbians. With the way the wind is blowing how long do you think it will be before the Church is forced to either perform same sex marriages or close?
Quote from: rbjmartin on October 18, 2013, 04:42:45 PM
Quote from: Adeodatus on October 18, 2013, 11:19:12 AM
I must agree with Bas, mikemac and others. Just look at the 20th Century: atheists always, always say one thing but do another. They will say and do absolutely anything to win, and then whenever they wield power they employ it in the most selfish and brutal way possible. The names Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Ho and Pol Pot easily come to the lips, but what also of their millions of followers? It is a philosophy of narcissism, self-deceit and raw power. They have no principles or morality and in fact they explicitly decry these things as mere inventions.
It is merely a matter of logical and levelheaded reasoning to conclude that the majority of them are barely salvageable as human beings, let alone as conversationalists. They will employ every fallacy and sophism, as well as outright fabrications, to bolster their jejune and ahistorical beliefs. If cornered, they will resort to abuse. Expect this forum to be hacked eventually if one of them gets particularly embarrassed.
In short, don't waste your breath.
I have to agree with this assessment. Unless you personally know an atheist with whom you have more than an internet relationship, I would not seek out engagements with them. I don't want to paint with too broad a brush, but there is something to what Adeodatus is saying about their self-centeredness and narcissism. As much as they say they are interested in the truth, in my experience, if you point out a contradiction in their beliefs, they will respond with insults, change the subject, or ignore you altogether. They will never concede a point that threatens their world view.
Ultimately, I think most atheists suffer from an elitist mentality. They feel that they have joined an esoteric class who are smarter than everyone else, because they haven't joined the masses of humanity who have been fooled by religion. Yet, why is it that the most notorious atheists, like Richard Dawkins, rely on arguments from emotion or outright insults in their attacks on religion? The reason men like Dawkins resort to insults is because they cherish their elite status dearly. You can't take away from them what makes them "special." They need their atheism as a sort of self affirmation that they're really smarter than everyone else.
I will continue to engage with Crimson Flyboy since he has come here, but even he has been bad about dodging difficult questions or letting certain lines of argument die if he has no answer. This is not my first rodeo. I attended public schools my whole life, including college. I've seen this behavior before, and it's very predictable.
What question would you like for me to answer?
Quote from: RealJayneK on October 18, 2013, 05:13:09 PM
Quote from: mikemac on October 18, 2013, 05:07:53 PM
"tradbashing"? Are you trying to say that you didn't post "I don't think we should legislate against homosexuality" and "My argument boils down to let's-just-don't-care" at the "thinking" atheist forum?
Catholics are not obliged to legislate against immoral behaviour. It depends on the circumstances. For example, St. Thomas recommended that prostitution not be illegal.
It is quite possible to make a traditional Catholic argument for not legislating against homosexual behaviour and, in fact, that is what Othmar did. He argued from Catholic principles.
Well, remember he argued that, of which I completely disagree with (this is one of those instances where philosophizing is out of touch with reality,) that it was a deterrent for greater evil such as rape or sodomy. I don't think an argument that indirectly allows/encourages one of those greater evils can be logical sound.
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 18, 2013, 08:17:33 AM
Yes I have heard of it, and even though toy didn't use the word miracle, what you described would be called a miracle since that sort of thing doesn't normally happen. I believe in looking into matters skeptically, so one shouldn't accept or reject something without evidence. I would of course have questions going in, how can it be proved that all 25,000 people saw the same thing? Were 25,000 testimonies taken?
Even the New York Times reported this when it happened back in 1917.
Quote from: The Punisher on October 18, 2013, 07:00:17 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 18, 2013, 08:17:33 AM
Yes I have heard of it, and even though toy didn't use the word miracle, what you described would be called a miracle since that sort of thing doesn't normally happen. I believe in looking into matters skeptically, so one shouldn't accept or reject something without evidence. I would of course have questions going in, how can it be proved that all 25,000 people saw the same thing? Were 25,000 testimonies taken?
Even the New York Times reported this when it happened back in 1917.
Clearly there was an incident. As to it being s miracle, I am skeptical. Those are some extraordinary claims, so it's hard to accept.
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 18, 2013, 07:04:32 PM
Quote from: The Punisher on October 18, 2013, 07:00:17 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 18, 2013, 08:17:33 AM
Yes I have heard of it, and even though toy didn't use the word miracle, what you described would be called a miracle since that sort of thing doesn't normally happen. I believe in looking into matters skeptically, so one shouldn't accept or reject something without evidence. I would of course have questions going in, how can it be proved that all 25,000 people saw the same thing? Were 25,000 testimonies taken?
Even the New York Times reported this when it happened back in 1917.
Clearly there was an incident. As to it being s miracle, I am skeptical. Those are some extraordinary claims, so it's hard to accept.
Ok, but originally you did ask how it could be proved that 25,000 people saw the same thing (I think the actual number was closer to 70,000 but that's neither here or there for the moment). Based on your original question and the fact that even the NY Times reported this, we agree there was an incident, one that was seen for a 15 mile radius, BTW. In fact there were atheists as well as others at the time who went to Fatima on October 13, 1917 to scoff at the three children and their claims.
There were plenty of testimonies taken at the time of people who witnessed the event. How many were taken exactly I do not know, though it's safe to say none of the ones who gave testimonies are still living.
The poster I quoted said 25,000, so I used that number when I responded. But some estimates were as high as 100,000. That is problematic for me, as it creates doubt in my mind. I could more easily understand a difference of a few thousand, but the number from articles I looked up ranges from 30,000 to 100,000. That's odd.
So THAT's where the "Leave Britney Alone" guy wound up posting under a number of names.
I'm up to about page 15 on the thread and I'm not going to participate because it's already gone on too far for anything useful to come of it.
The prolific poster are obviously teenagers in mentality and possibly chronology. It reads like an unhinged rant most of the time. I would've wanted to post a reply but I swear some of these people would burst into tears because they can't rant enough to stop the emotional upheavals going on internally.
They seem to just want someone to post anything so, they can "pontificate" on their own and proceed to teach well-schooled Catholics about their faith, amazing how they aren't the least bit skeptical about what they've been parroting.
You can make some reasonable guesses at the formation of the anti-Catholicism. Some of the atheists are pulling out Protestant canards, bashing the Church and using the actual language of the anti-Catholic Protestants. The actual phrases are the same.
The goal-post shifting borders on insanity, the attempts to make betrayals of Churchmen a part of the faith is nuts.
Only a true idiot would attack a Church that makes confession a major part of it for having members that fail to live up to it's commandments.
Maybe I'll take a few posts apart over here as examples for people to read calmly and analyze. That would be a good thread in an of itself to "type" the comments into proper categores.
This makes me want to dive into Fr. Vincent Micelli's "The gods of Atheism" again.
I also wonder why this wasn't seen beyond a that 15 mile radius. Why was this a local event and not a global event? And what actually happened? The sun didn't dance in outer space, people worldwide would have seen it, including astronomers.
Quote from: ts aquinas on October 18, 2013, 06:06:34 PM
Quote from: RealJayneK on October 18, 2013, 05:13:09 PM
Quote from: mikemac on October 18, 2013, 05:07:53 PM
"tradbashing"? Are you trying to say that you didn't post "I don't think we should legislate against homosexuality" and "My argument boils down to let's-just-don't-care" at the "thinking" atheist forum?
Catholics are not obliged to legislate against immoral behaviour. It depends on the circumstances. For example, St. Thomas recommended that prostitution not be illegal.
It is quite possible to make a traditional Catholic argument for not legislating against homosexual behaviour and, in fact, that is what Othmar did. He argued from Catholic principles.
Well, remember he argued that, of which I completely disagree with (this is one of those instances where philosophizing is out of touch with reality,) that it was a deterrent for greater evil such as rape or sodomy. I don't think an argument that indirectly allows/encourages one of those greater evils can be logical sound.
Another example of a situation in which we do not legislate against sin is lying. As I recall, in this case the reason is that it is not practical to enforce such legislation. Othmer's argument seemed to me to be along these lines.
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 18, 2013, 07:55:05 PM
I also wonder why this wasn't seen beyond a that 15 mile radius. Why was this a local event and not a global event? And what actually happened? The sun didn't dance in outer space, people worldwide would have seen it, including astronomers.
It's always interesting to try and think along the mechanical lines but these things that are miracles of faith are usually intended to strengthen the faith of those who were the witnesses of the phenomenon.
When stipulating objectively the possibility that it's of Divine origin, the simple answer is, it wasn't seen or experienced beyond a certain area because it wasn't intended to. This was a form of communication, not a display of physical power. What actually happened? As in the mechanics of the event? I don't think anyone knows the mechanism, but they respond to the communicative aspect of it. Maybe the sun did or didn't dance in space and people worldwide may have had the event hidden from them.
Usually, the miraculous type of event itself is not the problem for the atheist. They can suspend disbelief for anything if you put a scientific or science fiction cover on it or call it mythology with a morality play aspect (as long as they agree with it) The problem occurs when it's posited that it might actually be a contact with an intelligence that is alien by our standards and it touches the primal emotions, the territorial imperatives and breaches a lot of psychological defenses. The communicative aspect is the phobic aspect because communication modifies the person and changes them. It takes one out of the comfort zone.
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 18, 2013, 07:51:53 PM
The poster I quoted said 25,000, so I used that number when I responded.
He said over 25,000 from memory. He didn't remember the generally accepted estimate.
QuoteBut some estimates were as high as 100,000. That is problematic for me, as it creates doubt in my mind. I could more easily understand a difference of a few thousand, but the number from articles I looked up ranges from 30,000 to 100,000. That's odd.
Not really. For example when police estimate big gatherings, protest marches, etc. their estimates often vary greatly.
Quote from: RealJayneK on October 18, 2013, 08:09:25 PM
Another example of a situation in which we do not legislate against sin is lying. As I recall, in this case the reason is that it is not practical to enforce such legislation. Othmer's argument seemed to me to be along these lines.
Aren't fraud, perjury, false advertising, yelling out "fire" in a theater that is not on fire, defamation, liable, conspiracy to commit a crime all in various legislation against lying?
Quote from: Gerard on October 18, 2013, 08:14:37 PM
Quote from: RealJayneK on October 18, 2013, 08:09:25 PM
Another example of a situation in which we do not legislate against sin is lying. As I recall, in this case the reason is that it is not practical to enforce such legislation. Othmer's argument seemed to me to be along these lines.
Aren't fraud, perjury, false advertising, yelling out "fire" in a theater that is not on fire, defamation, liable, conspiracy to commit a crime all in various legislation against lying?
Yes but there are many forms of lying that do not have legislation against them.
Quote from: Gerard on October 18, 2013, 08:10:44 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 18, 2013, 07:55:05 PM
I also wonder why this wasn't seen beyond a that 15 mile radius. Why was this a local event and not a global event? And what actually happened? The sun didn't dance in outer space, people worldwide would have seen it, including astronomers.
It's always interesting to try and think along the mechanical lines but these things that are miracles of faith are usually intended to strengthen the faith of those who were the witnesses of the phenomenon.
When stipulating objectively the possibility that it's of Divine origin, the simple answer is, it wasn't seen or experienced beyond a certain area because it wasn't intended to. This was a form of communication, not a display of physical power. What actually happened? As in the mechanics of the event? I don't think anyone knows the mechanism, but they respond to the communicative aspect of it. Maybe the sun did or didn't dance in space and people worldwide may have had the event hidden from them.
Usually, the miraculous type of event itself is not the problem for the atheist. They can suspend disbelief for anything if you put a scientific or science fiction cover on it or call it mythology with a morality play aspect (as long as they agree with it) The problem occurs when it's posited that it might actually be a contact with an intelligence that is alien by our standards and it touches the primal emotions, the territorial imperatives and breaches a lot of psychological defenses. The communicative aspect is the phobic aspect because communication modifies the person and changes them. It takes one out of the comfort zone.
It's hard for me to see things outside of a mechanical lines. I'll put it this way, if I see the sun move a distance of what seems like a few inches from my vantage point on earth, the sun has actually moved millions of miles. This is because the sun is around 93 million miles from earth. If the sun were to move that far that fast, it would have a dramatic effect on the orbit of the earth. That kind of effect would have been felt all over the earth, and would have led to dramatic climate change. So, we can assume that what really happened did not involve the sun dancing in outer space, but rather some sort of vision. So the question then is what is the source of this vision?
Quote from: RealJayneK on October 18, 2013, 12:03:14 PM
Voxpop, you make Catholics look bad. That is the truth. I do not know why it is a cheap shot to say so.
Quote from: RealJayneK on October 18, 2013, 03:19:18 PM
I spoke only of your online presence. You may very well be a fine man in real life.
Why is it that being direct is a virtue when you do it, but it is a terrible thing when I tell you bluntly what I think of you? Apparently you can dish it out, but not take it. Why should I mollycoddle you? You can't spell or form grammatical sentences or make coherent arguments. You are needlessly offensive. Do you think this makes us look good?
Jayne,
This is an uncalled for attack. If you have a problem with how Vox posts, and in good faith would like to charitably offer correction, a better approach would be to PM him. In the future please conduct yourself with more tact. Thank you.
Quote from: Archer on October 18, 2013, 08:40:03 PM
Jayne,
This is an uncalled for attack. If you have a problem with how Vox posts, and in good faith would like to charitably offer correction, a better approach would be to PM him. In the future please conduct yourself with more tact. Thank you.
Yes sir. I will try to do better in the future.
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 18, 2013, 07:55:05 PM
I also wonder why this wasn't seen beyond a that 15 mile radius. Why was this a local event and not a global event? And what actually happened? The sun didn't dance in outer space, people worldwide would have seen it, including astronomers.
The figure that I've always read was 70,000. The 30,000 or 100,000 figures must be coming from the skeptic sites. Regarding the 15 mile radius (I think it was more than 15 miles, wasn't it?) there is a Marian shrine about 40 miles east of where I live in southern Ontario. People witnessed the sun dance in the sky when they were at that shrine too. I think that was in either the late 1980s or early 1990s. Two of my cousins witnessed the sun dance in the sky while they were there. The same as at Fatima people in the surrounding area, up to about 20 miles away saw the sun dance too. Around the same time it was reported on our local TV station that a teacher and two of her female students saw the Blessed Virgin Mary at the same shrine. They were interviewed for the broadcast. They weren't hysterical or anything like that, they just said that they saw the Blessed Virgin there.
Thanks Crimson Flyboy, for posting that Zenith link with the story of Pope Pius XII saying that he witnessed the sun dance in the sky four times in Rome around the time when he proclaimed the dogma of the Assumption. I hadn't heard that before. You know CF, Mary's message at Fatima is all about peace and it's not just for Catholics.
Quote from: mikemac on October 18, 2013, 09:12:41 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 18, 2013, 07:55:05 PM
I also wonder why this wasn't seen beyond a that 15 mile radius. Why was this a local event and not a global event? And what actually happened? The sun didn't dance in outer space, people worldwide would have seen it, including astronomers.
The figure that I've always read was 70,000. The 30,000 or 100,000 figures must be coming from the skeptic sites. Regarding the 15 mile radius (I think it was more than 15 miles, wasn't it?) there is a Marian shrine about 40 miles east of where I live in southern Ontario. People witnessed the sun dance in the sky when they were at that shrine too. I think that was in either the late 1980s or early 1990s. Two of my cousins witnessed the sun dance in the sky while they were there. The same as at Fatima people in the surrounding area, up to about 20 miles away saw the sun dance too. Around the same time it was reported on our local TV station that a teacher and two of her female students saw the Blessed Virgin Mary at the same shrine. They were interviewed for the broadcast. They weren't hysterical or anything like that, they just said that they saw the Blessed Virgin there.
Thanks Crimson Flyboy, for posting that Zenith link with the story of Pope Pius XII saying that he witnessed the sun dance in the sky four times in Rome around the time when he proclaimed the dogma of the Assumption. I hadn't heard that before. You know CF, Mary's message at Fatima is all about peace and it's not just for Catholics.
When I was a Catholic my special devotion was to the Blessed Virgin. I still have statues of her all over my house, bet you didn't expect that. ;). Well there is something about motherhood that appeals to me, it conjures a tender thought in my mind. I still see her cult, and I don't use this word in a negative connotation, as a beautiful thing, just a beautiful myth.
Your welcome for the article, I'm glad you enjoyed it.
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 18, 2013, 05:47:12 PM
Quote from: rbjmartin on October 18, 2013, 04:42:45 PM
Quote from: Adeodatus on October 18, 2013, 11:19:12 AM
I must agree with Bas, mikemac and others. Just look at the 20th Century: atheists always, always say one thing but do another. They will say and do absolutely anything to win, and then whenever they wield power they employ it in the most selfish and brutal way possible. The names Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Ho and Pol Pot easily come to the lips, but what also of their millions of followers? It is a philosophy of narcissism, self-deceit and raw power. They have no principles or morality and in fact they explicitly decry these things as mere inventions.
It is merely a matter of logical and levelheaded reasoning to conclude that the majority of them are barely salvageable as human beings, let alone as conversationalists. They will employ every fallacy and sophism, as well as outright fabrications, to bolster their jejune and ahistorical beliefs. If cornered, they will resort to abuse. Expect this forum to be hacked eventually if one of them gets particularly embarrassed.
In short, don't waste your breath.
I have to agree with this assessment. Unless you personally know an atheist with whom you have more than an internet relationship, I would not seek out engagements with them. I don't want to paint with too broad a brush, but there is something to what Adeodatus is saying about their self-centeredness and narcissism. As much as they say they are interested in the truth, in my experience, if you point out a contradiction in their beliefs, they will respond with insults, change the subject, or ignore you altogether. They will never concede a point that threatens their world view.
Ultimately, I think most atheists suffer from an elitist mentality. They feel that they have joined an esoteric class who are smarter than everyone else, because they haven't joined the masses of humanity who have been fooled by religion. Yet, why is it that the most notorious atheists, like Richard Dawkins, rely on arguments from emotion or outright insults in their attacks on religion? The reason men like Dawkins resort to insults is because they cherish their elite status dearly. You can't take away from them what makes them "special." They need their atheism as a sort of self affirmation that they're really smarter than everyone else.
I will continue to engage with Crimson Flyboy since he has come here, but even he has been bad about dodging difficult questions or letting certain lines of argument die if he has no answer. This is not my first rodeo. I attended public schools my whole life, including college. I've seen this behavior before, and it's very predictable.
What question would you like for me to answer?
No particular questions...just your silence in the face of certain arguments I made. For instance, should I believe that you accept that arguments from "chance" are just a
deus ex machina and offer no explanation at all?
Quote from: RealJayneK on October 18, 2013, 05:13:09 PM
Quote from: mikemac on October 18, 2013, 05:07:53 PM
"tradbashing"? Are you trying to say that you didn't post "I don't think we should legislate against homosexuality" and "My argument boils down to let's-just-don't-care" at the "thinking" atheist forum?
Catholics are not obliged to legislate against immoral behaviour. It depends on the circumstances. For example, St. Thomas recommended that prostitution not be illegal.
It is quite possible to make a traditional Catholic argument for not legislating against homosexual behaviour and, in fact, that is what Othmar did. He argued from Catholic principles.
How long was there legislation against homosexuality? For at least hundreds of years. To me I think that would be more in line with traditional Catholic principles.
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 18, 2013, 09:18:45 PM
Quote from: mikemac on October 18, 2013, 09:12:41 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 18, 2013, 07:55:05 PM
I also wonder why this wasn't seen beyond a that 15 mile radius. Why was this a local event and not a global event? And what actually happened? The sun didn't dance in outer space, people worldwide would have seen it, including astronomers.
The figure that I've always read was 70,000. The 30,000 or 100,000 figures must be coming from the skeptic sites. Regarding the 15 mile radius (I think it was more than 15 miles, wasn't it?) there is a Marian shrine about 40 miles east of where I live in southern Ontario. People witnessed the sun dance in the sky when they were at that shrine too. I think that was in either the late 1980s or early 1990s. Two of my cousins witnessed the sun dance in the sky while they were there. The same as at Fatima people in the surrounding area, up to about 20 miles away saw the sun dance too. Around the same time it was reported on our local TV station that a teacher and two of her female students saw the Blessed Virgin Mary at the same shrine. They were interviewed for the broadcast. They weren't hysterical or anything like that, they just said that they saw the Blessed Virgin there.
Thanks Crimson Flyboy, for posting that Zenith link with the story of Pope Pius XII saying that he witnessed the sun dance in the sky four times in Rome around the time when he proclaimed the dogma of the Assumption. I hadn't heard that before. You know CF, Mary's message at Fatima is all about peace and it's not just for Catholics.
When I was a Catholic my special devotion was to the Blessed Virgin. I still have statues of her all over my house, bet you didn't expect that. ;). Well there is something about motherhood that appeals to me, it conjures a tender thought in my mind. I still see her cult, and I don't use this word in a negative connotation, as a beautiful thing, just a beautiful myth.
Your welcome for the article, I'm glad you enjoyed it.
Cool. Then you'd know that you can still talk to her any time you want eh. She's still your heavenly mother. I don't care if you are making fun of what I am saying here back at the thinking atheists forum. In fact I hope you tell them. Some may laugh, but some may not.
Quote from: rbjmartin on October 18, 2013, 09:27:38 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 18, 2013, 05:47:12 PM
Quote from: rbjmartin on October 18, 2013, 04:42:45 PM
Quote from: Adeodatus on October 18, 2013, 11:19:12 AM
I must agree with Bas, mikemac and others. Just look at the 20th Century: atheists always, always say one thing but do another. They will say and do absolutely anything to win, and then whenever they wield power they employ it in the most selfish and brutal way possible. The names Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Ho and Pol Pot easily come to the lips, but what also of their millions of followers? It is a philosophy of narcissism, self-deceit and raw power. They have no principles or morality and in fact they explicitly decry these things as mere inventions.
It is merely a matter of logical and levelheaded reasoning to conclude that the majority of them are barely salvageable as human beings, let alone as conversationalists. They will employ every fallacy and sophism, as well as outright fabrications, to bolster their jejune and ahistorical beliefs. If cornered, they will resort to abuse. Expect this forum to be hacked eventually if one of them gets particularly embarrassed.
In short, don't waste your breath.
I have to agree with this assessment. Unless you personally know an atheist with whom you have more than an internet relationship, I would not seek out engagements with them. I don't want to paint with too broad a brush, but there is something to what Adeodatus is saying about their self-centeredness and narcissism. As much as they say they are interested in the truth, in my experience, if you point out a contradiction in their beliefs, they will respond with insults, change the subject, or ignore you altogether. They will never concede a point that threatens their world view.
Ultimately, I think most atheists suffer from an elitist mentality. They feel that they have joined an esoteric class who are smarter than everyone else, because they haven't joined the masses of humanity who have been fooled by religion. Yet, why is it that the most notorious atheists, like Richard Dawkins, rely on arguments from emotion or outright insults in their attacks on religion? The reason men like Dawkins resort to insults is because they cherish their elite status dearly. You can't take away from them what makes them "special." They need their atheism as a sort of self affirmation that they're really smarter than everyone else.
I will continue to engage with Crimson Flyboy since he has come here, but even he has been bad about dodging difficult questions or letting certain lines of argument die if he has no answer. This is not my first rodeo. I attended public schools my whole life, including college. I've seen this behavior before, and it's very predictable.
What question would you like for me to answer?
No particular questions...just your silence in the face of certain arguments I made. For instance, should I believe that you accept that arguments from "chance" are just a deus ex machina and offer no explanation at all?
Not quite. Earlier things were moving too quickly, so I missed some things. I have a working viewpoint of the universe that involves s concept called spontaneous order. This is a theory that is posited in many fields. Basically, order moves from the bottom upward, instead of starting from the top and moving down. I first came by this theory as a student in business school. Eventually I began to look at it outside of a purely economic basis, and began to think of this as a theory that could explain much larger concepts such as the Big Bang and evolution. I think that matter organizes itself naturally according to laws of nature. These laws of nature need no source, as they just are. People have observed the way the universe operates and then written laws to explain the observation. Everything stems from these laws of nature.
Quote from: mikemac on October 18, 2013, 09:41:35 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 18, 2013, 09:18:45 PM
Quote from: mikemac on October 18, 2013, 09:12:41 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 18, 2013, 07:55:05 PM
I also wonder why this wasn't seen beyond a that 15 mile radius. Why was this a local event and not a global event? And what actually happened? The sun didn't dance in outer space, people worldwide would have seen it, including astronomers.
The figure that I've always read was 70,000. The 30,000 or 100,000 figures must be coming from the skeptic sites. Regarding the 15 mile radius (I think it was more than 15 miles, wasn't it?) there is a Marian shrine about 40 miles east of where I live in southern Ontario. People witnessed the sun dance in the sky when they were at that shrine too. I think that was in either the late 1980s or early 1990s. Two of my cousins witnessed the sun dance in the sky while they were there. The same as at Fatima people in the surrounding area, up to about 20 miles away saw the sun dance too. Around the same time it was reported on our local TV station that a teacher and two of her female students saw the Blessed Virgin Mary at the same shrine. They were interviewed for the broadcast. They weren't hysterical or anything like that, they just said that they saw the Blessed Virgin there.
Thanks Crimson Flyboy, for posting that Zenith link with the story of Pope Pius XII saying that he witnessed the sun dance in the sky four times in Rome around the time when he proclaimed the dogma of the Assumption. I hadn't heard that before. You know CF, Mary's message at Fatima is all about peace and it's not just for Catholics.
When I was a Catholic my special devotion was to the Blessed Virgin. I still have statues of her all over my house, bet you didn't expect that. ;). Well there is something about motherhood that appeals to me, it conjures a tender thought in my mind. I still see her cult, and I don't use this word in a negative connotation, as a beautiful thing, just a beautiful myth.
Your welcome for the article, I'm glad you enjoyed it.
Cool. Then you'd know that you can still talk to her any time you want eh. She's still your heavenly mother. I don't care if you are making fun of what I am saying here back at the thinking atheists forum. In fact I hope you tell them. Some may laugh, but some may not.
I won't be mocking y'all over there anymore. Sometimes I have some anger directed at my old religion that comes out of me, there's a bit of hurt there. I shouldn't have directed that at y'all.
Oh and that's a nice sentiment, but I don't think there's anyone there to hear.
Wow very elaborate.
What say ye friend of Jesus Christ?
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on October 18, 2013, 09:48:15 PM
Wow very elaborate.
What say ye friend of Jesus Christ?
Im not entirely sure that the man actually existed, and if he did I can't see him as divine.
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 18, 2013, 09:49:33 PM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on October 18, 2013, 09:48:15 PM
Wow very elaborate.
What say ye friend of Jesus Christ?
Im not entirely sure that the man actually existed, and if he did I can't see him as divine.
there is plenty of evidence for his existance....Im going to sleep now But we will circle back I promise.
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on October 18, 2013, 09:51:00 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 18, 2013, 09:49:33 PM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on October 18, 2013, 09:48:15 PM
Wow very elaborate.
What say ye friend of Jesus Christ?
Im not entirely sure that the man actually existed, and if he did I can't see him as divine.
there is plenty of evidence for his existance....Im going to sleep now But we will circle back I promise.
Cool, good night.
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 18, 2013, 09:45:24 PM
Not quite. Earlier things were moving too quickly, so I missed some things. I have a working viewpoint of the universe that involves s concept called spontaneous order. This is a theory that is posited in many fields. Basically, order moves from the bottom upward, instead of starting from the top and moving down. I first came by this theory as a student in business school. Eventually I began to look at it outside of a purely economic basis, and began to think of this as a theory that could explain much larger concepts such as the Big Bang and evolution. I think that matter organizes itself naturally according to laws of nature. These laws of nature need no source, as they just are. People have observed the way the universe operates and then written laws to explain the observation. Everything stems from these laws of nature.
Hmmm...I think you're digging yourself a hole. Everyday observation tells me that there's no such thing as inert matter ordering itself into increasing levels of order (as would be necessary for the initiation of life, for example). Can you give me an example? It seems like an article of faith.
If you are interested in such theories that require a "leap of faith" of sorts (as this theory of yours seems to do), why not accept the possibility of a Supreme Being who is the origin of all being and is Being Himself? I truly don't understand that atheist position that says God is not. At least the agnostic admits his lack of certainty about the existence or non-existence of God.
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 18, 2013, 08:24:06 PM
Quote from: Gerard on October 18, 2013, 08:10:44 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 18, 2013, 07:55:05 PM
I also wonder why this wasn't seen beyond a that 15 mile radius. Why was this a local event and not a global event? And what actually happened? The sun didn't dance in outer space, people worldwide would have seen it, including astronomers.
It's always interesting to try and think along the mechanical lines but these things that are miracles of faith are usually intended to strengthen the faith of those who were the witnesses of the phenomenon.
When stipulating objectively the possibility that it's of Divine origin, the simple answer is, it wasn't seen or experienced beyond a certain area because it wasn't intended to. This was a form of communication, not a display of physical power. What actually happened? As in the mechanics of the event? I don't think anyone knows the mechanism, but they respond to the communicative aspect of it. Maybe the sun did or didn't dance in space and people worldwide may have had the event hidden from them.
Usually, the miraculous type of event itself is not the problem for the atheist. They can suspend disbelief for anything if you put a scientific or science fiction cover on it or call it mythology with a morality play aspect (as long as they agree with it) The problem occurs when it's posited that it might actually be a contact with an intelligence that is alien by our standards and it touches the primal emotions, the territorial imperatives and breaches a lot of psychological defenses. The communicative aspect is the phobic aspect because communication modifies the person and changes them. It takes one out of the comfort zone.
It's hard for me to see things outside of a mechanical lines. I'll put it this way, if I see the sun move a distance of what seems like a few inches from my vantage point on earth, the sun has actually moved millions of miles. This is because the sun is around 93 million miles from earth. If the sun were to move that far that fast, it would have a dramatic effect on the orbit of the earth. That kind of effect would have been felt all over the earth, and would have led to dramatic climate change. So, we can assume that what really happened did not involve the sun dancing in outer space, but rather some sort of vision. So the question then is what is the source of this vision?
If you are stipulating on the possibility that the sun can be physically moved by a Divine Power, why do you stop there? I don't understand why skepticism enters at that point. If we are stipulating on the existence of an infinite source of power exerting itself on a particular star, why would that infinite source of power not have the power to overpower inferior forces and suspend those effects that you otherwise would have predicted. Your assumption automatically places an arbitrary limitation on the event and the claimed participant.
Obviously for a hot air balloon or a bird flying, the force of gravity and its effects have been overpowered by a superior, localized force or forces with comparatively little disturbance, But take an analogy to a "Flatland" style of example; If you didn't have the power to stand above a row of dominoes or view them from the side other than indirectly or the power to move them except to possibly topple one of them, then you would see the only possible effects to be a seting in motion a chain reaction, but if you have the power to reach down from above and pluck a particular domino and twirl it about and then put it back, then you would be doing what those limited to the level of the dominoes would see as impossible.
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 18, 2013, 09:49:33 PM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on October 18, 2013, 09:48:15 PM
Wow very elaborate.
What say ye friend of Jesus Christ?
Im not entirely sure that the man actually existed, and if he did I can't see him as divine.
Well there's quite a few non-Christian sources too that wrote about Jesus to prove He lived about 2000 years ago; Josephus, Tacitus, Mara bar Sarapion, Suetonius, the Talmud (although in a very nasty tone), Pliny the Younger, Lucian of Samosata, Thallus, Celsus and the Dead Sea scrolls.
I like that line, "What say ye friend of Jesus Christ?" :)
Quote from: rbjmartin on October 18, 2013, 09:56:53 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 18, 2013, 09:45:24 PM
Not quite. Earlier things were moving too quickly, so I missed some things. I have a working viewpoint of the universe that involves s concept called spontaneous order. This is a theory that is posited in many fields. Basically, order moves from the bottom upward, instead of starting from the top and moving down. I first came by this theory as a student in business school. Eventually I began to look at it outside of a purely economic basis, and began to think of this as a theory that could explain much larger concepts such as the Big Bang and evolution. I think that matter organizes itself naturally according to laws of nature. These laws of nature need no source, as they just are. People have observed the way the universe operates and then written laws to explain the observation. Everything stems from these laws of nature.
Hmmm...I think you're digging yourself a hole. Everyday observation tells me that there's no such thing as inert matter ordering itself into increasing levels of order (as would be necessary for the initiation of life, for example). Can you give me an example? It seems like an article of faith.
If you are interested in such theories that require a "leap of faith" of sorts (as this theory of yours seems to do), why not accept the possibility of a Supreme Being who is the origin of all being and is Being Himself? I truly don't understand that atheist position that says God is not. At least the agnostic admits his lack of certainty about the existence or non-existence of God.
Okay, first the atheist/agnostic divide. An agnostic is someone who says that knowledge about something can't be known, not just that he/she doesn't know. An atheist is someone who doesn't have an active belief in God. I don't think it takes a leap of faith to believe that inert matter is ordered by the laws of nature. It makes more sense to me that order would come from the bottom, than from the top. That is what we observe in the world around us. The economy, for instance, orders itself from the millions of tiny decisions made every day, not from a leader at the top.
Quote from: mikemac on October 18, 2013, 10:09:05 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 18, 2013, 09:49:33 PM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on October 18, 2013, 09:48:15 PM
Wow very elaborate.
What say ye friend of Jesus Christ?
Im not entirely sure that the man actually existed, and if he did I can't see him as divine.
Well there's quite a few non-Christian sources too that wrote about Jesus to prove He lived about 2000 years ago; Josephus, Tacitus, Mara bar Sarapion, Suetonius, the Talmud (although in a very nasty tone), Pliny the Younger, Lucian of Samosata, Thallus, Celsus and the Dead Sea scrolls.
I like that line, "What say ye friend of Jesus Christ?" :)
There was no historian during his life that wrote about him, only after. The quotes from Josephus are dubious at best, and almost certainly forgeries. Josephus also was born after the crucifixion.
Quote from: Gerard on October 18, 2013, 10:00:33 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 18, 2013, 08:24:06 PM
Quote from: Gerard on October 18, 2013, 08:10:44 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 18, 2013, 07:55:05 PM
I also wonder why this wasn't seen beyond a that 15 mile radius. Why was this a local event and not a global event? And what actually happened? The sun didn't dance in outer space, people worldwide would have seen it, including astronomers.
It's always interesting to try and think along the mechanical lines but these things that are miracles of faith are usually intended to strengthen the faith of those who were the witnesses of the phenomenon.
When stipulating objectively the possibility that it's of Divine origin, the simple answer is, it wasn't seen or experienced beyond a certain area because it wasn't intended to. This was a form of communication, not a display of physical power. What actually happened? As in the mechanics of the event? I don't think anyone knows the mechanism, but they respond to the communicative aspect of it. Maybe the sun did or didn't dance in space and people worldwide may have had the event hidden from them.
Usually, the miraculous type of event itself is not the problem for the atheist. They can suspend disbelief for anything if you put a scientific or science fiction cover on it or call it mythology with a morality play aspect (as long as they agree with it) The problem occurs when it's posited that it might actually be a contact with an intelligence that is alien by our standards and it touches the primal emotions, the territorial imperatives and breaches a lot of psychological defenses. The communicative aspect is the phobic aspect because communication modifies the person and changes them. It takes one out of the comfort zone.
It's hard for me to see things outside of a mechanical lines. I'll put it this way, if I see the sun move a distance of what seems like a few inches from my vantage point on earth, the sun has actually moved millions of miles. This is because the sun is around 93 million miles from earth. If the sun were to move that far that fast, it would have a dramatic effect on the orbit of the earth. That kind of effect would have been felt all over the earth, and would have led to dramatic climate change. So, we can assume that what really happened did not involve the sun dancing in outer space, but rather some sort of vision. So the question then is what is the source of this vision?
If you are stipulating on the possibility that the sun can be physically moved by a Divine Power, why do you stop there? I don't understand why skepticism enters at that point. If we are stipulating on the existence of an infinite source of power exerting itself on a particular star, why would that infinite source of power not have the power to overpower inferior forces and suspend those effects that you otherwise would have predicted. Your assumption automatically places an arbitrary limitation on the event and the claimed participant.
Obviously for a hot air balloon or a bird flying, the force of gravity and its effects have been overpowered by a superior, localized force or forces with comparatively little disturbance, But take an analogy to a "Flatland" style of example; If you didn't have the power to stand above a row of dominoes or view them from the side other than indirectly or the power to move them except to possibly topple one of them, then you would see the only possible effects to be a seting in motion a chain reaction, but if you have the power to reach down from above and pluck a particular domino and twirl it about and then put it back, then you would be doing what those limited to the level of the dominoes would see as impossible.
If this divine power would have moved the sun, several other miracles would be required, such as: to keep the earth in its normal orbit, to protect the earth from the increased energy and radiation from the sun as it moved closer to earth. The miracle becomes more and more complicated the more we break it down. It gets to be too much.
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 18, 2013, 10:16:31 PM
Quote from: mikemac on October 18, 2013, 10:09:05 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 18, 2013, 09:49:33 PM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on October 18, 2013, 09:48:15 PM
Wow very elaborate.
What say ye friend of Jesus Christ?
Im not entirely sure that the man actually existed, and if he did I can't see him as divine.
Well there's quite a few non-Christian sources too that wrote about Jesus to prove He lived about 2000 years ago; Josephus, Tacitus, Mara bar Sarapion, Suetonius, the Talmud (although in a very nasty tone), Pliny the Younger, Lucian of Samosata, Thallus, Celsus and the Dead Sea scrolls.
I like that line, "What say ye friend of Jesus Christ?" :)
There was no historian during his life that wrote about him, only after. The quotes from Josephus are dubious at best, and almost certainly forgeries. Josephus also was born after the crucifixion.
Except the ones who knew Him and walked with Him and wrote about Him. But I'm always told that those don't count because they're Christian... I never understood why...
Quote from: ResRev on October 18, 2013, 10:22:20 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 18, 2013, 10:16:31 PM
Quote from: mikemac on October 18, 2013, 10:09:05 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 18, 2013, 09:49:33 PM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on October 18, 2013, 09:48:15 PM
Wow very elaborate.
What say ye friend of Jesus Christ?
Im not entirely sure that the man actually existed, and if he did I can't see him as divine.
Well there's quite a few non-Christian sources too that wrote about Jesus to prove He lived about 2000 years ago; Josephus, Tacitus, Mara bar Sarapion, Suetonius, the Talmud (although in a very nasty tone), Pliny the Younger, Lucian of Samosata, Thallus, Celsus and the Dead Sea scrolls.
I like that line, "What say ye friend of Jesus Christ?" :)
There was no historian during his life that wrote about him, only after. The quotes from Josephus are dubious at best, and almost certainly forgeries. Josephus also was born after the crucifixion.
Except the ones who knew Him and walked with Him and wrote about Him. But I'm always told that those don't count because they're Christian... I never understood why...
That would count in my book, I wouldn't dismiss that out of hand as some secularists would. However, none of the NT writers knew Jesus. St. Paul became a Christian after the crucifixion, and the gospels were written decades after the death of Jesus, so whoever wrote them could not have known Jesus.
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 18, 2013, 10:28:45 PM
That would count in my book, I wouldn't dismiss that out of hand as some secularists would. However, none of the NT writers knew Jesus. St. Paul became a Christian after the crucifixion, and the gospels were written decades after the death of Jesus, so whoever wrote them could not have known Jesus.
oh. Okay. Do you have contemporary evidence that John and Matthew didn't write their Gospels? I'm not familiar with any...
I'm thinking that there are people alive today who can write first-hand accounts of Gen. MacArthur. It's decades after him. Lotsa decades. Totally doable. I don't understand why you say they couldn't have known him. People made it to ripe old ages back then, too. Even...50! :lol:
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 18, 2013, 10:16:31 PM
Quote from: mikemac on October 18, 2013, 10:09:05 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 18, 2013, 09:49:33 PM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on October 18, 2013, 09:48:15 PM
Wow very elaborate.
What say ye friend of Jesus Christ?
Im not entirely sure that the man actually existed, and if he did I can't see him as divine.
Well there's quite a few non-Christian sources too that wrote about Jesus to prove He lived about 2000 years ago; Josephus, Tacitus, Mara bar Sarapion, Suetonius, the Talmud (although in a very nasty tone), Pliny the Younger, Lucian of Samosata, Thallus, Celsus and the Dead Sea scrolls.
I like that line, "What say ye friend of Jesus Christ?" :)
There was no historian during his life that wrote about him, only after. The quotes from Josephus are dubious at best, and almost certainly forgeries. Josephus also was born after the crucifixion.
Kind of strange that a Roman historian like Tacitus would write about the crucifixion of Christ by Pontius Pilate after the fact, wouldn't you think? I mean other than the fact that he was a historian. In his own words,
"... called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus ..."
Tell me Crimson Flyboy, did you happen to watch that long youtube video that was popular a couple of years ago call 'Zeitgeist'? You know it was full of malarkey eh.
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 18, 2013, 10:16:31 PM
There was no historian during his life that wrote about him, only after.
You say that as if that's a case against the historians who did write about him. Most historians write about people who are already dead. You know, those guys who are now "history"? How does the fact that people wrote about Jesus after His death somehow invalidate their histories of Him?
Xenophon and Herodotus wrote about many events and people who were long dead before they wrote their histories. Should we just chuck their histories out the window?
It really seems like you're grasping here.
Quote from: mikemac on October 18, 2013, 10:42:54 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 18, 2013, 10:16:31 PM
Quote from: mikemac on October 18, 2013, 10:09:05 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 18, 2013, 09:49:33 PM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on October 18, 2013, 09:48:15 PM
Wow very elaborate.
What say ye friend of Jesus Christ?
Im not entirely sure that the man actually existed, and if he did I can't see him as divine.
Well there's quite a few non-Christian sources too that wrote about Jesus to prove He lived about 2000 years ago; Josephus, Tacitus, Mara bar Sarapion, Suetonius, the Talmud (although in a very nasty tone), Pliny the Younger, Lucian of Samosata, Thallus, Celsus and the Dead Sea scrolls.
I like that line, "What say ye friend of Jesus Christ?" :)
There was no historian during his life that wrote about him, only after. The quotes from Josephus are dubious at best, and almost certainly forgeries. Josephus also was born after the crucifixion.
Kind of strange that a Roman historian like Tacitus would write about the crucifixion of Christ by Pontius Pilate after the fact, wouldn't you think? I mean other than the fact that he was a historian. In his own words,
"... called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus ..."
Tell me Crimson Flyboy, did you happen to watch that long youtube video that was popular a couple of years ago call 'Zeitgeist'? You know it was full of malarkey eh.
I saw a different movie called "The God who wasn't there." They have something called the blasphemy challenge. If someone records themselves denying the Holy Ghost on YouTube, and post their website in the notes, they get a DVD of the movie free. I just paid for the DVD because I haven't told anyone in my family that I left the faith.
Quote from: ResRev on October 18, 2013, 10:39:53 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 18, 2013, 10:28:45 PM
That would count in my book, I wouldn't dismiss that out of hand as some secularists would. However, none of the NT writers knew Jesus. St. Paul became a Christian after the crucifixion, and the gospels were written decades after the death of Jesus, so whoever wrote them could not have known Jesus.
oh. Okay. Do you have contemporary evidence that John and Matthew didn't write their Gospels? I'm not familiar with any...
I'm thinking that there are people alive today who can write first-hand accounts of Gen. MacArthur. It's decades after him. Lotsa decades. Totally doable. I don't understand why you say they couldn't have known him. People made it to ripe old ages back then, too. Even...50! :lol:
Good point. I would also point out that in the years following Jesus's death, His disciples were actively spreading and promoting the Gospel. This would mean a very active oral tradition was being formed (and recall that oral traditions counted for a lot in the ancient world; The Iliad and The Odyssey were initially oral works, after all). This oral tradition would include the biographical information regarding the life of Jesus. So even those who did not know Him directly could have been very familiar with His life and teachings. Even so, the two Gospel writers who did not know Him directly were students of the leaders of the new faith: Peter and Paul. Peter, of course, knew Jesus directly, and St. Mark, being based in Rome, was said to have been a student of Peter, who would have relayed to Mark information about the life of Jesus. And because Luke was a student of Paul (who was immersed in Jesus's teachings and the stories of His life), he too would have been able to give an accurate description of Christ's life and teachings.
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 18, 2013, 11:16:29 PM
I saw a different movie called "The God who wasn't there." They have something called the blasphemy challenge. If someone records themselves denying the Holy Ghost on YouTube, and post their website in the notes, they get a DVD of the movie free. I just paid for the DVD because I haven't told anyone in my family that I left the faith.
I hope you're not relying on video documentaries for scholarly research.
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 18, 2013, 10:28:45 PM
Quote from: ResRev on October 18, 2013, 10:22:20 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 18, 2013, 10:16:31 PM
Quote from: mikemac on October 18, 2013, 10:09:05 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 18, 2013, 09:49:33 PM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on October 18, 2013, 09:48:15 PM
Wow very elaborate.
What say ye friend of Jesus Christ?
Im not entirely sure that the man actually existed, and if he did I can't see him as divine.
Well there's quite a few non-Christian sources too that wrote about Jesus to prove He lived about 2000 years ago; Josephus, Tacitus, Mara bar Sarapion, Suetonius, the Talmud (although in a very nasty tone), Pliny the Younger, Lucian of Samosata, Thallus, Celsus and the Dead Sea scrolls.
I like that line, "What say ye friend of Jesus Christ?" :)
There was no historian during his life that wrote about him, only after. The quotes from Josephus are dubious at best, and almost certainly forgeries. Josephus also was born after the crucifixion.
Except the ones who knew Him and walked with Him and wrote about Him. But I'm always told that those don't count because they're Christian... I never understood why...
That would count in my book, I wouldn't dismiss that out of hand as some secularists would. However, none of the NT writers knew Jesus. St. Paul became a Christian after the crucifixion, and the gospels were written decades after the death of Jesus, so whoever wrote them could not have known Jesus.
Actually Christ's apostle Peter wrote two books that are in the New Testament, 1 Peter and 2 Peter. He starts off the first chapter of 1 Peter like this;
"[1] Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers dispersed through Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, elect, [2] According to the foreknowledge of God the Father, unto the sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you and peace be multiplied."
Proof - http://www.drbo.org/chapter/67001.htm
Also it is believed that Christ's apostle John wrote both the Gospel of John and the Apocalypse (Revelation).
There is a legend that St. Luke painted the Black Madonna of Cz?stochowa on a cedar table top from the house of the Holy Family.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Madonna_of_Cz%C4%99stochowa
This would make sense too seeing Mary's hymn, the Magnificant is in the 1st chapter of the Gospel of Luke verses 46 to 55.
http://www.drbo.org/chapter/49001.htm
Quote from: rbjmartin on October 18, 2013, 11:25:39 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 18, 2013, 11:16:29 PM
I saw a different movie called "The God who wasn't there." They have something called the blasphemy challenge. If someone records themselves denying the Holy Ghost on YouTube, and post their website in the notes, they get a DVD of the movie free. I just paid for the DVD because I haven't told anyone in my family that I left the faith.
I hope you're not relying on video documentaries for scholarly research.
I don't consider it scholarly research, but there seems to be a lack of evidence for Jesus. Many characters in the past have been thought to be real characters, only to be found to be fictional later. There was a time when the ancient Greeks thought Hercules really existed, the only argument was whether he was divine or not.
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 18, 2013, 11:16:29 PM
I saw a different movie called "The God who wasn't there." They have something called the blasphemy challenge. If someone records themselves denying the Holy Ghost on YouTube, and post their website in the notes, they get a DVD of the movie free. I just paid for the DVD because I haven't told anyone in my family that I left the faith.
Well I'm certainly glad that you paid for the DVD rather than posting a youtube video denying the Holy Ghost. That is an evil thing for them to ask. Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost is the only sin that is not forgivable. I guess you must have known that at the time eh?
Quote from: mikemac on October 18, 2013, 11:57:49 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 18, 2013, 11:16:29 PM
I saw a different movie called "The God who wasn't there." They have something called the blasphemy challenge. If someone records themselves denying the Holy Ghost on YouTube, and post their website in the notes, they get a DVD of the movie free. I just paid for the DVD because I haven't told anyone in my family that I left the faith.
Well I'm certainly glad that you paid for the DVD rather than posting a youtube video denying the Holy Ghost. That is an evil thing for them to ask. Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost is the only sin that is not forgivable. I guess you must have known that at the time eh?
I didn't want my mother to see that, it would hurt her. They make reference to the sin being unforgivable on their website, and that is their purpose, the website says you have to trade your soul for the DVD, or $24.98. So, I guess their saying a soul is worth $24.98.
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 18, 2013, 11:41:27 PM
Quote from: rbjmartin on October 18, 2013, 11:25:39 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 18, 2013, 11:16:29 PM
I saw a different movie called "The God who wasn't there." They have something called the blasphemy challenge. If someone records themselves denying the Holy Ghost on YouTube, and post their website in the notes, they get a DVD of the movie free. I just paid for the DVD because I haven't told anyone in my family that I left the faith.
I hope you're not relying on video documentaries for scholarly research.
I don't consider it scholarly research, but there seems to be a lack of evidence for Jesus. Many characters in the past have been thought to be real characters, only to be found to be fictional later. There was a time when the ancient Greeks thought Hercules really existed, the only argument was whether he was divine or not.
I really don't know how you could say there's a lack of evidence for Jesus. No more than there's a lack of evidence for Leonidas, Alexander, Cleopatra, Julius Caesar, or a host of other people from the ancient world.
Seriously, you have multiple sources recording various information about Jesus in very close proximity to His lifetime. These are all coming from very diverse vectors. You have people who loved Him, people who hated Him, and people who didn't really care about Him so long as he didn't rock the boat....all writing about Him! You have those who claimed to know Him dying out of their belief in Him and His teachings (why would they do this if they made Him up)? You have His enemies, the Jews, who really wished He didn't exist, writing about Him...because they KNEW He existed. And you have the Romans writing about Him as sort of objective bystanders.
This denial of the historicity of Jesus is agenda-driven revisionism at its worst. It has no basis in rational scholarship.
Quote from: rbjmartin on October 19, 2013, 12:03:33 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 18, 2013, 11:41:27 PM
Quote from: rbjmartin on October 18, 2013, 11:25:39 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 18, 2013, 11:16:29 PM
I saw a different movie called "The God who wasn't there." They have something called the blasphemy challenge. If someone records themselves denying the Holy Ghost on YouTube, and post their website in the notes, they get a DVD of the movie free. I just paid for the DVD because I haven't told anyone in my family that I left the faith.
I hope you're not relying on video documentaries for scholarly research.
I don't consider it scholarly research, but there seems to be a lack of evidence for Jesus. Many characters in the past have been thought to be real characters, only to be found to be fictional later. There was a time when the ancient Greeks thought Hercules really existed, the only argument was whether he was divine or not.
I really don't know how you could say there's a lack of evidence for Jesus. No more than there's a lack of evidence for Leonidas, Alexander, Cleopatra, Julius Caesar, or a host of other people from the ancient world.
Seriously, you have multiple sources recording various information about Jesus in very close proximity to His lifetime. These are all coming from very diverse vectors. You have people who loved Him, people who hated Him, and people who didn't really care about Him so long as he didn't rock the boat....all writing about Him! You have those who claimed to know Him dying out of their belief in Him and His teachings (why would they do this if they made Him up)? You have His enemies, the Jews, who really wished He didn't exist, writing about Him...because they KNEW He existed. And you have the Romans writing about Him as sort of objective bystanders.
This denial of the historicity of Jesus is agenda-driven revisionism at its worst. It has no basis in rational scholarship.
These other people don't really matter, because western society isn't based on them like it is upon Jesus. At least with Julius Caesar we have his writings. Why didn't Jesus write something?
There's no need to get bogged down on this issue, Jesus may very well have existed, I just don't really know either way. You could say on this issue I am agnostic.
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 19, 2013, 12:03:25 AM
Quote from: mikemac on October 18, 2013, 11:57:49 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 18, 2013, 11:16:29 PM
I saw a different movie called "The God who wasn't there." They have something called the blasphemy challenge. If someone records themselves denying the Holy Ghost on YouTube, and post their website in the notes, they get a DVD of the movie free. I just paid for the DVD because I haven't told anyone in my family that I left the faith.
Well I'm certainly glad that you paid for the DVD rather than posting a youtube video denying the Holy Ghost. That is an evil thing for them to ask. Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost is the only sin that is not forgivable. I guess you must have known that at the time eh?
I didn't want my mother to see that, it would hurt her. They make reference to the sin being unforgivable on their website, and that is their purpose, the website says you have to trade your soul for the DVD, or $24.98. So, I guess their saying a soul is worth $24.98.
Oh that is a nasty nasty web site. I'm glad you didn't want to hurt your mother.
Quote from: mikemac on October 19, 2013, 12:21:58 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 19, 2013, 12:03:25 AM
Quote from: mikemac on October 18, 2013, 11:57:49 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 18, 2013, 11:16:29 PM
I saw a different movie called "The God who wasn't there." They have something called the blasphemy challenge. If someone records themselves denying the Holy Ghost on YouTube, and post their website in the notes, they get a DVD of the movie free. I just paid for the DVD because I haven't told anyone in my family that I left the faith.
Well I'm certainly glad that you paid for the DVD rather than posting a youtube video denying the Holy Ghost. That is an evil thing for them to ask. Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost is the only sin that is not forgivable. I guess you must have known that at the time eh?
I didn't want my mother to see that, it would hurt her. They make reference to the sin being unforgivable on their website, and that is their purpose, the website says you have to trade your soul for the DVD, or $24.98. So, I guess their saying a soul is worth $24.98.
Oh that is a nasty nasty web site. I'm glad you didn't want to hurt your mother.
She's really very sweet. She's why I was drawn to the Blessed Virgin.
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 19, 2013, 12:25:30 AM
Quote from: mikemac on October 19, 2013, 12:21:58 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 19, 2013, 12:03:25 AM
Quote from: mikemac on October 18, 2013, 11:57:49 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 18, 2013, 11:16:29 PM
I saw a different movie called "The God who wasn't there." They have something called the blasphemy challenge. If someone records themselves denying the Holy Ghost on YouTube, and post their website in the notes, they get a DVD of the movie free. I just paid for the DVD because I haven't told anyone in my family that I left the faith.
Well I'm certainly glad that you paid for the DVD rather than posting a youtube video denying the Holy Ghost. That is an evil thing for them to ask. Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost is the only sin that is not forgivable. I guess you must have known that at the time eh?
I didn't want my mother to see that, it would hurt her. They make reference to the sin being unforgivable on their website, and that is their purpose, the website says you have to trade your soul for the DVD, or $24.98. So, I guess their saying a soul is worth $24.98.
Oh that is a nasty nasty web site. I'm glad you didn't want to hurt your mother.
She's really very sweet. She's why I was drawn to the Blessed Virgin.
Cool
Quote from: mikemac on October 18, 2013, 05:46:31 PM
But I think legislating same sex marriage is a slippery slope. We have seen companies forced to close at the mere complaint from homosexuals and lesbians. With the way the wind is blowing how long do you think it will be before the Church is forced to either perform same sex marriages or close?
To be quite honest, I think that's more likely to be caused by the American suing culture. Belgium and the Netherlands have had full legalisation of homosexual marriages for quite a while now, and I can't think of any incident like that. Even when looking through the archives, I can just find a few complaints about specific policies, and nothing really being done about them.
Quote from: mikemac on October 18, 2013, 09:36:00 PM
Quote from: RealJayneK on October 18, 2013, 05:13:09 PM
Quote from: mikemac on October 18, 2013, 05:07:53 PM
"tradbashing"? Are you trying to say that you didn't post "I don't think we should legislate against homosexuality" and "My argument boils down to let's-just-don't-care" at the "thinking" atheist forum?
Catholics are not obliged to legislate against immoral behaviour. It depends on the circumstances. For example, St. Thomas recommended that prostitution not be illegal.
It is quite possible to make a traditional Catholic argument for not legislating against homosexual behaviour and, in fact, that is what Othmar did. He argued from Catholic principles.
How long was there legislation against homosexuality? For at least hundreds of years. To me I think that would be more in line with traditional Catholic principles.
I think that one could make a case based on Catholic principles for either pro or con regarding legislation I haven't really thought it through yet, so I don't have a position. The only point that I was trying to make is that one should not assume that a person is not taking a Catholic position if he does not support legislation against homosexual behaviour.
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 18, 2013, 10:19:45 PM
If this divine power would have moved the sun, several other miracles would be required, such as: to keep the earth in its normal orbit, to protect the earth from the increased energy and radiation from the sun as it moved closer to earth. The miracle becomes more and more complicated the more we break it down. It gets to be too much.
It gets to be too much for who? Again, why the arbitrary limitation? I remember buying a new computer in the mid 90s. A friend of mine who actually worked in the tech industry specializing in computers said, "You've got a massive hard drive of 410 megabytes, that'll last you a lifetime." A few years later a computer with 2 gigabytes was considered extreme.
Numerous things studied by the hard sciences get increasingly complex as you break them down more.
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 18, 2013, 07:51:53 PM
The poster I quoted said 25,000, so I used that number when I responded. But some estimates were as high as 100,000. That is problematic for me, as it creates doubt in my mind. I could more easily understand a difference of a few thousand, but the number from articles I looked up ranges from 30,000 to 100,000. That's odd.
You really have a problem with the existence of an occurrence itself because there was nobody officially there to count heads? That creates a
doubt for you that there was a unusual occurrence? You are deliberately making an objection out of nothing. News item after news item today ranges in variations in number by hundreds and thousands. It is not odd, it is common, particularly when there are tens of thousands involved. This is merely a pretext to convince yourself that you have doubt about the occurrence itself.
Something big happened, we all know that. Let's not talk in terms of a miracle. Let's completely talk in terms of a
natural occurrence. I don't care if it was merely 20 Catholics and 20 non-Catholic (all strangers to each other) saw the same thing (discrepancies on thousands means nothing). That is solid
empirical evidence. Probably just as impressive, is that scientists spend no time on it. Ignore it completely. Don't speculate, don't try to debunk it as a fraud. Empirical evidence, the very basis of their god, they trod underfoot.
Perhaps a special cloud of transparent/translucent gas from outer space floated by, close enough to the earth that it would account for the localization, and coincided with a crowd expecting something special to happen. The normal clouds suddenly parted and hit upon its density, causing sudden expansion, dispersion, refraction of light and prism effects, making the sun looking bigger and rotating. Perhaps the gas filtered out the harmful rays to skin and eyes, but the special heat was allowed through to dry the clothes and earth.
Why aren't "thinking" atheistic scientist talking about this? It happened, it was unprecedented, it was intriguing, yet they drop it like a hot potato because it is closely connected to religion, which they hate, so much so that the "empirical evidence" they normally worship, they sweep into the dust bin. Now is their chance to try to make religion look bad, but they suppress empirical evidence. They know they cannot garner laughter, so they ignore it all.
So, we have a natural and unprecedented, amazing thing of nature, associated directly with some extraordinary coincidences. Months beforehand it was predicted
to the very hour with the claim there would be some miracle to make people believe the message. Coincidence? Is it also a coincidence that these ignorant shepherd children said that the beautiful lady appeared and told them that "Russia would spread her errors..." This was just immediately before the Bolshevik Revolution, and came to be a catastrophe of mass killings on unprecedented proportions in Russia and China, far beyond the Holocaust. Another mere coincidence? Even "thinking" scientists profess that you don't ignore a PATTERN of coincidences because great significance is revealed thereby. But scientists have ignored the pattern of "coincidences" associated with Catholicism. The most utterly amazing things keep being directly associated with Catholicism. Catholicism firstly has in Scripture miracles, as well as the explicit prediction that miracles will follow those who believe. It has shown to the be the historical case all down through the centuries. Recent science cannot explain them individual, or the obvious pattern of coincidence, so they pretend they don't exist.
We could get into Lourdes, which I am sure you have heard. Lots of "coincidental" material there. Once instance a man was suffering for months with a completely broken bone in his lower leg, such that the doctors could not set it. I piece of bone was missing. The leg bone was protruding out of a hole. There were x-rays on file. The man finally decided to go to Lourdes to get healed. He was seen on a train on crutches, his foot itself dangling and facing backwards. Long story short, sometime the next week he was walking perfectly healed. His own doctor, and others, examined him, completely baffled. The following x-rays showed the same bone scar where the break was, and the missing piece filled in.
Look up Fr. Herbert Schiffer and Hiroshima. Just a "catholic coincidence"?
Look up Theresa Neumann in the
Guinness Book of World Records (I have the 1979 edition). Just another "catholic coincidence" that baffles modern science? There is no such pattern in any other purported "religion".
This is all they need to know.
That the Christian life is not about the assent of the intellect but the consent of the heart. It is being in love with a person. No amount of debate will make you see that, just like no debate could make you automatically fall in love with a stranger. No, you need to give your heart because He gave you His life. Is this something you want to do? Before all else this is the life of a Catholic - to be overwhelmingly in love. But you cannot love what you do not know, and you'll never know if youre stuck in empiricism because God is outside the created order. Faith is not irrational it is rational but love is neither it is super-rational. It goes beyond. And if you won't do that, if you refuse to give consent to the Holy Ghost working within you then no debate will produce any fruit because your ground is bare and soil without nutrients. God wants your heart not your mind. That's it. Ponder that on your forum and then come back in peace under a new name seeking truth not chatter. You'll see things differently.
Quote from: Basilios on October 19, 2013, 08:58:08 AM
This is all they need to know.
That the Christian life is not about the assent of the intellect but the consent of the heart. It is being in love with a person. No amount of debate will make you see that, just like no debate could make you automatically fall in love with a stranger. No, you need to give your heart because He gave you His life. Is this something you want to do? Before all else this is the life of a Catholic - to be overwhelmingly in love. But you cannot love what you do not know, and you'll never know if youre stuck in empiricism because God is outside the created order. Faith is not irrational it is rational but love is neither it is super-rational. It goes beyond. And if you won't do that, if you refuse to give consent to the Holy Ghost working within you then no debate will produce any fruit because your ground is bare and soil without nutrients. God wants your heart not your mind. That's it. Ponder that on your forum and then come back in peace under a new name seeking truth not chatter. You'll see things differently.
Brilliant.
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 18, 2013, 10:16:31 PM
Quote from: mikemac on October 18, 2013, 10:09:05 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 18, 2013, 09:49:33 PM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on October 18, 2013, 09:48:15 PM
Wow very elaborate.
What say ye friend of Jesus Christ?
Im not entirely sure that the man actually existed, and if he did I can't see him as divine.
Well there's quite a few non-Christian sources too that wrote about Jesus to prove He lived about 2000 years ago; Josephus, Tacitus, Mara bar Sarapion, Suetonius, the Talmud (although in a very nasty tone), Pliny the Younger, Lucian of Samosata, Thallus, Celsus and the Dead Sea scrolls.
I like that line, "What say ye friend of Jesus Christ?" :)
There was no historian during his life that wrote about him, only after. The quotes from Josephus are dubious at best, and almost certainly forgeries. Josephus also was born after the crucifixion.
The quotes in Josephus may have been tampered with in later centuries, but there are ancient manuscripts that predate a time that a Christian could have made any alterations, and Josephus does mention Christ. Here's one example from an Arabic source:
at this time there was wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was
good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the
Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to
be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not
abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three
days after his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps
the Messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders. Also, Josephus mention the death of James, the first Bishop of Jerusalem, who was referred to as the brother of Jesus. Ancient Eastern Catholics believed James was the son of Joseph from a previous marriage(some traditions say he was a widower), and Western tradition says James was Jesus cousin. Whatever the case may be, here is what Josephus says about James:
And now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus... Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned.[23]Jesus Christ and the Christian Church are facts of history.
Quote from: ResRev on October 18, 2013, 10:39:53 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 18, 2013, 10:28:45 PM
That would count in my book, I wouldn't dismiss that out of hand as some secularists would. However, none of the NT writers knew Jesus. St. Paul became a Christian after the crucifixion, and the gospels were written decades after the death of Jesus, so whoever wrote them could not have known Jesus.
oh. Okay. Do you have contemporary evidence that John and Matthew didn't write their Gospels? I'm not familiar with any...
There isn't any. The idea that the Gospels weren't written by the traditional authors comes from the 18th and 19th century form critics, who refused to look at any evidence other than the texts themselves. They divorced the biblical books from their historical context and claimed they could prove authorship, the motives of the authors, etc. from the texts alone. Pretty unscientific, but most Biblical "scholarship" has followed this path for 200 years.
Crimson Flyboy, if you are genuinely interested in knowing why we do what we do, and if you would like to see it demonstrated with clear, syllogistic logic--everything from the existence of God to the truth of the Catholic Church--, then I recommend one book to you, which responds to and answers all of the points you have raised in this thread.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B0084OTP2S/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?qid=1382196253&sr=8-1&pi=AC_SX110_SY165_QL70 (http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B0084OTP2S/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?qid=1382196253&sr=8-1&pi=AC_SX110_SY165_QL70)
If you have a Kindle, it might be more practical to purchase the e-version, but I can't recommend it enough. It walks the reader through all of these arguments and addresses such questions as: "Is it reasonable to believe that Jesus existed?" Objections and responses are included.
Please, give its arguments some thought, even if you only read certain chapters that particularly address your specific questions. I can't recommend it enough. It doesn't just present the arguments; it explains them step by step and proves each premise from various angles.
Quote from: RobertJS on October 19, 2013, 08:49:42 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 18, 2013, 07:51:53 PM
The poster I quoted said 25,000, so I used that number when I responded. But some estimates were as high as 100,000. That is problematic for me, as it creates doubt in my mind. I could more easily understand a difference of a few thousand, but the number from articles I looked up ranges from 30,000 to 100,000. That's odd.
You really have a problem with the existence of an occurrence itself because there was nobody officially there to count heads? That creates a doubt for you that there was a unusual occurrence? You are deliberately making an objection out of nothing. News item after news item today ranges in variations in number by hundreds and thousands. It is not odd, it is common, particularly when there are tens of thousands involved. This is merely a pretext to convince yourself that you have doubt about the occurrence itself.
Something big happened, we all know that. Let's not talk in terms of a miracle. Let's completely talk in terms of a natural occurrence. I don't care if it was merely 20 Catholics and 20 non-Catholic (all strangers to each other) saw the same thing (discrepancies on thousands means nothing). That is solid empirical evidence. Probably just as impressive, is that scientists spend no time on it. Ignore it completely. Don't speculate, don't try to debunk it as a fraud. Empirical evidence, the very basis of their god, they trod underfoot.
Perhaps a special cloud of transparent/translucent gas from outer space floated by, close enough to the earth that it would account for the localization, and coincided with a crowd expecting something special to happen. The normal clouds suddenly parted and hit upon its density, causing sudden expansion, dispersion, refraction of light and prism effects, making the sun looking bigger and rotating. Perhaps the gas filtered out the harmful rays to skin and eyes, but the special heat was allowed through to dry the clothes and earth.
Why aren't "thinking" atheistic scientist talking about this? It happened, it was unprecedented, it was intriguing, yet they drop it like a hot potato because it is closely connected to religion, which they hate, so much so that the "empirical evidence" they normally worship, they sweep into the dust bin. Now is their chance to try to make religion look bad, but they suppress empirical evidence. They know they cannot garner laughter, so they ignore it all.
So, we have a natural and unprecedented, amazing thing of nature, associated directly with some extraordinary coincidences. Months beforehand it was predicted to the very hour with the claim there would be some miracle to make people believe the message. Coincidence? Is it also a coincidence that these ignorant shepherd children said that the beautiful lady appeared and told them that "Russia would spread her errors..." This was just immediately before the Bolshevik Revolution, and came to be a catastrophe of mass killings on unprecedented proportions in Russia and China, far beyond the Holocaust. Another mere coincidence? Even "thinking" scientists profess that you don't ignore a PATTERN of coincidences because great significance is revealed thereby. But scientists have ignored the pattern of "coincidences" associated with Catholicism. The most utterly amazing things keep being directly associated with Catholicism. Catholicism firstly has in Scripture miracles, as well as the explicit prediction that miracles will follow those who believe. It has shown to the be the historical case all down through the centuries. Recent science cannot explain them individual, or the obvious pattern of coincidence, so they pretend they don't exist.
We could get into Lourdes, which I am sure you have heard. Lots of "coincidental" material there. Once instance a man was suffering for months with a completely broken bone in his lower leg, such that the doctors could not set it. I piece of bone was missing. The leg bone was protruding out of a hole. There were x-rays on file. The man finally decided to go to Lourdes to get healed. He was seen on a train on crutches, his foot itself dangling and facing backwards. Long story short, sometime the next week he was walking perfectly healed. His own doctor, and others, examined him, completely baffled. The following x-rays showed the same bone scar where the break was, and the missing piece filled in.
Look up Fr. Herbert Schiffer and Hiroshima. Just a "catholic coincidence"?
Look up Theresa Neumann in the Guinness Book of World Records (I have the 1979 edition). Just another "catholic coincidence" that baffles modern science? There is no such pattern in any other purported "religion".
Here's the thing, which is more likely, that the sun really danced about in outer space, moving millions of miles in a meter of seconds without affecting the earth at all, or that the sun appeared to dance in the sky because some people were starring at the sun? That Pope Pius XII saw this phenomenon also leads me to the conclusion that this is just what happens when one stares at the sun. You could do an experiment and stare at the sun during a bright day and see what happens. I have a hard time believing this is real because it goes against the laws of nature.
And this is how myth is created, or one way. A group of people show up expecting a miracle, they are a biased test group from the start. A few of them start staring at the sun, then more do as the others want to know what is happening. A few of the group begin to see the sun dance just a little bit, from staring too long. Someone says look the sun is dancing and the power of suggestion takes hold, which is rather easy in a group predisposed to seeing something miraculous. These weren't skeptics after all. Everyone starts to leave and they begin talking to each other. A group of believers begin reassuring each other. "Didn't you see the miracle? Why yes, it was fantastic!" There is pressure to belong to the group. Then the myth gets expanded over time, and soon it sounds like the greatest miracle in history. Doesn't sound likely? Well, the sun actually dancing around in outer space sounds impossible.
Quote from: Basilios on October 19, 2013, 08:58:08 AM
This is all they need to know.
That the Christian life is not about the assent of the intellect but the consent of the heart. It is being in love with a person. No amount of debate will make you see that, just like no debate could make you automatically fall in love with a stranger. No, you need to give your heart because He gave you His life. Is this something you want to do? Before all else this is the life of a Catholic - to be overwhelmingly in love. But you cannot love what you do not know, and you'll never know if youre stuck in empiricism because God is outside the created order. Faith is not irrational it is rational but love is neither it is super-rational. It goes beyond. And if you won't do that, if you refuse to give consent to the Holy Ghost working within you then no debate will produce any fruit because your ground is bare and soil without nutrients. God wants your heart not your mind. That's it. Ponder that on your forum and then come back in peace under a new name seeking truth not chatter. You'll see things differently.
This is well put and very honest. Faith isn't about an assent of the intellect. But, how does one believe in something that goes against his/her reason? I like the idea of empiricism, it makes sense.
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 19, 2013, 09:31:26 AM
Quote from: RobertJS on October 19, 2013, 08:49:42 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 18, 2013, 07:51:53 PM
The poster I quoted said 25,000, so I used that number when I responded. But some estimates were as high as 100,000. That is problematic for me, as it creates doubt in my mind. I could more easily understand a difference of a few thousand, but the number from articles I looked up ranges from 30,000 to 100,000. That's odd.
You really have a problem with the existence of an occurrence itself because there was nobody officially there to count heads? That creates a doubt for you that there was a unusual occurrence? You are deliberately making an objection out of nothing. News item after news item today ranges in variations in number by hundreds and thousands. It is not odd, it is common, particularly when there are tens of thousands involved. This is merely a pretext to convince yourself that you have doubt about the occurrence itself.
Something big happened, we all know that. Let's not talk in terms of a miracle. Let's completely talk in terms of a natural occurrence. I don't care if it was merely 20 Catholics and 20 non-Catholic (all strangers to each other) saw the same thing (discrepancies on thousands means nothing). That is solid empirical evidence. Probably just as impressive, is that scientists spend no time on it. Ignore it completely. Don't speculate, don't try to debunk it as a fraud. Empirical evidence, the very basis of their god, they trod underfoot.
Perhaps a special cloud of transparent/translucent gas from outer space floated by, close enough to the earth that it would account for the localization, and coincided with a crowd expecting something special to happen. The normal clouds suddenly parted and hit upon its density, causing sudden expansion, dispersion, refraction of light and prism effects, making the sun looking bigger and rotating. Perhaps the gas filtered out the harmful rays to skin and eyes, but the special heat was allowed through to dry the clothes and earth.
Why aren't "thinking" atheistic scientist talking about this? It happened, it was unprecedented, it was intriguing, yet they drop it like a hot potato because it is closely connected to religion, which they hate, so much so that the "empirical evidence" they normally worship, they sweep into the dust bin. Now is their chance to try to make religion look bad, but they suppress empirical evidence. They know they cannot garner laughter, so they ignore it all.
So, we have a natural and unprecedented, amazing thing of nature, associated directly with some extraordinary coincidences. Months beforehand it was predicted to the very hour with the claim there would be some miracle to make people believe the message. Coincidence? Is it also a coincidence that these ignorant shepherd children said that the beautiful lady appeared and told them that "Russia would spread her errors..." This was just immediately before the Bolshevik Revolution, and came to be a catastrophe of mass killings on unprecedented proportions in Russia and China, far beyond the Holocaust. Another mere coincidence? Even "thinking" scientists profess that you don't ignore a PATTERN of coincidences because great significance is revealed thereby. But scientists have ignored the pattern of "coincidences" associated with Catholicism. The most utterly amazing things keep being directly associated with Catholicism. Catholicism firstly has in Scripture miracles, as well as the explicit prediction that miracles will follow those who believe. It has shown to the be the historical case all down through the centuries. Recent science cannot explain them individual, or the obvious pattern of coincidence, so they pretend they don't exist.
We could get into Lourdes, which I am sure you have heard. Lots of "coincidental" material there. Once instance a man was suffering for months with a completely broken bone in his lower leg, such that the doctors could not set it. I piece of bone was missing. The leg bone was protruding out of a hole. There were x-rays on file. The man finally decided to go to Lourdes to get healed. He was seen on a train on crutches, his foot itself dangling and facing backwards. Long story short, sometime the next week he was walking perfectly healed. His own doctor, and others, examined him, completely baffled. The following x-rays showed the same bone scar where the break was, and the missing piece filled in.
Look up Fr. Herbert Schiffer and Hiroshima. Just a "catholic coincidence"?
Look up Theresa Neumann in the Guinness Book of World Records (I have the 1979 edition). Just another "catholic coincidence" that baffles modern science? There is no such pattern in any other purported "religion".
Here's the thing, which is more likely, that the sun really danced about in outer space, moving millions of miles in a meter of seconds without affecting the earth at all, or that the sun appeared to dance in the sky because some people were starring at the sun? That Pope Pius XII saw this phenomenon also leads me to the conclusion that this is just what happens when one stares at the sun. You could do an experiment and stare at the sun during a bright day and see what happens. I have a hard time believing this is real because it goes against the laws of nature.
And this is how myth is created, or one way. A group of people show up expecting a miracle, they are a biased test group from the start. A few of them start staring at the sun, then more do as the others want to know what is happening. A few of the group begin to see the sun dance just a little bit, from staring too long. Someone says look the sun is dancing and the power of suggestion takes hold, which is rather easy in a group predisposed to seeing something miraculous. These weren't skeptics after all. Everyone starts to leave and they begin talking to each other. A group of believers begin reassuring each other. "Didn't you see the miracle? Why yes, it was fantastic!" There is pressure to belong to the group. Then the myth gets expanded over time, and soon it sounds like the greatest miracle in history. Doesn't sound likely? Well, the sun actually dancing around in outer space sounds impossible.
The sun was behind the clouds, and the clouds moved apart revealing a dull disk, not a bright sun.
The crowd contained people who were merely there out of curiosity, and others there only expecting to laugh at everyone, and they didn't laugh. They all witnessed the same thing, and the anti-Catholic press reported it. But you have been told this, and now pretend you haven't.
You ignore all the points made, and now present something silly, like one going into pure denial that anything at all happened there.
Quote from: Larry S. on October 19, 2013, 09:20:42 AM
Quote from: ResRev on October 18, 2013, 10:39:53 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 18, 2013, 10:28:45 PM
That would count in my book, I wouldn't dismiss that out of hand as some secularists would. However, none of the NT writers knew Jesus. St. Paul became a Christian after the crucifixion, and the gospels were written decades after the death of Jesus, so whoever wrote them could not have known Jesus.
oh. Okay. Do you have contemporary evidence that John and Matthew didn't write their Gospels? I'm not familiar with any...
There isn't any. The idea that the Gospels weren't written by the traditional authors comes from the 18th and 19th century form critics, who refused to look at any evidence other than the texts themselves. They divorced the biblical books from their historical context and claimed they could prove authorship, the motives of the authors, etc. from the texts alone. Pretty unscientific, but most Biblical "scholarship" has followed this path for 200 years.
The gospels weren't signed by the traditional authors. Matthew didn't finish the by writing, "yours truly, Matthew." So where did the idea that Matthew wrote the gospel according to Matthew come from?
Crimson Flyboy, the witnesses noted that the sun did not appear in the manner it would require to produce such an illusion. The witnesses noticed that it lost all brightness, so that it did not strain the eyes to behold. People didn't start looking at the sun until they noticed a change, i.e., the change in the sun's appearance. Only after that did the sun begin to twin, spin, and dance, as it were.
Thus, it doesn't really make sense to say that they all witnessed a simultaneous optical illusion caused by the effect of the sun on the eyes when the sun's normal brilliance was suspended such that it was as easy to behold as any other object.
I don't think it is reasonable to think that if a bunch of skeptical people in the same place stare at the same object they will all see the object begin to get up and dance--unless there is some sort of hallucinogenic substance or alcohol withdrawal involved.
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 19, 2013, 09:36:11 AM
Quote from: Basilios on October 19, 2013, 08:58:08 AM
This is all they need to know.
That the Christian life is not about the assent of the intellect but the consent of the heart. It is being in love with a person. No amount of debate will make you see that, just like no debate could make you automatically fall in love with a stranger. No, you need to give your heart because He gave you His life. Is this something you want to do? Before all else this is the life of a Catholic - to be overwhelmingly in love. But you cannot love what you do not know, and you'll never know if youre stuck in empiricism because God is outside the created order. Faith is not irrational it is rational but love is neither it is super-rational. It goes beyond. And if you won't do that, if you refuse to give consent to the Holy Ghost working within you then no debate will produce any fruit because your ground is bare and soil without nutrients. God wants your heart not your mind. That's it. Ponder that on your forum and then come back in peace under a new name seeking truth not chatter. You'll see things differently.
This is well put and very honest. Faith isn't about an assent of the intellect. But, how does one believe in something that goes against his/her reason? I like the idea of empiricism, it makes sense.
The point is that you can't escape your worldview because you're not open to. You want the gift of faith without the sacrifice of love and trust. It won't happen that way. It cant. I've given you resources aplenty to systematically prove that empiricism is self defeating nonsense. And you're no closer to God. Weird no? For you it should be weird because you pretend that you have no heart and soul, a pretense that fades with friendships and relationships incidently... Nobody ever said "let's be friends because the empirical evidence points towards our matching dispositions due to the chemicals... Etc". Nobody ever sacrificed their life for a loved one based on an empirical fact. Or even a philosophical one. It's love and only love. That is God. That is the Trinity. That is what the Incarnation is. That's what it's all about. So if you aren't just playing games with us do something to fall in love. Sit for 10 mins in front of the Blessed Sacrament everyday for a week and bite your tongue so thst you can ask for the gift of faith. You cannot love what you don't know and in this case Who you don't know. God is a Who not a what, and the only way to know Him is to treat Him as such. Otherwise you will never know him and you never really did even as a seminarian. Do all that and come back in a month a changed man. You do what I say and you'll be a Catholic within 3 months.
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 19, 2013, 09:36:11 AM
Quote from: Basilios on October 19, 2013, 08:58:08 AM
This is all they need to know.
That the Christian life is not about the assent of the intellect but the consent of the heart. It is being in love with a person. No amount of debate will make you see that, just like no debate could make you automatically fall in love with a stranger. No, you need to give your heart because He gave you His life. Is this something you want to do? Before all else this is the life of a Catholic - to be overwhelmingly in love. But you cannot love what you do not know, and you'll never know if youre stuck in empiricism because God is outside the created order. Faith is not irrational it is rational but love is neither it is super-rational. It goes beyond. And if you won't do that, if you refuse to give consent to the Holy Ghost working within you then no debate will produce any fruit because your ground is bare and soil without nutrients. God wants your heart not your mind. That's it. Ponder that on your forum and then come back in peace under a new name seeking truth not chatter. You'll see things differently.
This is well put and very honest. Faith isn't about an assent of the intellect. But, how does one believe in something that goes against his/her reason? I like the idea of empiricism, it makes sense.
No, you don't like the idea of empiricism. You just ignored the points in my previous message including the healing at Lourdes.
Basilios, are you a rationalist?
Quote from: RobertJS on October 19, 2013, 09:49:54 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 19, 2013, 09:36:11 AM
Quote from: Basilios on October 19, 2013, 08:58:08 AM
This is all they need to know.
That the Christian life is not about the assent of the intellect but the consent of the heart. It is being in love with a person. No amount of debate will make you see that, just like no debate could make you automatically fall in love with a stranger. No, you need to give your heart because He gave you His life. Is this something you want to do? Before all else this is the life of a Catholic - to be overwhelmingly in love. But you cannot love what you do not know, and you'll never know if youre stuck in empiricism because God is outside the created order. Faith is not irrational it is rational but love is neither it is super-rational. It goes beyond. And if you won't do that, if you refuse to give consent to the Holy Ghost working within you then no debate will produce any fruit because your ground is bare and soil without nutrients. God wants your heart not your mind. That's it. Ponder that on your forum and then come back in peace under a new name seeking truth not chatter. You'll see things differently.
This is well put and very honest. Faith isn't about an assent of the intellect. But, how does one believe in something that goes against his/her reason? I like the idea of empiricism, it makes sense.
No, you don't like the idea of empiricism. You just ignored the points in my previous message including the healing at Lourdes.
I haven't seen the evidence, so I don't know what to think about it.
Do y'all think miracles and supernatural elements are necessary in religion? Is there no room for the materialist?
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 19, 2013, 09:43:25 AM
Quote from: Larry S. on October 19, 2013, 09:20:42 AM
Quote from: ResRev on October 18, 2013, 10:39:53 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 18, 2013, 10:28:45 PM
That would count in my book, I wouldn't dismiss that out of hand as some secularists would. However, none of the NT writers knew Jesus. St. Paul became a Christian after the crucifixion, and the gospels were written decades after the death of Jesus, so whoever wrote them could not have known Jesus.
oh. Okay. Do you have contemporary evidence that John and Matthew didn't write their Gospels? I'm not familiar with any...
There isn't any. The idea that the Gospels weren't written by the traditional authors comes from the 18th and 19th century form critics, who refused to look at any evidence other than the texts themselves. They divorced the biblical books from their historical context and claimed they could prove authorship, the motives of the authors, etc. from the texts alone. Pretty unscientific, but most Biblical "scholarship" has followed this path for 200 years.
The gospels weren't signed by the traditional authors. Matthew didn't finish the by writing, "yours truly, Matthew." So where did the idea that Matthew wrote the gospel according to Matthew come from?
From ancient writers who either knew the apostles, or were disciples of the men who followed the apostles. The Gospels and the other biblical books are the only documents in history where context and ancient sources are ignored in favor of textual criticism derived from the writings themselves.
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 19, 2013, 09:43:25 AM
Quote from: Larry S. on October 19, 2013, 09:20:42 AM
Quote from: ResRev on October 18, 2013, 10:39:53 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 18, 2013, 10:28:45 PM
That would count in my book, I wouldn't dismiss that out of hand as some secularists would. However, none of the NT writers knew Jesus. St. Paul became a Christian after the crucifixion, and the gospels were written decades after the death of Jesus, so whoever wrote them could not have known Jesus.
oh. Okay. Do you have contemporary evidence that John and Matthew didn't write their Gospels? I'm not familiar with any...
There isn't any. The idea that the Gospels weren't written by the traditional authors comes from the 18th and 19th century form critics, who refused to look at any evidence other than the texts themselves. They divorced the biblical books from their historical context and claimed they could prove authorship, the motives of the authors, etc. from the texts alone. Pretty unscientific, but most Biblical "scholarship" has followed this path for 200 years.
The gospels weren't signed by the traditional authors. Matthew didn't finish the by writing, "yours truly, Matthew." So where did the idea that Matthew wrote the gospel according to Matthew come from?
From the people he handed it to and said, Could you proof this for me? Spell check's broke. No seriously, you talk as if all these writings and peoples were all disconnected from each other, like someone picked up a dusty parchment, blew off the dust like Indiana Jones and said, Lookeroo what I found, a genuine Matthew document. I wonder what the guys down at Pawn Stars will gimme for it?! All of these people are connected in an unending line of documentation about conversations, teachings, historical towns, bishoprics, sermons, martyrdoms. Real live actual people in an unbroken chain of teachings. John (who wrote the Gospel of John) and Peter I believe taught Ignatius who became the 3rd bishop of Antioch who left tons of writings teaching in turn what he was taught. Polycarp was probably there, he can vouch for him! That's the way it worked, they didn't stumble on some Dead Sea scrolls hundreds of years later and fill in the blanks. They all knew each other, talked to each other, taught it, and passed it on. The same Church at every step.
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 19, 2013, 09:58:35 AM
Do y'all think miracles and supernatural elements are necessary in religion? Is there no room for the materialist?
There's tons of room for materialist supplementation. It's all over the place. You just reject anything that's materialist if it points to the supernatural. You're a pickerer and chooserer. :lol:
Quote from: ResRev on October 19, 2013, 10:17:35 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 19, 2013, 09:58:35 AM
Do y'all think miracles and supernatural elements are necessary in religion? Is there no room for the materialist?
There's tons of room for materialist supplementation. It's all over the place. You just reject anything that's materialist if it points to the supernatural. You're a pickerer and chooserer. :lol:
What i mean is maybe there could be religion for modern man, something does not require belief in the supernatural or impose onerous rules. Maybe something that gives only the art, music, and fellowship.
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 19, 2013, 10:24:52 AM
Quote from: ResRev on October 19, 2013, 10:17:35 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 19, 2013, 09:58:35 AM
Do y'all think miracles and supernatural elements are necessary in religion? Is there no room for the materialist?
There's tons of room for materialist supplementation. It's all over the place. You just reject anything that's materialist if it points to the supernatural. You're a pickerer and chooserer. :lol:
What i mean is maybe there could be religion for modern man, something does not require belief in the supernatural or impose onerous rules. Maybe something that gives only the art, music, and fellowship.
You could start your own religion and save on taxes.
Quote from: per_passionem_eius on October 19, 2013, 10:30:04 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 19, 2013, 10:24:52 AM
Quote from: ResRev on October 19, 2013, 10:17:35 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 19, 2013, 09:58:35 AM
Do y'all think miracles and supernatural elements are necessary in religion? Is there no room for the materialist?
There's tons of room for materialist supplementation. It's all over the place. You just reject anything that's materialist if it points to the supernatural. You're a pickerer and chooserer. :lol:
What i mean is maybe there could be religion for modern man, something does not require belief in the supernatural or impose onerous rules. Maybe something that gives only the art, music, and fellowship.
You could start your own religion and save on taxes.
I like it. Maybe the Objectivist Church. Our holy scripture will be Atlas Shrugged.
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 19, 2013, 10:24:52 AM
Quote from: ResRev on October 19, 2013, 10:17:35 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 19, 2013, 09:58:35 AM
Do y'all think miracles and supernatural elements are necessary in religion? Is there no room for the materialist?
There's tons of room for materialist supplementation. It's all over the place. You just reject anything that's materialist if it points to the supernatural. You're a pickerer and chooserer. :lol:
What i mean is maybe there could be religion for modern man, something does not require belief in the supernatural or impose onerous rules. Maybe something that gives only the art, music, and fellowship.
Wow. New and edgy. Daring. It's only been tried a few times in history but I heard it always goes
really, really well. /sarc
I will pray for you. *Over and out*
Hey, speak of the devil: ;)
http://youtu.be/3ZjVzra9vQ8
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 19, 2013, 09:53:23 AM
Quote from: RobertJS on October 19, 2013, 09:49:54 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 19, 2013, 09:36:11 AM
Quote from: Basilios on October 19, 2013, 08:58:08 AM
This is all they need to know.
That the Christian life is not about the assent of the intellect but the consent of the heart. It is being in love with a person. No amount of debate will make you see that, just like no debate could make you automatically fall in love with a stranger. No, you need to give your heart because He gave you His life. Is this something you want to do? Before all else this is the life of a Catholic - to be overwhelmingly in love. But you cannot love what you do not know, and you'll never know if youre stuck in empiricism because God is outside the created order. Faith is not irrational it is rational but love is neither it is super-rational. It goes beyond. And if you won't do that, if you refuse to give consent to the Holy Ghost working within you then no debate will produce any fruit because your ground is bare and soil without nutrients. God wants your heart not your mind. That's it. Ponder that on your forum and then come back in peace under a new name seeking truth not chatter. You'll see things differently.
This is well put and very honest. Faith isn't about an assent of the intellect. But, how does one believe in something that goes against his/her reason? I like the idea of empiricism, it makes sense.
No, you don't like the idea of empiricism. You just ignored the points in my previous message including the healing at Lourdes.
I haven't seen the evidence, so I don't know what to think about it.
Do you doubt all the things in the
Guinness Book of World Records because you have not personally experienced them with your own senses?
And, do you consider logic/reason part of your senses?
Quote from: RobertJS on October 19, 2013, 11:51:28 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 19, 2013, 09:53:23 AM
Quote from: RobertJS on October 19, 2013, 09:49:54 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 19, 2013, 09:36:11 AM
Quote from: Basilios on October 19, 2013, 08:58:08 AM
This is all they need to know.
That the Christian life is not about the assent of the intellect but the consent of the heart. It is being in love with a person. No amount of debate will make you see that, just like no debate could make you automatically fall in love with a stranger. No, you need to give your heart because He gave you His life. Is this something you want to do? Before all else this is the life of a Catholic - to be overwhelmingly in love. But you cannot love what you do not know, and you'll never know if youre stuck in empiricism because God is outside the created order. Faith is not irrational it is rational but love is neither it is super-rational. It goes beyond. And if you won't do that, if you refuse to give consent to the Holy Ghost working within you then no debate will produce any fruit because your ground is bare and soil without nutrients. God wants your heart not your mind. That's it. Ponder that on your forum and then come back in peace under a new name seeking truth not chatter. You'll see things differently.
This is well put and very honest. Faith isn't about an assent of the intellect. But, how does one believe in something that goes against his/her reason? I like the idea of empiricism, it makes sense.
No, you don't like the idea of empiricism. You just ignored the points in my previous message including the healing at Lourdes.
I haven't seen the evidence, so I don't know what to think about it.
Do you doubt all the things in the Guinness Book of World Records because you have not personally experienced them with your own senses?
And, do you consider logic/reason part of your senses?
Guinness records its records methodically, so I trust them. Further, their claims are not so extraordinary that they require great evidence. The most important thing is that the veracity of Jesus and his claims are very important. That is not true for Guinness. Western society rests upon Jesus, not Guinness.
The "proof" thing is just a sideshow. To those who believe, no proof is necessary, blah, blah, blah.
When my son was a teenager he said to me, If Jesus wants us to know he's God and he has these sacraments for us, why doesn't he just come down to earth and tell us so? Hmmmm?
I said, He did. We killed him.
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 19, 2013, 01:30:20 PM
Quote from: RobertJS on October 19, 2013, 11:51:28 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 19, 2013, 09:53:23 AM
Quote from: RobertJS on October 19, 2013, 09:49:54 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 19, 2013, 09:36:11 AM
Quote from: Basilios on October 19, 2013, 08:58:08 AM
This is all they need to know.
That the Christian life is not about the assent of the intellect but the consent of the heart. It is being in love with a person. No amount of debate will make you see that, just like no debate could make you automatically fall in love with a stranger. No, you need to give your heart because He gave you His life. Is this something you want to do? Before all else this is the life of a Catholic - to be overwhelmingly in love. But you cannot love what you do not know, and you'll never know if youre stuck in empiricism because God is outside the created order. Faith is not irrational it is rational but love is neither it is super-rational. It goes beyond. And if you won't do that, if you refuse to give consent to the Holy Ghost working within you then no debate will produce any fruit because your ground is bare and soil without nutrients. God wants your heart not your mind. That's it. Ponder that on your forum and then come back in peace under a new name seeking truth not chatter. You'll see things differently.
This is well put and very honest. Faith isn't about an assent of the intellect. But, how does one believe in something that goes against his/her reason? I like the idea of empiricism, it makes sense.
No, you don't like the idea of empiricism. You just ignored the points in my previous message including the healing at Lourdes.
I haven't seen the evidence, so I don't know what to think about it.
Do you doubt all the things in the Guinness Book of World Records because you have not personally experienced them with your own senses?
And, do you consider logic/reason part of your senses?
Guinness records its records methodically, so I trust them. Further, their claims are not so extraordinary that they require great evidence. The most important thing is that the veracity of Jesus and his claims are very important. That is not true for Guinness. Western society rests upon Jesus, not Guinness.
Yes, but did you personally
see them record it methodically?
Yes,
trust is what is called
human faith. You believe without seeing.
Do you also trust the conclusions of logic and reason?
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 19, 2013, 09:36:11 AM
Quote from: Basilios on October 19, 2013, 08:58:08 AM
This is all they need to know.
That the Christian life is not about the assent of the intellect but the consent of the heart. It is being in love with a person. No amount of debate will make you see that, just like no debate could make you automatically fall in love with a stranger. No, you need to give your heart because He gave you His life. Is this something you want to do? Before all else this is the life of a Catholic - to be overwhelmingly in love. But you cannot love what you do not know, and you'll never know if youre stuck in empiricism because God is outside the created order. Faith is not irrational it is rational but love is neither it is super-rational. It goes beyond. And if you won't do that, if you refuse to give consent to the Holy Ghost working within you then no debate will produce any fruit because your ground is bare and soil without nutrients. God wants your heart not your mind. That's it. Ponder that on your forum and then come back in peace under a new name seeking truth not chatter. You'll see things differently.
This is well put and very honest. Faith isn't about an assent of the intellect. But, how does one believe in something that goes against his/her reason? I like the idea of empiricism, it makes sense.
No you dont because you reject the existence of Truth.
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on October 19, 2013, 03:03:20 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 19, 2013, 09:36:11 AM
Quote from: Basilios on October 19, 2013, 08:58:08 AM
This is all they need to know.
That the Christian life is not about the assent of the intellect but the consent of the heart. It is being in love with a person. No amount of debate will make you see that, just like no debate could make you automatically fall in love with a stranger. No, you need to give your heart because He gave you His life. Is this something you want to do? Before all else this is the life of a Catholic - to be overwhelmingly in love. But you cannot love what you do not know, and you'll never know if youre stuck in empiricism because God is outside the created order. Faith is not irrational it is rational but love is neither it is super-rational. It goes beyond. And if you won't do that, if you refuse to give consent to the Holy Ghost working within you then no debate will produce any fruit because your ground is bare and soil without nutrients. God wants your heart not your mind. That's it. Ponder that on your forum and then come back in peace under a new name seeking truth not chatter. You'll see things differently.
This is well put and very honest. Faith isn't about an assent of the intellect. But, how does one believe in something that goes against his/her reason? I like the idea of empiricism, it makes sense.
No you dont because you reject the existence of Truth.
That's not possible. A statement denying truth is self defeating.
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 19, 2013, 03:14:38 PM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on October 19, 2013, 03:03:20 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 19, 2013, 09:36:11 AM
Quote from: Basilios on October 19, 2013, 08:58:08 AM
This is all they need to know.
That the Christian life is not about the assent of the intellect but the consent of the heart. It is being in love with a person. No amount of debate will make you see that, just like no debate could make you automatically fall in love with a stranger. No, you need to give your heart because He gave you His life. Is this something you want to do? Before all else this is the life of a Catholic - to be overwhelmingly in love. But you cannot love what you do not know, and you'll never know if youre stuck in empiricism because God is outside the created order. Faith is not irrational it is rational but love is neither it is super-rational. It goes beyond. And if you won't do that, if you refuse to give consent to the Holy Ghost working within you then no debate will produce any fruit because your ground is bare and soil without nutrients. God wants your heart not your mind. That's it. Ponder that on your forum and then come back in peace under a new name seeking truth not chatter. You'll see things differently.
This is well put and very honest. Faith isn't about an assent of the intellect. But, how does one believe in something that goes against his/her reason? I like the idea of empiricism, it makes sense.
No you dont because you reject the existence of Truth.
That's not possible. A statement denying truth is self defeating.
You deny God who is Truth. You cant have "No God...but absolute Truth" That is self defeating. Of course reading you posts you posited that Nature is god...so your still playing cat and mouse...truth is a chewtoy for you.
Quote from: nmoerbeek on October 18, 2013, 04:22:27 PM
I took the invitation and was disappointed
Well what on earth did you expect?
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on October 19, 2013, 03:16:52 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 19, 2013, 03:14:38 PM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on October 19, 2013, 03:03:20 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 19, 2013, 09:36:11 AM
Quote from: Basilios on October 19, 2013, 08:58:08 AM
This is all they need to know.
That the Christian life is not about the assent of the intellect but the consent of the heart. It is being in love with a person. No amount of debate will make you see that, just like no debate could make you automatically fall in love with a stranger. No, you need to give your heart because He gave you His life. Is this something you want to do? Before all else this is the life of a Catholic - to be overwhelmingly in love. But you cannot love what you do not know, and you'll never know if youre stuck in empiricism because God is outside the created order. Faith is not irrational it is rational but love is neither it is super-rational. It goes beyond. And if you won't do that, if you refuse to give consent to the Holy Ghost working within you then no debate will produce any fruit because your ground is bare and soil without nutrients. God wants your heart not your mind. That's it. Ponder that on your forum and then come back in peace under a new name seeking truth not chatter. You'll see things differently.
This is well put and very honest. Faith isn't about an assent of the intellect. But, how does one believe in something that goes against his/her reason? I like the idea of empiricism, it makes sense.
No you dont because you reject the existence of Truth.
That's not possible. A statement denying truth is self defeating.
You deny God who is Truth. You cant have "No God...but absolute Truth" That is self defeating. Of course reading you posts you posited that Nature is god...so your still playing cat and mouse...truth is a chewtoy for you.
Theists don't own the concept of truth. There is no reason why man can't come to know truth through reason informed by his senses. The difference between you and me is how we believe truth is acquired, not on its existence.
Thats a fav atheist line...Theists dont own the concept of truth. Disregarding the fact that its a nonsensical statement....I agree.....Catholics dont own a concept of truth. Truth is not a concept to us it is a reality...a reality in the person of Jesus Christ who IS the TRUTH. Not a concept but in fact the thing itself. When you assume the position that there is no intelligent creator (God) you deny the very ability to know anything. You have in essence said that I make my own truths....soooo if you can make your own truths...so can everyone else.....sooo there is no way that you can be sure of what another knows as truth. To us an omnipotent creator IS Truth...and because we are his creations this truth can be known and not only that we can have full confidence( from Latin confidentia, from confidentem (nominative confidens- "firmly trusting, bold," present participle of confidere "to have full trust or reliance,") in it. Ultimately the truths you defend you can only trust so far. And further when your truths dont pan out you must resort to - as I said before- cat like self deception. You have yet to see the points made by many that you use terms that dont fit your athiest viewpoint...terms like : dignity,justice,fairness, etc. Yes you have a concept of truth,,,Theists---or at least Catholics have the actual Truth. (Medieval Latin conceptum "draft, abstract," in classical Latin "(a thing) conceived,")
Vox, can a man know something he hasn't experienced with his senses? If we found a man living deep in the African jungle and had never seen a car before, could he possibly imagine a car? I contend that it is not possible to know something except it come into the mind through the senses, once there it can be processed by the reason. What say ye?
P.S. Nice use of the latin, ????.
I doubt vox is saying that knowledge doesn't come from the senses. I think he's just rushing you to accept Divine Revelation before you're even willing to accept as reasonable the conclusion based on your sense knowledge of the world and your alleged love of reason, that it had to be created by one God. Vox, slow down, man! Unless all you're saying is that acceptance of Divine Revelation is the greatest help to the soul's reasoning powers, in which case I wholeheartedly agree. Of course Jesus is the Way, the Truth, the Life. But boy here doesn't want your sermons. Sorry, but he doesn't. IMHO.
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 19, 2013, 06:49:31 PM
Vox, can a man know something he hasn't experienced with his senses? If we found a man living deep in the African jungle and had never seen a car before, could he possibly imagine a car? I contend that it is not possible to know something except it come into the mind through the senses, once there it can be processed by the reason. What say ye?
P.S. Nice use of the latin, ????.
Yes there is knowing without the senses....consider this person (and read well her QUOTE:
(https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.houseofexposure.com%2Fblog%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F08%2FHelenKeller.jpg&hash=ef45a80b4e15a1fef3191e66e7ca2e60be73f4f0)
well you may argue that she had the sense of touch...but consider the intellect, wisdom and knowledge she expressed! just by feeling with skin flyboy? GMAB! you know that the word educate is related to educere "bring out, lead forth," from ex- "out" (see ex-) + ducere "to lead".....I homeschooled my kids (with my wife of course God bless her) I saw first hand that when we educate we do not stick knowledge into people through the senses...but we EXCITE that knowing that is already there...we bring forth....we suss out...we cultivate. God made us...He infuses us with all necessary Truth as His image...His world excites and draws out our knowledge for His glory and our benefit.
Quote from: per_passionem_eius on October 19, 2013, 07:55:14 PM
I doubt vox is saying that knowledge doesn't come from the senses. I think he's just rushing you to accept Divine Revelation before you're even willing to accept as reasonable the conclusion based on your sense knowledge of the world and your alleged love of reason, that it had to be created by one God. Vox, slow down, man! Unless all you're saying is that acceptance of Divine Revelation is the greatest help to the soul's reasoning powers, in which case I wholeheartedly agree. Of course Jesus is the Way, the Truth, the Life. But boy here doesn't want your sermons. Sorry, but he doesn't. IMHO.
Excuse me PPE Ive been with flyboy here since his first posts and he has yet to prove his sincerity...he was even caught at it by the mods....he recanted and is now back....but even so he refuses to see the contradictions in his positions. Im sure he is well fine with the speed of my approach and I could care less if he wants a sermon or not....he certainly isnt looking for the capital T truth...at least not yet. To paraphrase harriet tubman.....if I couldve convince more people they were slaves...they couldve had freedom.
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 19, 2013, 09:36:11 AM
This is well put and very honest. Faith isn't about an assent of the intellect. But, how does one believe in something that goes against his/her reason? I like the idea of empiricism, it makes sense.
Just popping in here, but, St. Thomas Aquinas defined the theological virtue of faith as "the act of the intellect assenting to a Divine truth owing to the movement of the will, which is itself moved by the grace of God."
Quote taken from the faith entry at newadvent.org.
Quote from: Kaesekopf on October 19, 2013, 10:18:21 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 19, 2013, 09:36:11 AM
This is well put and very honest. Faith isn't about an assent of the intellect. But, how does one believe in something that goes against his/her reason? I like the idea of empiricism, it makes sense.
Just popping in here, but, St. Thomas Aquinas defined the theological virtue of faith as "the act of the intellect assenting to a Divine truth owing to the movement of the will, which is itself moved by the grace of God."
Quote taken from the faith entry at newadvent.org.
Great quote. St. Thomas was in a famous debate on this issue. His opponent claimed that the Catholic Faith was irrational, but that Catholics should accept the faith anyway. St. Thomas argued that the faith was not irrational and that faith and reason need to go together. St. Thomas famously accused his opponent of cleaving man's mind in two. Do y'all know the name of St. Thomas' opponent?
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on October 19, 2013, 08:07:47 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 19, 2013, 06:49:31 PM
Vox, can a man know something he hasn't experienced with his senses? If we found a man living deep in the African jungle and had never seen a car before, could he possibly imagine a car? I contend that it is not possible to know something except it come into the mind through the senses, once there it can be processed by the reason. What say ye?
P.S. Nice use of the latin, ????.
Yes there is knowing without the senses....consider this person (and read well her QUOTE:
(https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.houseofexposure.com%2Fblog%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F08%2FHelenKeller.jpg&hash=ef45a80b4e15a1fef3191e66e7ca2e60be73f4f0)
well you may argue that she had the sense of touch...but consider the intellect, wisdom and knowledge she expressed! just by feeling with skin flyboy? GMAB! you know that the word educate is related to educere "bring out, lead forth," from ex- "out" (see ex-) + ducere "to lead".....I homeschooled my kids (with my wife of course God bless her) I saw first hand that when we educate we do not stick knowledge into people through the senses...but we EXCITE that knowing that is already there...we bring forth....we suss out...we cultivate. God made us...He infuses us with all necessary Truth as His image...His world excites and draws out our knowledge for His glory and our benefit.
A child can be excited to learn about his/her environment. But that child must still use use his/her senses to gain knowledge. If there is any knowledge already in a child's head that didn't come by the senses, the child must have been born with that knowledge. Now, how can a child learn be born with any innate knowledge? If a child were born deprived of all five senses, how much knowledge would you expect that child to have? Anyway you cut it, there is no way of getting around the need for knowledge to originate in the senses.
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 20, 2013, 12:18:17 AM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on October 19, 2013, 08:07:47 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 19, 2013, 06:49:31 PM
Vox, can a man know something he hasn't experienced with his senses? If we found a man living deep in the African jungle and had never seen a car before, could he possibly imagine a car? I contend that it is not possible to know something except it come into the mind through the senses, once there it can be processed by the reason. What say ye?
P.S. Nice use of the latin, ????.
Yes there is knowing without the senses....consider this person (and read well her QUOTE:
(https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.houseofexposure.com%2Fblog%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F08%2FHelenKeller.jpg&hash=ef45a80b4e15a1fef3191e66e7ca2e60be73f4f0)
well you may argue that she had the sense of touch...but consider the intellect, wisdom and knowledge she expressed! just by feeling with skin flyboy? GMAB! you know that the word educate is related to educere "bring out, lead forth," from ex- "out" (see ex-) + ducere "to lead".....I homeschooled my kids (with my wife of course God bless her) I saw first hand that when we educate we do not stick knowledge into people through the senses...but we EXCITE that knowing that is already there...we bring forth....we suss out...we cultivate. God made us...He infuses us with all necessary Truth as His image...His world excites and draws out our knowledge for His glory and our benefit.
A child can be excited to learn about his/her environment. But that child must still use use his/her senses to gain knowledge. If there is any knowledge already in a child's head that didn't come by the senses, the child must have been born with that knowledge. Now, how can a child learn be born with any innate knowledge? If a child were born deprived of all five senses, how much knowledge would you expect that child to have? Anyway you cut it, there is no way of getting around the need for knowledge to originate in the senses.
You are full of contradictions. What you just typed is directly opposed to your prior Cartesian dualistic views and even in some ways your materialist views. The above is the beginning of thomist philosophy at it's most fundamental level.
Honestly I think you're here to troll and play around. Not only because you constantly contradict yourself and speak as if nobody has proved otherwise, but you refuse to accept that this religion requires more than intellectual assent. Go to adoration for a week and then come back and I'll be more inclined to tackle your problems. Ad it stands this is more like those ecumenical meetings where nobody is actually thinking of converting they just want people to listen to their doctrine. It's wheel spinning and boring. You don't want to convert or even understand. You want to argue. No thanks Jeff.
Quote from: Basilios on October 20, 2013, 12:37:41 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 20, 2013, 12:18:17 AM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on October 19, 2013, 08:07:47 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 19, 2013, 06:49:31 PM
Vox, can a man know something he hasn't experienced with his senses? If we found a man living deep in the African jungle and had never seen a car before, could he possibly imagine a car? I contend that it is not possible to know something except it come into the mind through the senses, once there it can be processed by the reason. What say ye?
P.S. Nice use of the latin, ????.
Yes there is knowing without the senses....consider this person (and read well her QUOTE:
(https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.houseofexposure.com%2Fblog%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F08%2FHelenKeller.jpg&hash=ef45a80b4e15a1fef3191e66e7ca2e60be73f4f0)
well you may argue that she had the sense of touch...but consider the intellect, wisdom and knowledge she expressed! just by feeling with skin flyboy? GMAB! you know that the word educate is related to educere "bring out, lead forth," from ex- "out" (see ex-) + ducere "to lead".....I homeschooled my kids (with my wife of course God bless her) I saw first hand that when we educate we do not stick knowledge into people through the senses...but we EXCITE that knowing that is already there...we bring forth....we suss out...we cultivate. God made us...He infuses us with all necessary Truth as His image...His world excites and draws out our knowledge for His glory and our benefit.
A child can be excited to learn about his/her environment. But that child must still use use his/her senses to gain knowledge. If there is any knowledge already in a child's head that didn't come by the senses, the child must have been born with that knowledge. Now, how can a child learn be born with any innate knowledge? If a child were born deprived of all five senses, how much knowledge would you expect that child to have? Anyway you cut it, there is no way of getting around the need for knowledge to originate in the senses.
You are full of contradictions. What you just typed is directly opposed to your prior Cartesian dualistic views and even in some ways your materialist views. The above is the beginning of thomist philosophy at it's most fundamental level.
Honestly I think you're here to troll and play around. Not only because you constantly contradict yourself and speak as if nobody has proved otherwise, but you refuse to accept that this religion requires more than intellectual assent. Go to adoration for a week and then come back and I'll be more inclined to tackle your problems. Ad it stands this is more like those ecumenical meetings where nobody is actually thinking of converting they just want people to listen to their doctrine. It's wheel spinning and boring. You don't want to convert or even understand. You want to argue. No thanks Jeff.
How have I contradicted myself?
Waste of time.
We are to present truth, carefully feeling out the most effective manner of doing so, but ultimately the hearer must respond. He chooses with his will and actions.
One who claims to disbelieve in his Creator has severe issues as anyone who dissents from the Catholic faith is to some degree deficient in good will. No amount of debating, arguing, Internet bantor etc. is going to 'win over' a will.
Grace flows abundantly to those who open their ports to it. Prayer and meditation on our first cause are primary ways of doing this. Attempting to rationalize out God and win belief that way is popular with traditionalists because Thomism is taken as identical to orthodoxy, but in truth it doesn't plan out in the real world.
Asking someone to pray the Ave Maria three times a day will be many times more effective than some atheist Internet forum.
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 20, 2013, 12:39:53 AM
Quote from: Basilios on October 20, 2013, 12:37:41 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 20, 2013, 12:18:17 AM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on October 19, 2013, 08:07:47 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 19, 2013, 06:49:31 PM
Vox, can a man know something he hasn't experienced with his senses? If we found a man living deep in the African jungle and had never seen a car before, could he possibly imagine a car? I contend that it is not possible to know something except it come into the mind through the senses, once there it can be processed by the reason. What say ye?
P.S. Nice use of the latin, ????.
Yes there is knowing without the senses....consider this person (and read well her QUOTE:
(https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.houseofexposure.com%2Fblog%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F08%2FHelenKeller.jpg&hash=ef45a80b4e15a1fef3191e66e7ca2e60be73f4f0)
well you may argue that she had the sense of touch...but consider the intellect, wisdom and knowledge she expressed! just by feeling with skin flyboy? GMAB! you know that the word educate is related to educere "bring out, lead forth," from ex- "out" (see ex-) + ducere "to lead".....I homeschooled my kids (with my wife of course God bless her) I saw first hand that when we educate we do not stick knowledge into people through the senses...but we EXCITE that knowing that is already there...we bring forth....we suss out...we cultivate. God made us...He infuses us with all necessary Truth as His image...His world excites and draws out our knowledge for His glory and our benefit.
A child can be excited to learn about his/her environment. But that child must still use use his/her senses to gain knowledge. If there is any knowledge already in a child's head that didn't come by the senses, the child must have been born with that knowledge. Now, how can a child learn be born with any innate knowledge? If a child were born deprived of all five senses, how much knowledge would you expect that child to have? Anyway you cut it, there is no way of getting around the need for knowledge to originate in the senses.
You are full of contradictions. What you just typed is directly opposed to your prior Cartesian dualistic views and even in some ways your materialist views. The above is the beginning of thomist philosophy at it's most fundamental level.
Honestly I think you're here to troll and play around. Not only because you constantly contradict yourself and speak as if nobody has proved otherwise, but you refuse to accept that this religion requires more than intellectual assent. Go to adoration for a week and then come back and I'll be more inclined to tackle your problems. Ad it stands this is more like those ecumenical meetings where nobody is actually thinking of converting they just want people to listen to their doctrine. It's wheel spinning and boring. You don't want to convert or even understand. You want to argue. No thanks Jeff.
How have I contradicted myself?
By using terms of the theist while insisting you are an atheist. And if you were really seeking truth you would have to acknowledge that Helen Keller defeats you assertion that ALL knowledge comes thru the senses. Any one with children can tell you that very young children know much more than their enviroment has shown them....
To be clear I didnt say we were born knowing everthing...but we are born with a knowledge of the existance of truth and the knowledge that we are ourselves.seperate from the other.
Crimson, I have asked you a couple of questions in my last response, and you have been ignoring it.
Quote from: RobertJS on October 19, 2013, 01:54:01 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 19, 2013, 01:30:20 PM
Quote from: RobertJS on October 19, 2013, 11:51:28 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 19, 2013, 09:53:23 AM
Quote from: RobertJS on October 19, 2013, 09:49:54 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 19, 2013, 09:36:11 AM
Quote from: Basilios on October 19, 2013, 08:58:08 AM
This is all they need to know.
That the Christian life is not about the assent of the intellect but the consent of the heart. It is being in love with a person. No amount of debate will make you see that, just like no debate could make you automatically fall in love with a stranger. No, you need to give your heart because He gave you His life. Is this something you want to do? Before all else this is the life of a Catholic - to be overwhelmingly in love. But you cannot love what you do not know, and you'll never know if youre stuck in empiricism because God is outside the created order. Faith is not irrational it is rational but love is neither it is super-rational. It goes beyond. And if you won't do that, if you refuse to give consent to the Holy Ghost working within you then no debate will produce any fruit because your ground is bare and soil without nutrients. God wants your heart not your mind. That's it. Ponder that on your forum and then come back in peace under a new name seeking truth not chatter. You'll see things differently.
This is well put and very honest. Faith isn't about an assent of the intellect. But, how does one believe in something that goes against his/her reason? I like the idea of empiricism, it makes sense.
No, you don't like the idea of empiricism. You just ignored the points in my previous message including the healing at Lourdes.
I haven't seen the evidence, so I don't know what to think about it.
Do you doubt all the things in the Guinness Book of World Records because you have not personally experienced them with your own senses?
And, do you consider logic/reason part of your senses?
Guinness records its records methodically, so I trust them. Further, their claims are not so extraordinary that they require great evidence. The most important thing is that the veracity of Jesus and his claims are very important. That is not true for Guinness. Western society rests upon Jesus, not Guinness.
Yes, but did you personally see them record it methodically?
Yes, trust is what is called human faith. You believe without seeing.
Do you also trust the conclusions of logic and reason?
No, I did not see Guinness record the records.
Yes, I trust the conclusions of logic and reason. I can trust based on knowledge. Trust and faith are not the same thing. I trust my reason and my logic based on input from my senses.
Guinness could be fooling me, that's true. If they are, it really doesn't matter, it would be no skin off my back. If they were asking for money or trying to get me to accept a certain world view, I would be more suspicious.
Quote from: KingTheoden on October 20, 2013, 12:43:33 AM
Waste of time.
We are to present truth, carefully feeling out the most effective manner of doing so, but ultimately the hearer must respond. He chooses with his will and actions.
One who claims to disbelieve in his Creator has severe issues as anyone who dissents from the Catholic faith is to some degree deficient in good will. No amount of debating, arguing, Internet bantor etc. is going to 'win over' a will.
Grace flows abundantly to those who open their ports to it. Prayer and meditation on our first cause are primary ways of doing this. Attempting to rationalize out God and win belief that way is popular with traditionalists because Thomism is taken as identical to orthodoxy, but in truth it doesn't plan out in the real world.
Asking someone to pray the Ave Maria three times a day will be many times more effective than some atheist Internet forum.
So true.
The Conversion of Ratisbonne.
http://www.marypages.com/ratisbonneEng1.htm
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 20, 2013, 08:02:17 AM
Quote from: RobertJS on October 19, 2013, 01:54:01 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 19, 2013, 01:30:20 PM
Quote from: RobertJS on October 19, 2013, 11:51:28 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 19, 2013, 09:53:23 AM
Quote from: RobertJS on October 19, 2013, 09:49:54 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 19, 2013, 09:36:11 AM
Quote from: Basilios on October 19, 2013, 08:58:08 AM
This is all they need to know.
That the Christian life is not about the assent of the intellect but the consent of the heart. It is being in love with a person. No amount of debate will make you see that, just like no debate could make you automatically fall in love with a stranger. No, you need to give your heart because He gave you His life. Is this something you want to do? Before all else this is the life of a Catholic - to be overwhelmingly in love. But you cannot love what you do not know, and you'll never know if youre stuck in empiricism because God is outside the created order. Faith is not irrational it is rational but love is neither it is super-rational. It goes beyond. And if you won't do that, if you refuse to give consent to the Holy Ghost working within you then no debate will produce any fruit because your ground is bare and soil without nutrients. God wants your heart not your mind. That's it. Ponder that on your forum and then come back in peace under a new name seeking truth not chatter. You'll see things differently.
This is well put and very honest. Faith isn't about an assent of the intellect. But, how does one believe in something that goes against his/her reason? I like the idea of empiricism, it makes sense.
No, you don't like the idea of empiricism. You just ignored the points in my previous message including the healing at Lourdes.
I haven't seen the evidence, so I don't know what to think about it.
Do you doubt all the things in the Guinness Book of World Records because you have not personally experienced them with your own senses?
And, do you consider logic/reason part of your senses?
Guinness records its records methodically, so I trust them. Further, their claims are not so extraordinary that they require great evidence. The most important thing is that the veracity of Jesus and his claims are very important. That is not true for Guinness. Western society rests upon Jesus, not Guinness.
Yes, but did you personally see them record it methodically?
Yes, trust is what is called human faith. You believe without seeing.
Do you also trust the conclusions of logic and reason?
No, I did not see Guinness record the records.
Yes, I trust the conclusions of logic and reason. I can trust based on knowledge. Trust and faith are not the same thing. I trust my reason and my logic based on input from my senses.
Guinness could be fooling me, that's true. If they are, it really doesn't matter, it would be no skin off my back. If they were asking for money or trying to get me to accept a certain world view, I would be more suspicious.
Trust is a synonym for faith. Look it up.
So, it looks like when there are consequences to you personally, then you will distrust. You trust Antartica exists, but if it doesn't, "no skin off your back". Yet, you
believe without seeing it yourself.
It comes down to
consequences.
Why would you suspect people of being liars when they, "ask for money"?
Quote from: RobertJS on October 20, 2013, 09:07:51 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 20, 2013, 08:02:17 AM
Quote from: RobertJS on October 19, 2013, 01:54:01 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 19, 2013, 01:30:20 PM
Quote from: RobertJS on October 19, 2013, 11:51:28 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 19, 2013, 09:53:23 AM
Quote from: RobertJS on October 19, 2013, 09:49:54 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 19, 2013, 09:36:11 AM
Quote from: Basilios on October 19, 2013, 08:58:08 AM
This is all they need to know.
That the Christian life is not about the assent of the intellect but the consent of the heart. It is being in love with a person. No amount of debate will make you see that, just like no debate could make you automatically fall in love with a stranger. No, you need to give your heart because He gave you His life. Is this something you want to do? Before all else this is the life of a Catholic - to be overwhelmingly in love. But you cannot love what you do not know, and you'll never know if youre stuck in empiricism because God is outside the created order. Faith is not irrational it is rational but love is neither it is super-rational. It goes beyond. And if you won't do that, if you refuse to give consent to the Holy Ghost working within you then no debate will produce any fruit because your ground is bare and soil without nutrients. God wants your heart not your mind. That's it. Ponder that on your forum and then come back in peace under a new name seeking truth not chatter. You'll see things differently.
This is well put and very honest. Faith isn't about an assent of the intellect. But, how does one believe in something that goes against his/her reason? I like the idea of empiricism, it makes sense.
No, you don't like the idea of empiricism. You just ignored the points in my previous message including the healing at Lourdes.
I haven't seen the evidence, so I don't know what to think about it.
Do you doubt all the things in the Guinness Book of World Records because you have not personally experienced them with your own senses?
And, do you consider logic/reason part of your senses?
Guinness records its records methodically, so I trust them. Further, their claims are not so extraordinary that they require great evidence. The most important thing is that the veracity of Jesus and his claims are very important. That is not true for Guinness. Western society rests upon Jesus, not Guinness.
Yes, but did you personally see them record it methodically?
Yes, trust is what is called human faith. You believe without seeing.
Do you also trust the conclusions of logic and reason?
No, I did not see Guinness record the records.
Yes, I trust the conclusions of logic and reason. I can trust based on knowledge. Trust and faith are not the same thing. I trust my reason and my logic based on input from my senses.
Guinness could be fooling me, that's true. If they are, it really doesn't matter, it would be no skin off my back. If they were asking for money or trying to get me to accept a certain world view, I would be more suspicious.
Trust is a synonym for faith. Look it up.
So, it looks like when there are consequences to you personally, then you will distrust. You trust Antartica exists, but if it doesn't, "no skin off your back". Yet, you believe without seeing it yourself.
It comes down to consequences.
Why would you suspect people of being liars when they, "ask for money"?
Because if someone is not asking me for money or there is no danger to me, I don't really care if they are lying or not. The second this person asks for money I become skeptical. This would be true for a sales person, for example, as he might be pulling a scam.
I do believe Antarctica exists without seeing it, but I could go to Antarctica and prove it for myself. And if it did turn out that Antarctica didn't actually exist, it wouldn't really matter. There indeed would be no skin off my back.
1trust noun ?tr?st
: belief that someone or something is reliable, good, honest, effective, etc.
: an arrangement in which someone's property or money is legally held or managed by someone else or by an organization (such as a bank) for usually a set period of time
: an organization that results from the creation of a trust
1faith noun ?f?th
: strong belief or trust in someone or something
: belief in the existence of God : strong religious feelings or beliefs
: a system of religious beliefs
I suppose it depends on which definition you use, but yes, the two words are very similar.
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 20, 2013, 09:17:22 AMBecause if someone is not asking me for money or there is no danger to me, I don't really care if they are lying or not. The second this person asks for money I become skeptical. This would be true for a sales person, for example, as he might be pulling a scam.
I do believe Antarctica exists without seeing it, but I could go to Antarctica and prove it for myself. And if it did turn out that Antarctica didn't actually exist, it wouldn't really matter. There indeed would be no skin off my back.
Basically, your life is one of cynicism, and hypothetical fears of bad consequences. Yet, inconsistently,....
....when you die, and find out you were wrong about the existence of eternal hell....no skin off your back?
Quote from: RobertJS on October 20, 2013, 09:40:23 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 20, 2013, 09:17:22 AMBecause if someone is not asking me for money or there is no danger to me, I don't really care if they are lying or not. The second this person asks for money I become skeptical. This would be true for a sales person, for example, as he might be pulling a scam.
I do believe Antarctica exists without seeing it, but I could go to Antarctica and prove it for myself. And if it did turn out that Antarctica didn't actually exist, it wouldn't really matter. There indeed would be no skin off my back.
Basically, your life is one of cynicism, and hypothetical fears of bad consequences. Yet, inconsistently,....
....when you die, and find out you were wrong about the existence of eternal hell....no skin off your back?
No, then there would be an awful lot of skin off my back. But, would a good God really put me in hell just for questioning his existence. This is where I think Pascal got it all wrong. If I were to simply throw my hat in with God but never really make that intellectual assent, that would not be true faith, and it would be an insult to those who do have true faith. Louis IX got this right earlier by saying that he doubted that kind of person would get into heaven. If there be a God, which person do you think he would respect more, the man who truly questions but cannot come to the conclusion of his existence, or a man who never really questions but rather just tells himself he believes? If there be a God, surely he can see right through such a false faith.
No sincere seeker of God is left lost. You are however not sincere...the proof being in your siggy line.
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on October 20, 2013, 10:40:36 AM
No sincere seeker of God is left lost. You are however not sincere...the proof being in your siggy line.
Are you referring to the John Galt line, or the Latin?
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on October 20, 2013, 10:40:36 AM
No sincere seeker of God is left lost. You are however not sincere...the proof being in your siggy line.
That's from Atlas Shrugged. Objectivist philosophy. Quite popular in the republican party, even among the Christians there. Ron Paul, Paul Ryan, ... ?
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 20, 2013, 10:44:17 AM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on October 20, 2013, 10:40:36 AM
No sincere seeker of God is left lost. You are however not sincere...the proof being in your siggy line.
Are you referring to the John Galt line, or the Latin?
galt
Further you have yet to address how helen keller got where she was as a christian philosopher if the senses are the portals of all truth.
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 20, 2013, 09:51:52 AM
Quote from: RobertJS on October 20, 2013, 09:40:23 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 20, 2013, 09:17:22 AMBecause if someone is not asking me for money or there is no danger to me, I don't really care if they are lying or not. The second this person asks for money I become skeptical. This would be true for a sales person, for example, as he might be pulling a scam.
I do believe Antarctica exists without seeing it, but I could go to Antarctica and prove it for myself. And if it did turn out that Antarctica didn't actually exist, it wouldn't really matter. There indeed would be no skin off my back.
Basically, your life is one of cynicism, and hypothetical fears of bad consequences. Yet, inconsistently,....
....when you die, and find out you were wrong about the existence of eternal hell....no skin off your back?
No, then there would be an awful lot of skin off my back. But, would a good God really put me in hell just for questioning his existence. This is where I think Pascal got it all wrong. If I were to simply throw my hat in with God but never really make that intellectual assent, that would not be true faith, and it would be an insult to those who do have true faith. Louis IX got this right earlier by saying that he doubted that kind of person would get into heaven. If there be a God, which person do you think he would respect more, the man who truly questions but cannot come to the conclusion of his existence, or a man who never really questions but rather just tells himself he believes? If there be a God, surely he can see right through such a false faith.
God puts nobody in hell. Each person who goes there, wills himself there.
The thing is you freely will to assent to the existence of Antarctica, without seeing it. That is not a false human faith in the humans who told you of its existence.
You have admitted that where there is chance of a bad consequence, you will be suspicious and doubt in order to take the safer course to avoid that consequence. And when there is no consequence, you will believe other humans without seeing.
But you doubt the existence of hell, and the "if it exists" is a possible bad consequence...and you are doing the
exact opposite of what you admitted about bad consequence. You are not taking the safe course, but the reckless. This is not saying you should "hang your hat" on anything. It is saying to be open and have diligence on the side of safety.
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on October 20, 2013, 10:59:18 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 20, 2013, 10:44:17 AM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on October 20, 2013, 10:40:36 AM
No sincere seeker of God is left lost. You are however not sincere...the proof being in your siggy line.
Are you referring to the John Galt line, or the Latin?
galt
Further you have yet to address how helen keller got where she was as a christian philosopher if the senses are the portals of all truth.
Helen Keller had senses. She learned language by having someone sign words in one hand, while putting the thing the sign symbolized in the other hand. With no sense of touch, she would not have learned language.
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on October 20, 2013, 10:59:18 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 20, 2013, 10:44:17 AM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on October 20, 2013, 10:40:36 AM
No sincere seeker of God is left lost. You are however not sincere...the proof being in your siggy line.
Are you referring to the John Galt line, or the Latin?
galt
Further you have yet to address how helen keller got where she was as a christian philosopher if the senses are the portals of all truth.
Hellen Keller had other senses to communicate with besides hearing and sight. Your argument fails. Even the simple Morse code is a legitimate means of communication.
Quote from: RobertJS on October 20, 2013, 11:01:13 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 20, 2013, 09:51:52 AM
Quote from: RobertJS on October 20, 2013, 09:40:23 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 20, 2013, 09:17:22 AMBecause if someone is not asking me for money or there is no danger to me, I don't really care if they are lying or not. The second this person asks for money I become skeptical. This would be true for a sales person, for example, as he might be pulling a scam.
I do believe Antarctica exists without seeing it, but I could go to Antarctica and prove it for myself. And if it did turn out that Antarctica didn't actually exist, it wouldn't really matter. There indeed would be no skin off my back.
Basically, your life is one of cynicism, and hypothetical fears of bad consequences. Yet, inconsistently,....
....when you die, and find out you were wrong about the existence of eternal hell....no skin off your back?
No, then there would be an awful lot of skin off my back. But, would a good God really put me in hell just for questioning his existence. This is where I think Pascal got it all wrong. If I were to simply throw my hat in with God but never really make that intellectual assent, that would not be true faith, and it would be an insult to those who do have true faith. Louis IX got this right earlier by saying that he doubted that kind of person would get into heaven. If there be a God, which person do you think he would respect more, the man who truly questions but cannot come to the conclusion of his existence, or a man who never really questions but rather just tells himself he believes? If there be a God, surely he can see right through such a false faith.
God puts nobody in hell. Each person who goes there, wills himself there.
The thing is you freely will to assent to the existence of Antarctica, without seeing it. That is not a false human faith in the humans who told you of its existence.
You have admitted that where there is chance of a bad consequence, you will be suspicious and doubt in order to take the safer course to avoid that consequence. And when there is no consequence, you will believe other humans without seeing.
But you doubt the existence of hell, and the "if it exists" is a possible bad consequence...and you are doing the exact opposite of what you admitted about bad consequence. You are not taking the safe course, but the reckless. This is not saying you should "hang your hat" on anything. It is saying to be open and have diligence on the side of safety.
I am open to the possibility of hell, if I ever were to be given evidence of its existence I would believe in it.
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 20, 2013, 11:05:44 AM
Quote from: RobertJS on October 20, 2013, 11:01:13 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 20, 2013, 09:51:52 AM
Quote from: RobertJS on October 20, 2013, 09:40:23 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 20, 2013, 09:17:22 AMBecause if someone is not asking me for money or there is no danger to me, I don't really care if they are lying or not. The second this person asks for money I become skeptical. This would be true for a sales person, for example, as he might be pulling a scam.
I do believe Antarctica exists without seeing it, but I could go to Antarctica and prove it for myself. And if it did turn out that Antarctica didn't actually exist, it wouldn't really matter. There indeed would be no skin off my back.
Basically, your life is one of cynicism, and hypothetical fears of bad consequences. Yet, inconsistently,....
....when you die, and find out you were wrong about the existence of eternal hell....no skin off your back?
No, then there would be an awful lot of skin off my back. But, would a good God really put me in hell just for questioning his existence. This is where I think Pascal got it all wrong. If I were to simply throw my hat in with God but never really make that intellectual assent, that would not be true faith, and it would be an insult to those who do have true faith. Louis IX got this right earlier by saying that he doubted that kind of person would get into heaven. If there be a God, which person do you think he would respect more, the man who truly questions but cannot come to the conclusion of his existence, or a man who never really questions but rather just tells himself he believes? If there be a God, surely he can see right through such a false faith.
God puts nobody in hell. Each person who goes there, wills himself there.
The thing is you freely will to assent to the existence of Antarctica, without seeing it. That is not a false human faith in the humans who told you of its existence.
You have admitted that where there is chance of a bad consequence, you will be suspicious and doubt in order to take the safer course to avoid that consequence. And when there is no consequence, you will believe other humans without seeing.
But you doubt the existence of hell, and the "if it exists" is a possible bad consequence...and you are doing the exact opposite of what you admitted about bad consequence. You are not taking the safe course, but the reckless. This is not saying you should "hang your hat" on anything. It is saying to be open and have diligence on the side of safety.
I am open to the possibility of hell, if I ever were to be given evidence of its existence I would believe in it.
You have not been given evidence of Antarctica and yet you believe in it. And you make no comment about your contradiction in acting on the safe side for everything else, but not for the possibility of hell.
Quote from: RobertJS on October 20, 2013, 11:10:54 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 20, 2013, 11:05:44 AM
Quote from: RobertJS on October 20, 2013, 11:01:13 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 20, 2013, 09:51:52 AM
Quote from: RobertJS on October 20, 2013, 09:40:23 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 20, 2013, 09:17:22 AMBecause if someone is not asking me for money or there is no danger to me, I don't really care if they are lying or not. The second this person asks for money I become skeptical. This would be true for a sales person, for example, as he might be pulling a scam.
I do believe Antarctica exists without seeing it, but I could go to Antarctica and prove it for myself. And if it did turn out that Antarctica didn't actually exist, it wouldn't really matter. There indeed would be no skin off my back.
Basically, your life is one of cynicism, and hypothetical fears of bad consequences. Yet, inconsistently,....
....when you die, and find out you were wrong about the existence of eternal hell....no skin off your back?
No, then there would be an awful lot of skin off my back. But, would a good God really put me in hell just for questioning his existence. This is where I think Pascal got it all wrong. If I were to simply throw my hat in with God but never really make that intellectual assent, that would not be true faith, and it would be an insult to those who do have true faith. Louis IX got this right earlier by saying that he doubted that kind of person would get into heaven. If there be a God, which person do you think he would respect more, the man who truly questions but cannot come to the conclusion of his existence, or a man who never really questions but rather just tells himself he believes? If there be a God, surely he can see right through such a false faith.
God puts nobody in hell. Each person who goes there, wills himself there.
The thing is you freely will to assent to the existence of Antarctica, without seeing it. That is not a false human faith in the humans who told you of its existence.
You have admitted that where there is chance of a bad consequence, you will be suspicious and doubt in order to take the safer course to avoid that consequence. And when there is no consequence, you will believe other humans without seeing.
But you doubt the existence of hell, and the "if it exists" is a possible bad consequence...and you are doing the exact opposite of what you admitted about bad consequence. You are not taking the safe course, but the reckless. This is not saying you should "hang your hat" on anything. It is saying to be open and have diligence on the side of safety.
I am open to the possibility of hell, if I ever were to be given evidence of its existence I would believe in it.
You have not been given evidence of Antarctica and yet you believe in it. And you make no comment about your contradiction in acting on the safe side for everything else, but not for the possibility of hell.
Antarctica can be proven, it is a physical place. Is hell a physical place?
Quote from: RobertJS on October 20, 2013, 11:04:16 AM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on October 20, 2013, 10:59:18 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 20, 2013, 10:44:17 AM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on October 20, 2013, 10:40:36 AM
No sincere seeker of God is left lost. You are however not sincere...the proof being in your siggy line.
Are you referring to the John Galt line, or the Latin?
galt
Further you have yet to address how helen keller got where she was as a christian philosopher if the senses are the portals of all truth.
Hellen Keller had other senses to communicate with besides hearing and sight. Your argument fails. Even the simple Morse code is a legitimate means of communication.
It is not about this ...i accepted she had the sense of touch...and even smell i guess...problem is the very limited nature of what these touch methods can communicate compared to the profound truths she would later profess...imply pre existing truth...dont tell me you belive that all human knowledge even about ..self..God...right and wrong come from externals only! That is astounding for a supposed catholic. You just dont like me so you side with the atheist?
Im talking about how keller learned...not how she communicated what she learned.
My familiarity with Helen Keller is small, but the first thing I read when I look her up is this:
A prolific author, Keller was well-travelled and outspoken in her convictions. A member of the Socialist Party of America and the Industrial Workers of the World, she campaigned for women's suffrage, labor rights, socialism, and other radical left causes. (WP)
And then:
She is remembered as an advocate for people with disabilities, amid numerous other causes. She was a suffragist, a pacifist, an opponent of Woodrow Wilson, a radical socialist and a birth control supporter.
So, where did she learn this? Also pre-existing truth?
Quote from: Othmar on October 20, 2013, 11:31:59 AM
My familiarity with Helen Keller is small, but the first thing I read when I look her up is this:
A prolific author, Keller was well-travelled and outspoken in her convictions. A member of the Socialist Party of America and the Industrial Workers of the World, she campaigned for women's suffrage, labor rights, socialism, and other radical left causes. (WP)
And then:
She is remembered as an advocate for people with disabilities, amid numerous other causes. She was a suffragist, a pacifist, an opponent of Woodrow Wilson, a radical socialist and a birth control supporter.
So, where did she learn this? Also pre-existing truth?
[/quo
yes a warped vision of it...
Im not defending all her views...Im pointing out there is no way to offer profound truths of any kind simply by being taught to do so. I am very surprised to hear catholics rejecting the existinance of inherent truth. Shocking.
Complex truths come from simple truths, which come from the senses.
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on October 20, 2013, 11:40:44 AM
yes a warped vision of it...
Im not defending all her views...Im pointing out there is no way to offer profound truths of any kind simply by being taught to do so. I am very surprised to hear catholics rejecting the existinance of inherent truth. Shocking.
I'm rejecting the notion that she couldn't have learned from elsewhere.
Quote from: Othmar on October 20, 2013, 11:44:54 AM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on October 20, 2013, 11:40:44 AM
yes a warped vision of it...
Im not defending all her views...Im pointing out there is no way to offer profound truths of any kind simply by being taught to do so. I am very surprised to hear catholics rejecting the existinance of inherent truth. Shocking.
I'm rejecting the notion that she couldn't have learned from elsewhere.
So you accept fboys assertion that all truths come to human intellect from external sorces only?
This concept does not deny your God, he could speak to you through your senses.
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 20, 2013, 12:20:07 PM
This concept does not deny your God, he could speak to you through your senses.
how could you recognize what he spoke was true or that the agent teaching you is from God and can be trusted.
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on October 20, 2013, 12:25:53 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 20, 2013, 12:20:07 PM
This concept does not deny your God, he could speak to you through your senses.
how could you recognize what he spoke was true or that the agent teaching you is from God and can be trusted.
Are you saying that God speaks directly to your intellect?
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 20, 2013, 12:27:33 PM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on October 20, 2013, 12:25:53 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 20, 2013, 12:20:07 PM
This concept does not deny your God, he could speak to you through your senses.
how could you recognize what he spoke was true or that the agent teaching you is from God and can be trusted.
Are you saying that God speaks directly to your intellect?
Im sayin h es already there.
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on October 20, 2013, 12:38:59 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 20, 2013, 12:27:33 PM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on October 20, 2013, 12:25:53 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 20, 2013, 12:20:07 PM
This concept does not deny your God, he could speak to you through your senses.
how could you recognize what he spoke was true or that the agent teaching you is from God and can be trusted.
Are you saying that God speaks directly to your intellect?
Im sayin h es already there.
Okay, I'm starting to get it. Didn't God speak to Moses through his senses? Didn't God become man to speak to mankind through the senses?
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 20, 2013, 12:42:59 PM
... Didn't God become man to speak to mankind through the senses?
No, He became Man in order to take on our nature, offer Himself to the Father in Reparation for the sin of Man and re-establish the connection (ie. communion) between God and Man.
It's an act of Mercy that satisfies an infinite need for Justice.
As it says in the Mass He partakes of our humanity so we may partake in His Divinity.
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 20, 2013, 12:42:59 PM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on October 20, 2013, 12:38:59 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 20, 2013, 12:27:33 PM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on October 20, 2013, 12:25:53 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 20, 2013, 12:20:07 PM
This concept does not deny your God, he could speak to you through your senses.
how could you recognize what he spoke was true or that the agent teaching you is from God and can be trusted.
Are you saying that God speaks directly to your intellect?
Im sayin h es already there.
Okay, I'm starting to get it. Didn't God speak to Moses through his senses? Didn't God become man to speak to mankind through the senses?
NO gerard answers you.
I answer you for the previous point (oh your a slippery one you are)
(Rom 2:14-15) "For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: {15} Which show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)"
Quote from: Gerard on October 20, 2013, 01:39:10 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 20, 2013, 12:42:59 PM
... Didn't God become man to speak to mankind through the senses?
No, He became Man in order to take on our nature, offer Himself to the Father in Reparation for the sin of Man and re-establish the connection (ie. communion) between God and Man.
It's an act of Mercy that satisfies an infinite need for Justice.
As it says in the Mass He partakes of our humanity so we may partake in His Divinity.
Okay, that's right. But, wouldn't you say that his speaking to man through his senses resulted, even if that was not his main purpose?
And when Yahweh first spoke to Moses, didn't he do so through the burning bush? I just mean to show that the concept of knowledge necessarily coming through the senses in no way disproves God.
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 20, 2013, 01:47:56 PM
Quote from: Gerard on October 20, 2013, 01:39:10 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 20, 2013, 12:42:59 PM
... Didn't God become man to speak to mankind through the senses?
No, He became Man in order to take on our nature, offer Himself to the Father in Reparation for the sin of Man and re-establish the connection (ie. communion) between God and Man.
It's an act of Mercy that satisfies an infinite need for Justice.
As it says in the Mass He partakes of our humanity so we may partake in His Divinity.
Okay, that's right. But, wouldn't you say that his speaking to man through his senses resulted, even if that was not his main purpose?
And when Yahweh first spoke to Moses, didn't he do so through the burning bush? I just mean to show that the concept of knowledge necessarily coming through the senses in no way disproves God.
Gerard took the bait...I didnt...the knowledge of God is born into the heart of every human being at conception.
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on October 20, 2013, 01:55:34 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 20, 2013, 01:47:56 PM
Quote from: Gerard on October 20, 2013, 01:39:10 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 20, 2013, 12:42:59 PM
... Didn't God become man to speak to mankind through the senses?
No, He became Man in order to take on our nature, offer Himself to the Father in Reparation for the sin of Man and re-establish the connection (ie. communion) between God and Man.
It's an act of Mercy that satisfies an infinite need for Justice.
As it says in the Mass He partakes of our humanity so we may partake in His Divinity.
Okay, that's right. But, wouldn't you say that his speaking to man through his senses resulted, even if that was not his main purpose?
And when Yahweh first spoke to Moses, didn't he do so through the burning bush? I just mean to show that the concept of knowledge necessarily coming through the senses in no way disproves God.
Gerard took the bait...I didnt...the knowledge of God is born into the heart of every human being at conception.
Then why do tribal people lack this knowledge?
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 20, 2013, 01:59:32 PM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on October 20, 2013, 01:55:34 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 20, 2013, 01:47:56 PM
Quote from: Gerard on October 20, 2013, 01:39:10 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 20, 2013, 12:42:59 PM
... Didn't God become man to speak to mankind through the senses?
No, He became Man in order to take on our nature, offer Himself to the Father in Reparation for the sin of Man and re-establish the connection (ie. communion) between God and Man.
It's an act of Mercy that satisfies an infinite need for Justice.
As it says in the Mass He partakes of our humanity so we may partake in His Divinity.
Okay, that's right. But, wouldn't you say that his speaking to man through his senses resulted, even if that was not his main purpose?
And when Yahweh first spoke to Moses, didn't he do so through the burning bush? I just mean to show that the concept of knowledge necessarily coming through the senses in no way disproves God.
Gerard took the bait...I didnt...the knowledge of God is born into the heart of every human being at conception.
Then why do tribal people lack this knowledge?
and you know this how?? Most tribal peoples Im aware of are theists of one sort or another. They also have laws...they have kings and leadership, economys and tribunals of some kind.
Tribal people's have a myriad of religions, and they almost always involve the deification of nature, which begins with the senses.
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 20, 2013, 11:12:51 AM
Quote from: RobertJS on October 20, 2013, 11:10:54 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 20, 2013, 11:05:44 AM
Quote from: RobertJS on October 20, 2013, 11:01:13 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 20, 2013, 09:51:52 AM
Quote from: RobertJS on October 20, 2013, 09:40:23 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 20, 2013, 09:17:22 AMBecause if someone is not asking me for money or there is no danger to me, I don't really care if they are lying or not. The second this person asks for money I become skeptical. This would be true for a sales person, for example, as he might be pulling a scam.
I do believe Antarctica exists without seeing it, but I could go to Antarctica and prove it for myself. And if it did turn out that Antarctica didn't actually exist, it wouldn't really matter. There indeed would be no skin off my back.
Basically, your life is one of cynicism, and hypothetical fears of bad consequences. Yet, inconsistently,....
....when you die, and find out you were wrong about the existence of eternal hell....no skin off your back?
No, then there would be an awful lot of skin off my back. But, would a good God really put me in hell just for questioning his existence. This is where I think Pascal got it all wrong. If I were to simply throw my hat in with God but never really make that intellectual assent, that would not be true faith, and it would be an insult to those who do have true faith. Louis IX got this right earlier by saying that he doubted that kind of person would get into heaven. If there be a God, which person do you think he would respect more, the man who truly questions but cannot come to the conclusion of his existence, or a man who never really questions but rather just tells himself he believes? If there be a God, surely he can see right through such a false faith.
God puts nobody in hell. Each person who goes there, wills himself there.
The thing is you freely will to assent to the existence of Antarctica, without seeing it. That is not a false human faith in the humans who told you of its existence.
You have admitted that where there is chance of a bad consequence, you will be suspicious and doubt in order to take the safer course to avoid that consequence. And when there is no consequence, you will believe other humans without seeing.
But you doubt the existence of hell, and the "if it exists" is a possible bad consequence...and you are doing the exact opposite of what you admitted about bad consequence. You are not taking the safe course, but the reckless. This is not saying you should "hang your hat" on anything. It is saying to be open and have diligence on the side of safety.
I am open to the possibility of hell, if I ever were to be given evidence of its existence I would believe in it.
You have not been given evidence of Antarctica and yet you believe in it. And you make no comment about your contradiction in acting on the safe side for everything else, but not for the possibility of hell.
Antarctica can be proven, it is a physical place. Is hell a physical place?
Nevertheless, you believe it on faith of what others have told you of Antarctica.
Go ahead and prove that a non-material place
cannot be proven, because that is what you claim here.
Do you consider hell to be a physical place or spiritual place? Because I have heard both from Christians.
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 20, 2013, 02:30:32 PM
Do you consider hell to be a physical place or spiritual place? Because I have heard both from Christians.
It doesn't matter whether it is a purely spiritual place or not, prove your claim.
Quote from: RobertJS on October 20, 2013, 02:38:30 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 20, 2013, 02:30:32 PM
Do you consider hell to be a physical place or spiritual place? Because I have heard both from Christians.
It doesn't matter whether it is a purely spiritual place or not, prove your claim.
So, you wish for me to prove that a non-material place cannot be proven? Very well. If something is non-material, then it cannot have location, as location requires matter. Ergo, a non-material place cannot exist.
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy
If something is non-material, then it cannot have location, as location requires matter.
Prove it.
Quote from: RobertJS on October 20, 2013, 02:48:56 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy
If something is non-material, then it cannot have location, as location requires matter.
Prove it.
A location is a point in time and place, place is a material thing. Anything which is spiritual must necessarily be outside time and place.
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 20, 2013, 02:16:30 PM
Tribal people's have a myriad of religions, and they almost always involve the deification of nature, which begins with the senses.
It begins with the sense that there is something that needs to be deified in the first place. Why Deify nature? BTW you deify nature as well since you make it the source of all natural law...so once again you contradict your own position.
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on October 20, 2013, 03:15:21 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 20, 2013, 02:16:30 PM
Tribal people's have a myriad of religions, and they almost always involve the deification of nature, which begins with the senses.
It begins with the sense that there is something that needs to be deified in the first place. Why Deify nature? BTW you deify nature as well since you make it the source of all natural law...so once again you contradict your own position.
I don't deify nature in so far as I don't consider nature to be a conscious agent. Tribal people's deify nature in order to explain that which they cannot explain.
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 20, 2013, 03:18:41 PM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on October 20, 2013, 03:15:21 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 20, 2013, 02:16:30 PM
Tribal people's have a myriad of religions, and they almost always involve the deification of nature, which begins with the senses.
It begins with the sense that there is something that needs to be deified in the first place. Why Deify nature? BTW you deify nature as well since you make it the source of all natural law...so once again you contradict your own position.
I don't deify nature in so far as I don't consider nature to be a conscious agent. Tribal people's deify nature in order to explain that which they cannot explain.
False. Read a book called The Religion of the Primitives. Interesting as anything. But um yeah you are wrong. Book explains why. They don't deify nature. Most have one God, though they have differing and imperfect descriptions of him. Still, one god.
As Durant explains, certain Pygmy tribes found in Africa were observed to have no identifiable cults or rites. There were no totems, no gods, no spirits. Their dead were buried without special ceremonies or accompanying items and received no further attention. They even appeared to lack simple superstitions, according to travelers' reports.
http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismhistory/a/PrimitiveAtheismSkepticism.htm
There have been many different beliefs throughout mankind, but I see no universal ideas which necessitate any innate knowledge.
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 20, 2013, 03:47:34 PM
As Durant explains, certain Pygmy tribes found in Africa were observed to have no identifiable cults or rites. There were no totems, no gods, no spirits. Their dead were buried without special ceremonies or accompanying items and received no further attention. They even appeared to lack simple superstitions, according to travelers' reports.
http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismhistory/a/PrimitiveAtheismSkepticism.htm
I cant dispute this because I have no place to look to verify...but apparently this is an exception not a rule.
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on October 20, 2013, 04:36:39 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 20, 2013, 03:47:34 PM
As Durant explains, certain Pygmy tribes found in Africa were observed to have no identifiable cults or rites. There were no totems, no gods, no spirits. Their dead were buried without special ceremonies or accompanying items and received no further attention. They even appeared to lack simple superstitions, according to travelers' reports.
http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismhistory/a/PrimitiveAtheismSkepticism.htm
I cant dispute this because I have no place to look to verify...but apparently this is an exception not a rule.
It's funny (for about 3 seconds) that an atheist will accept as proof the absence of proof!
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on October 20, 2013, 04:36:39 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 20, 2013, 03:47:34 PM
As Durant explains, certain Pygmy tribes found in Africa were observed to have no identifiable cults or rites. There were no totems, no gods, no spirits. Their dead were buried without special ceremonies or accompanying items and received no further attention. They even appeared to lack simple superstitions, according to travelers' reports.
http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismhistory/a/PrimitiveAtheismSkepticism.htm
I cant dispute this because I have no place to look to verify...but apparently this is an exception not a rule.
Atheistic primitive cultures are probably a rarity and creates no rule, that's true, but it shows that the idea of God is not innate in all men. If God makes himself known to mankind, he does so through the senses.
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 20, 2013, 03:49:34 PM
There have been many different beliefs throughout mankind, but I see no universal ideas which necessitate any innate knowledge.
...you see??? can something like this be seen? More language that denotes innate knowledge.
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on October 20, 2013, 04:42:57 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 20, 2013, 03:49:34 PM
There have been many different beliefs throughout mankind, but I see no universal ideas which necessitate any innate knowledge.
...you see??? can something like this be seen? More language that denotes innate knowledge.
I sorry, come again?
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 20, 2013, 04:42:48 PM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on October 20, 2013, 04:36:39 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 20, 2013, 03:47:34 PM
As Durant explains, certain Pygmy tribes found in Africa were observed to have no identifiable cults or rites. There were no totems, no gods, no spirits. Their dead were buried without special ceremonies or accompanying items and received no further attention. They even appeared to lack simple superstitions, according to travelers' reports.
http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismhistory/a/PrimitiveAtheismSkepticism.htm
I cant dispute this because I have no place to look to verify...but apparently this is an exception not a rule.
Atheistic primitive cultures are probably a rarity and creates no rule, that's true, but it shows that the idea of God is not innate in all men. If God makes himself known to mankind, he does so through the senses.
you have no evidence for this assertion. Its simply your opinion on the matter. especially since you deny God all together Im not sure how you can make the assertion at all.
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 20, 2013, 03:49:34 PM
There have been many different beliefs throughout mankind, but I see no universal ideas which necessitate any innate knowledge.
Common sense might be in that category. Most people agree, for example, that there's a kind of truth that's self-evident and can't be proven absolutely. Our own existence is one example. We can't absolutely prove we exist, but we know that there must be a point at which we have to stop demanding proof for everything.
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 20, 2013, 04:44:34 PM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on October 20, 2013, 04:42:57 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 20, 2013, 03:49:34 PM
There have been many different beliefs throughout mankind, but I see no universal ideas which necessitate any innate knowledge.
...you see??? can something like this be seen? More language that denotes innate knowledge.
I sorry, come again?
can universal ideas* (*truth-nice word change you used) be seen with your eyes or senses?
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on October 20, 2013, 04:48:07 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 20, 2013, 04:44:34 PM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on October 20, 2013, 04:42:57 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 20, 2013, 03:49:34 PM
There have been many different beliefs throughout mankind, but I see no universal ideas which necessitate any innate knowledge.
...you see??? can something like this be seen? More language that denotes innate knowledge.
I sorry, come again?
can universal ideas* (*truth-nice word change you used) be seen with your eyes or senses?
Ideas cannot be seen at all. Ideas are formed in the mind. The senses inform the mind, the mind forms ideas.
Quote from: per_passionem_eius on October 20, 2013, 04:46:23 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 20, 2013, 03:49:34 PM
There have been many different beliefs throughout mankind, but I see no universal ideas which necessitate any innate knowledge.
Common sense might be in that category. Most people agree, for example, that there's a kind of truth that's self-evident and can't be proven absolutely. Our own existence is one example. We can't absolutely prove we exist, but we know that there must be a point at which we have to stop demanding proof for everything.
A man may doubt the mode of his existence, but not his existence.
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 20, 2013, 04:53:03 PM
Quote from: per_passionem_eius on October 20, 2013, 04:46:23 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 20, 2013, 03:49:34 PM
There have been many different beliefs throughout mankind, but I see no universal ideas which necessitate any innate knowledge.
Common sense might be in that category. Most people agree, for example, that there's a kind of truth that's self-evident and can't be proven absolutely. Our own existence is one example. We can't absolutely prove we exist, but we know that there must be a point at which we have to stop demanding proof for everything.
A man may doubt the mode of his existence, but not his existence.
Maybe one of the Catholics here will explain to me what a mode of existence is.
Quote from: per_passionem_eius on October 20, 2013, 04:59:04 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 20, 2013, 04:53:03 PM
Quote from: per_passionem_eius on October 20, 2013, 04:46:23 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 20, 2013, 03:49:34 PM
There have been many different beliefs throughout mankind, but I see no universal ideas which necessitate any innate knowledge.
Common sense might be in that category. Most people agree, for example, that there's a kind of truth that's self-evident and can't be proven absolutely. Our own existence is one example. We can't absolutely prove we exist, but we know that there must be a point at which we have to stop demanding proof for everything.
A man may doubt the mode of his existence, but not his existence.
Maybe one of the Catholics here will explain to me what a mode of existence is.
I meant the manner of his existence, or how he exists.
The classic doubts of existence are things like the brain in a vat theory, or the matrix. In all of these examples the man still exists, though he exists in different ways.
I know what the word mode means.
I had no intention to insult, I wasn't sure if I used the right word.
Quote from: Basilios on October 19, 2013, 08:58:08 AM
This is all they need to know.
That the Christian life is not about the assent of the intellect but the consent of the heart. It is being in love with a person. No amount of debate will make you see that, just like no debate could make you automatically fall in love with a stranger. No, you need to give your heart because He gave you His life. Is this something you want to do? Before all else this is the life of a Catholic - to be overwhelmingly in love. But you cannot love what you do not know, and you'll never know if youre stuck in empiricism because God is outside the created order. Faith is not irrational it is rational but love is neither it is super-rational. It goes beyond. And if you won't do that, if you refuse to give consent to the Holy Ghost working within you then no debate will produce any fruit because your ground is bare and soil without nutrients. God wants your heart not your mind. That's it. Ponder that on your forum and then come back in peace under a new name seeking truth not chatter. You'll see things differently.
This is the kinda argument I simply cannot understand. Why would I try and give my heart to something that I have no evidence for the existence of?
Also, what would you say if I said the exact same thing to you but applied it to Zeus (or Odin, or The FSM, or any other thing I can dream up to be honest)? I suspect you would reject to give them your heart? Once you know why then you will know why I do not give my heart to God.
A man cannot love that which he does not know.
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 20, 2013, 02:53:28 PM
Quote from: RobertJS on October 20, 2013, 02:48:56 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy
If something is non-material, then it cannot have location, as location requires matter.
Prove it.
A location is a point in time and place, place is a material thing. Anything which is spiritual must necessarily be outside time and place.
You are still making a claim that further needs proof. You cannot prove the spiritual does not exist. Whether hell is a material place or not is neither here nor there (pun intended). Nor do you really know the nature of energy even in this material world, we can only somewhat interact with it. You are being bombarded right now by tons of waves of frequencies that we cannot sense with our own senses, but only with something else artificially designed to manipulate and alter so that we see and hear some analogous effect.
You have to say that you
doubt hell exists, but you cannot say you are certain it does not.
Quote from: RobertJS on October 21, 2013, 08:25:48 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 20, 2013, 02:53:28 PM
Quote from: RobertJS on October 20, 2013, 02:48:56 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy
If something is non-material, then it cannot have location, as location requires matter.
Prove it.
A location is a point in time and place, place is a material thing. Anything which is spiritual must necessarily be outside time and place.
You are still making a claim that further needs proof. You cannot prove the spiritual does not exist. Whether hell is a material place or not is neither here nor there (pun intended). Nor do you really know the nature of energy even in this material world, we can only somewhat interact with it. You are being bombarded right now by tons of waves of frequencies that we cannot sense with our own senses, but only with something else artificially designed to manipulate and alter so that we see and hear some analogous effect.
You have to say that you doubt hell exists, but you cannot say you are certain it does not.
I never intended to prove hell doesn't exist. I intended to prove that if hell is purely spiritual, it's existence cannot be proven. If it is a physical location, then show me where it is.
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 21, 2013, 08:31:05 AM
Quote from: RobertJS on October 21, 2013, 08:25:48 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 20, 2013, 02:53:28 PM
Quote from: RobertJS on October 20, 2013, 02:48:56 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy
If something is non-material, then it cannot have location, as location requires matter.
Prove it.
A location is a point in time and place, place is a material thing. Anything which is spiritual must necessarily be outside time and place.
You are still making a claim that further needs proof. You cannot prove the spiritual does not exist. Whether hell is a material place or not is neither here nor there (pun intended). Nor do you really know the nature of energy even in this material world, we can only somewhat interact with it. You are being bombarded right now by tons of waves of frequencies that we cannot sense with our own senses, but only with something else artificially designed to manipulate and alter so that we see and hear some analogous effect.
You have to say that you doubt hell exists, but you cannot say you are certain it does not.
I never intended to prove hell doesn't exist. I intended to prove that if hell is purely spiritual, it's existence cannot be proven. If it is a physical location, then show me where it is.
Fine. It remains that you
doubt it. Therefore it is possible, but you are not convinced. Your principle of living has been to act diligently on the side of safety, which entails that you should be diligent on the side of seeing evidence for the spiritual. Even with radio waves, you cannot at all sense them with your own senses, but it is the effects which logically and reasonably convince us they are there. The effects are not a mere string of meaningless coincidences. Patterns themselves are considered part of empirical evidence.
Something big and unprecedented occurred at Fatima in 1917. Even assuming it was a natural occurrence, and a first, after so many millenniums of the records of mankind, reason alone says there is something more than mere coincidence that 3 poor shepherd children predicted it to the very hour months beforehand. Catholics and anti-Catholics alike witnessed it. Reason demands the admission there is
something significant there.
Now, allow me to mention another well-documented occurrence:
"Therese Neumann survived 35 years on the "bread" of the Holy Eucharist at mass each morning at Konnersreuth, Germany." From "Guinness Book of World Records", 1979 Edition
A woman who was considered holy, and who bled, inexplicably by doctors, each Friday from locations on her body corresponding the historical wounds of Jesus Christ, can live 35 years with about a quarter ounce of "bread", and the doctors even meticulously monitored the results in the commode.
Just pure meaningless coincidence?
Then we have the man, I already mentioned, his completely broken leg is healed after going to Lourdes, the man being fully able to walk. The xrays show before and after it is the same man, and the doctors cannot explain it.
Pure meaningless coincidence?
I can stay here all day showing you this pattern with tons of similar cases. In history, this pattern only happens associated with Catholicism. Not Protestants, not pagans, not Jews, etc.
The healings at Lourdes occur after applying the water there, but not until the Blessed Sacrament is brought out and the people blessed by It. The healings at Lourdes virtually ceased in 1970,
coincidentally after they created the Novus Ordo liturgy and pushed it on the world.
Im sorry to interject rob because I agree with you...but this is the exact line of reasoning I use to hold earth as the center of Gods creation.
Quote from: RobertJS on October 21, 2013, 10:44:02 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 21, 2013, 08:31:05 AM
Quote from: RobertJS on October 21, 2013, 08:25:48 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 20, 2013, 02:53:28 PM
Quote from: RobertJS on October 20, 2013, 02:48:56 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy
If something is non-material, then it cannot have location, as location requires matter.
Prove it.
A location is a point in time and place, place is a material thing. Anything which is spiritual must necessarily be outside time and place.
You are still making a claim that further needs proof. You cannot prove the spiritual does not exist. Whether hell is a material place or not is neither here nor there (pun intended). Nor do you really know the nature of energy even in this material world, we can only somewhat interact with it. You are being bombarded right now by tons of waves of frequencies that we cannot sense with our own senses, but only with something else artificially designed to manipulate and alter so that we see and hear some analogous effect.
You have to say that you doubt hell exists, but you cannot say you are certain it does not.
I never intended to prove hell doesn't exist. I intended to prove that if hell is purely spiritual, it's existence cannot be proven. If it is a physical location, then show me where it is.
Fine. It remains that you doubt it. Therefore it is possible, but you are not convinced. Your principle of living has been to act diligently on the side of safety, which entails that you should be diligent on the side of seeing evidence for the spiritual. Even with radio waves, you cannot at all sense them with your own senses, but it is the effects which logically and reasonably convince us they are there. The effects are not a mere string of meaningless coincidences. Patterns themselves are considered part of empirical evidence.
Something big and unprecedented occurred at Fatima in 1917. Even assuming it was a natural occurrence, and a first, after so many millenniums of the records of mankind, reason alone says there is something more than mere coincidence that 3 poor shepherd children predicted it to the very hour months beforehand. Catholics and anti-Catholics alike witnessed it. Reason demands the admission there is something significant there.
Now, allow me to mention another well-documented occurrence:
"Therese Neumann survived 35 years on the "bread" of the Holy Eucharist at mass each morning at Konnersreuth, Germany." From "Guinness Book of World Records", 1979 Edition
A woman who was considered holy, and who bled, inexplicably by doctors, each Friday from locations on her body corresponding the historical wounds of Jesus Christ, can live 35 years with about a quarter ounce of "bread", and the doctors even meticulously monitored the results in the commode.
Just pure meaningless coincidence?
Then we have the man, I already mentioned, his completely broken leg is healed after going to Lourdes, the man being fully able to walk. The xrays show before and after it is the same man, and the doctors cannot explain it.
Pure meaningless coincidence?
I can stay here all day showing you this pattern with tons of similar cases. In history, this pattern only happens associated with Catholicism. Not Protestants, not pagans, not Jews, etc.
The healings at Lourdes occur after applying the water there, but not until the Blessed Sacrament is brought out and the people blessed by It. The healings at Lourdes virtually ceased in 1970, coincidentally after they created the Novus Ordo liturgy and pushed it on the world.
Yes, I doubt the existence of hell and I can't prove that it does not exist. And my principle is not simply to side toward safety, but rather to make a cost/benefit analysis of everything I do. When I drive down the interstate I am making a cost/benefit analysis. I know there is danger of driving on the interstate, but that danger is small enough to be worth the benefit I will gain from getting to where I need to go. Everything in life has some danger associated with it, but some dangers are so small that it is not worth it to guard against it. Most people have home owner's insurance because this type of insurance guards against things that have a high probability of hurting someone, and the cost is reasonable. Someone in living in Kansas would be foolish for buying hurricane insurance, because a hurricane hitting Kansas is almost impossible. Any money the family in Kansas pays for hurricane insurance is wasted, even if it is a very little bit. So, could there be a hell that I should consider guarding myself against? Yes, if we are speaking of possibilities. But, I could also give you a scenario in which a hurricane could hit Kansas. Or a meteor could hit my head as I walk outside. If it were free or extremely inexpensive to guard myself against hell, I would do so. There would be no reason not to, and even an atheist can see that. But, the rub is in what I am asked to give up in order to guard against this improbability, and this price I am asked to pay is simply too much.
Quote from: Crimson FlyboyYes, I doubt the existence of hell and I can't prove that it does not exist. And my principle is not simply to side toward safety, but rather to make a cost/benefit analysis of everything I do. When I drive down the interstate I am making a cost/benefit analysis. I know there is danger of driving on the interstate, but that danger is small enough to be worth the benefit I will gain from getting to where I need to go. Everything in life has some danger associated with it, but some dangers are so small that it is not worth it to guard against it. Most people have home owner's insurance because this type of insurance guards against things that have a high probability of hurting someone, and the cost is reasonable. Someone in living in Kansas would be foolish for buying hurricane insurance, because a hurricane hitting Kansas is almost impossible. Any money the family in Kansas pays for hurricane insurance is wasted, even if it is a very little bit. So, could there be a hell that I should consider guarding myself against? Yes, if we are speaking of possibilities. But, I could also give you a scenario in which a hurricane could hit Kansas. Or a meteor could hit my head as I walk outside. If it were free or extremely inexpensive to guard myself against hell, I would do so. There would be no reason not to, and even an atheist can see that. But, the rub is in what I am asked to give up in order to guard against this improbability, and this price I am asked to pay is simply too much.
Indeed, now we get into
statistics and
probability which alters the cost/benefit. If you move into a graphical area initially merely believing in a bare possibility, and then start hearing those who seem to know recommending the necessity of insurance for a particular thing, the situation starts getting concerning. You proceed to evaluate.
I have started by showing you where coincidences develop into a noticeable pattern, and it really is just the tip of the iceberg.
Every religion claims miracles, and these miracles usually involve no attempt at verification. Here I respect The Catholic Church for making attempts to verify these miracles and even rejecting many claims. However, The Catholic Church did make a claim of verification on the French nun with Parkinson's disease, which seemed somewhat dubious. Further, none of the purported miracles you mention attempt to prove hell.
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 21, 2013, 04:06:33 PM
Every religion claims miracles, and these miracles usually involve no attempt at verification. Here I respect The Catholic Church for making attempts to verify these miracles and even rejecting many claims. However, The Catholic Church did make a claim of verification on the French nun with Parkinson's disease, which seemed somewhat dubious. Further, none of the purported miracles you mention attempt to prove hell.
What of the claims for the Eucharistic miracles? What do you think of those?
Quote from: Kaesekopf on October 21, 2013, 04:28:16 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 21, 2013, 04:06:33 PM
Every religion claims miracles, and these miracles usually involve no attempt at verification. Here I respect The Catholic Church for making attempts to verify these miracles and even rejecting many claims. However, The Catholic Church did make a claim of verification on the French nun with Parkinson's disease, which seemed somewhat dubious. Further, none of the purported miracles you mention attempt to prove hell.
What of the claims for the Eucharistic miracles? What do you think of those?
The Eucharistic miracles are very peculiar. The testing on all of the miracles I have seen tests the host after it has miraculously transformed into flesh. In order to be truly scientific, one would really need to follow the host from before the consecration onward. Test the unconsecrated host to make sure it is only bread, then follow until it transforms to make sure it is not swapped out, and then test the flesh. I don't mean to imply that a Catholic Priest would lie, but to be certain we would have to hold the miracle to scrutiny. This is the only way to really prove these things are miracles. The difficulty would be in that the priest doesn't know when a Eucharistic miracle will occur, so he can't get a scientific crew together beforehand. But therein lies the problem. And if a priest were to be asked for such proof, he would tell us that we should not test God. Why then ask for scientists to come in and test afterward? It's as if The Church wants scientists to test God, but only by her own terms.
Do you think the Church has a stockpile of (what is it? AB type?) blood and flesh and heart and just pulls it out whenever She thinks we need another miracle?...
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 21, 2013, 05:00:43 PM
Quote from: Kaesekopf on October 21, 2013, 04:28:16 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 21, 2013, 04:06:33 PM
Every religion claims miracles, and these miracles usually involve no attempt at verification. Here I respect The Catholic Church for making attempts to verify these miracles and even rejecting many claims. However, The Catholic Church did make a claim of verification on the French nun with Parkinson's disease, which seemed somewhat dubious. Further, none of the purported miracles you mention attempt to prove hell.
What of the claims for the Eucharistic miracles? What do you think of those?
The Eucharistic miracles are very peculiar. The testing on all of the miracles I have seen tests the host after it has miraculously transformed into flesh. In order to be truly scientific, one would really need to follow the host from before the consecration onward. Test the unconsecrated host to make sure it is only bread, then follow until it transforms to make sure it is not swapped out, and then test the flesh. I don't mean to imply that a Catholic Priest would lie, but to be certain we would have to hold the miracle to scrutiny. This is the only way to really prove these things are miracles. The difficulty would be in that the priest doesn't know when a Eucharistic miracle will occur, so he can't get a scientific crew together beforehand. But therein lies the problem. And if a priest were to be asked for such proof, he would tell us that we should not test God. Why then ask for scientists to come in and test afterward? It's as if The Church wants scientists to test God, but only by her own terms.
Miracles are usually sent to scientists to be investigated before being declared miracles, the exception is when the Church herself believes the miracle unworthy of belief.
Crimson, the Church has had a number Eucharistic miracles tested from centuries apart (and with the flesh still un-decayed!) and they have identical DNA. This has been compared to the DNA on the Shroud of Turin and has been found to be a match. How do you explain that?
I know you're going to want a source for this (and rightly so), but I don't have the time to Google right now. Maybe someone else can follow up.
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 21, 2013, 04:06:33 PM
Every religion claims miracles, and these miracles usually involve no attempt at verification. Here I respect The Catholic Church for making attempts to verify these miracles and even rejecting many claims. However, The Catholic Church did make a claim of verification on the French nun with Parkinson's disease, which seemed somewhat dubious. Further, none of the purported miracles you mention attempt to prove hell.
Who ever said "claims" mean anything? I didn't, and they don't. Nor is a mere "attempt" at verification mean anything. I am talking of successful verifications. And, furthermore, it is not the Catholic Church making the attempt (except for those instances associated with a canonization of a Saint). Generally, verifications are not performed "by the Church" but by private individuals, and professional medical doctors, often non-Catholic, and even Jewish or atheist. The medical records are solid. Everything you just said means nothing to the point I am presented to you.
While I am here, allow me another mention of a cure of a British veteran solider disabled by a war. This was at the turn of the 20th century. His disability entailed an atrophied arm, something wrong with his legs (I can't recall) and a hole is his skull such that his brain could be seen. The government doesn't lightly give disability pensions unless the disabilities are professionally certified. Imagine if a man went back to the veteran's pension bureau, said, "I am George Smith, and I would like to cancel my life-long disability pension because I am no longer disabled." At that point the bureau would suspect a scam and be especially careful to verify this is the same man. The man was cured by going to Lourdes and the doctors examined him and diagnosed him cured, and cannot explain it.
Question probably especially for to non-atheists here: Historically speaking, what is it that converts most atheists? Of course only God and His grace - but what does He work through? Most converts weren't atheists to start with, so they are more open to miracles, since they believe God can do anything. But if they don't believe in God at all, they think "there must be some scientific explanation or some deception going on" - they don't care if they never find this solution. I don't know what would help convert me if I were were an atheist but I tend to think it would be the need for explanation of the world and of goodness, truth, and beauty and love, and/or the life and words of Christ (and yes His miracles, but even more), and/or the Christ-like men I knew. I'm not sure Eucharistic miracles would do it. But I could be wrong, and God can work through anything.
However something like the Miracle of Fatima might well overwhelm me with God's power. And a miracle is not a small thing, so if God just opens an atheist's heart, any miracle might bring him to God. Reasons for believing in God also accumulate... a miracle may contribute and even tip the scales.
I heard one atheist convert say that she converted after falling in love with her newborn child and realizing that the love seemed to be part of a non-material reality (or something like that).
Wait! I found her...Jennifer Fulwiler http://www.conversiondiary.com/jen (http://www.conversiondiary.com/jen)
Quote from: RobertJS on October 21, 2013, 06:12:44 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 21, 2013, 04:06:33 PM
Every religion claims miracles, and these miracles usually involve no attempt at verification. Here I respect The Catholic Church for making attempts to verify these miracles and even rejecting many claims. However, The Catholic Church did make a claim of verification on the French nun with Parkinson's disease, which seemed somewhat dubious. Further, none of the purported miracles you mention attempt to prove hell.
Who ever said "claims" mean anything? I didn't, and they don't. Nor is a mere "attempt" at verification mean anything. I am talking of successful verifications. And, furthermore, it is not the Catholic Church making the attempt (except for those instances associated with a canonization of a Saint). Generally, verifications are not performed "by the Church" but by private individuals, and professional medical doctors, often non-Catholic, and even Jewish or atheist. The medical records are solid. Everything you just said means nothing to the point I am presented to you.
While I am here, allow me another mention of a cure of a British veteran solider disabled by a war. This was at the turn of the 20th century. His disability entailed an atrophied arm, something wrong with his legs (I can't recall) and a hole is his skull such that his brain could be seen. The government doesn't lightly give disability pensions unless the disabilities are professionally certified. Imagine if a man went back to the veteran's pension bureau, said, "I am George Smith, and I would like to cancel my life-long disability pension because I am no longer disabled." At that point the bureau would suspect a scam and be especially careful to verify this is the same man. The man was cured by going to Lourdes and the doctors examined him and diagnosed him cured, and cannot explain it.
Since other religions make claims, how can one know which religions have true miracles and which do not?
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 21, 2013, 09:02:15 PM
Since other religions make claims, how can one know which religions have true miracles and which do not?
Evidence wouldn't be any use, I suppose?
Quote from: Oldavid on October 22, 2013, 08:57:59 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 21, 2013, 09:02:15 PM
Since other religions make claims, how can one know which religions have true miracles and which do not?
Evidence wouldn't be any use, I suppose?
Evidence would be of much use. As a side, do you think it's possible for miracles to occur in non-Catholic religions?
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 21, 2013, 09:02:15 PM
Quote from: RobertJS on October 21, 2013, 06:12:44 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 21, 2013, 04:06:33 PM
Every religion claims miracles, and these miracles usually involve no attempt at verification. Here I respect The Catholic Church for making attempts to verify these miracles and even rejecting many claims. However, The Catholic Church did make a claim of verification on the French nun with Parkinson's disease, which seemed somewhat dubious. Further, none of the purported miracles you mention attempt to prove hell.
Who ever said "claims" mean anything? I didn't, and they don't. Nor is a mere "attempt" at verification mean anything. I am talking of successful verifications. And, furthermore, it is not the Catholic Church making the attempt (except for those instances associated with a canonization of a Saint). Generally, verifications are not performed "by the Church" but by private individuals, and professional medical doctors, often non-Catholic, and even Jewish or atheist. The medical records are solid. Everything you just said means nothing to the point I am presented to you.
While I am here, allow me another mention of a cure of a British veteran solider disabled by a war. This was at the turn of the 20th century. His disability entailed an atrophied arm, something wrong with his legs (I can't recall) and a hole is his skull such that his brain could be seen. The government doesn't lightly give disability pensions unless the disabilities are professionally certified. Imagine if a man went back to the veteran's pension bureau, said, "I am George Smith, and I would like to cancel my life-long disability pension because I am no longer disabled." At that point the bureau would suspect a scam and be especially careful to verify this is the same man. The man was cured by going to Lourdes and the doctors examined him and diagnosed him cured, and cannot explain it.
Since other religions make claims, how can one know which religions have true miracles and which do not?
The answer is contained within what I have already written in this thread:
Verified empirical evidence, a pattern and statistics.
Robert, the following site claims the stigmata of Therese Nueman is dubious: http://www.josef-hanauer.de/swindle-of-konnersreuth-5.html
The evidence of a miracle is not very convincing.
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 22, 2013, 06:03:25 PM
Robert, the following site claims the stigmata of Therese Nueman is dubious: http://www.josef-hanauer.de/swindle-of-konnersreuth-5.html
The evidence of a miracle is not very convincing.
I never claimed a miracle. I am showing something that even naturally is significantly unprecedented and unexplainable to science....which adds to the pattern. A pattern both you and tons of scientists noticeably stay silent about.
Quote from: RobertJS on October 22, 2013, 06:07:35 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 22, 2013, 06:03:25 PM
Robert, the following site claims the stigmata of Therese Nueman is dubious: http://www.josef-hanauer.de/swindle-of-konnersreuth-5.html
The evidence of a miracle is not very convincing.
I never claimed a miracle. I am showing something that even naturally is significantly unprecedented and unexplainable to science....which adds to the pattern. A pattern both you and tons of scientists noticeably stay silent about.
I wouldn't call it unexplainable, it's simply unexplained. There are Hindu yogis who make the same claim, they also claim that they can go years without eating or drinking. I don't think we will make much progress with these miraculous claims.
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 22, 2013, 06:26:15 PM
Quote from: RobertJS on October 22, 2013, 06:07:35 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 22, 2013, 06:03:25 PM
Robert, the following site claims the stigmata of Therese Nueman is dubious: http://www.josef-hanauer.de/swindle-of-konnersreuth-5.html
The evidence of a miracle is not very convincing.
I never claimed a miracle. I am showing something that even naturally is significantly unprecedented and unexplainable to science....which adds to the pattern. A pattern both you and tons of scientists noticeably stay silent about.
I wouldn't call it unexplainable, it's simply unexplained. There are Hindu yogis who make the same claim, they also claim that they can go years without eating or drinking. I don't think we will make much progress with these miraculous claims.
We have been through this already....a
claim means nothing without
verification, and verification is what atheists only accept. So, stop worrying about
claims.
I understand that. Therese's stigmata was only a claim, as was her inedia. She claimed to not eat food, but we don't know for a fact this is true. I doubt it because people die when they don't eat food.
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 22, 2013, 06:39:05 PM
I understand that. Therese's stigmata was only a claim, as was her inedia. She claimed to not eat food, but we don't know for a fact this is true. I doubt it because people die when they don't eat food.
Now you have just denied trust in the
Guinness Book of World Records (which you recently said you trusted), as well as distrust in science of the doctors who had monitored her. You have a preconceived conclusion simply from your own desire not to want something - "there can be no miracles", and that preconceived notion is a negative claim that logically cannot be proven. You are running away from truth.
Guinness is true as far as I know, that's not to say that every claim they make is true. I just don't know. Personally I think Christians can get a little to bogged down by miracles.
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 22, 2013, 06:48:04 PM
Guinness is true as far as I know, that's not to say that every claim they make is true. I just don't know. Personally I think Christians can get a little to bogged down by miracles.
Let's face it. You are not a man of conviction. You are a man of
doubt and cannot attain certainty on anything. Nobody can argue something unless they "know".
I am a man of conviction, and I need proof. These claims of miracles are highly dubious as many skeptics have shown. James Randi is particularly good at this kind of thing. I am more interested in the philosophical idea of God.
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 22, 2013, 06:53:53 PM
I am a man of conviction, and I need proof. These claims of miracles are highly dubious as many skeptics have shown. James Randi is particularly good at this kind of thing. I am more interested in the philosophical idea of God.
Conviction doesn't doubt everything. You do. You don't really know what
certitude means. Give us your weakest example of certitude. What is the difference between "I know" and "I am not convinced"?
I am certain that I exist.
Crimson Flyboy..
The Red baron?
Atheism, eh? High falootin PBS doctorate stuff.
I have not read through the entire thread. I read enough early on and also the linked discussion over on your atheist forum.
You have an answer for everything, and we have an answer for everything. Good stuff.
You already give your assent and belief to things that cannot be proven, so what gives?
You have read and digested St. Thomas Aquinas? And found it lacking?
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 22, 2013, 07:11:32 PM
I am certain that I exist.
That's about it...and I wonder about that! Do you have any comment on a man who's completely severed lower leg bone is, the next day, completely healed after visiting Lourdes, and verified by doctors and x-rays?
Quote from: RobertJS on October 22, 2013, 07:17:12 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 22, 2013, 07:11:32 PM
I am certain that I exist.
That's about it...and I wonder about that! Do you have any comment on a man who's completely severed lower leg bone is, the next day, completely healed after visiting Lourdes, and verified by doctors and x-rays?
I haven't seen any evidence.
Here's the thing about miracles. Most people define them as being against the laws of nature. If they are against the laws of nature, they are impossible. If we can learn how they happen, they will no longer be against the laws of nature, and hence not be miracles.
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 22, 2013, 07:18:13 PM
Quote from: RobertJS on October 22, 2013, 07:17:12 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 22, 2013, 07:11:32 PM
I am certain that I exist.
That's about it...and I wonder about that! Do you have any comment on a man who's completely severed lower leg bone is, the next day, completely healed after visiting Lourdes, and verified by doctors and x-rays?
And you don't want to see it. And when (if) you read the documents, you will always doubt the authenticity, quite gratuitously, because you don't understand what certitude really is.
I haven't seen any evidence.
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 22, 2013, 07:21:18 PM
Here's the thing about miracles. Most people define them as being against the laws of nature. If they are against the laws of nature, they are impossible. If we can learn how they happen, they will no longer be against the laws of nature, and hence not be miracles.
I don't define miracles that way, and neither does the Church.
Quote from: Armor of Light on October 22, 2013, 07:23:08 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 22, 2013, 07:21:18 PM
Here's the thing about miracles. Most people define them as being against the laws of nature. If they are against the laws of nature, they are impossible. If we can learn how they happen, they will no longer be against the laws of nature, and hence not be miracles.
I don't define miracles that way, and neither does the Church.
How then?
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 22, 2013, 07:21:18 PM
Here's the thing about miracles. Most people define them as being against the laws of nature. If they are against the laws of nature, they are impossible. If we can learn how they happen, they will no longer be against the laws of nature, and hence not be miracles.
Prove this -
"If they are against the laws of nature, they are impossible." That is a purely willful gratuitous denial that means nothing. Even scientists accept a pattern of occurrences that signify something not shallowly coincidental.
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 22, 2013, 07:24:21 PM
Quote from: Armor of Light on October 22, 2013, 07:23:08 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 22, 2013, 07:21:18 PM
Here's the thing about miracles. Most people define them as being against the laws of nature. If they are against the laws of nature, they are impossible. If we can learn how they happen, they will no longer be against the laws of nature, and hence not be miracles.
I don't define miracles that way, and neither does the Church.
How then?
Well, for starters..
Who says miracles have to against the laws of nature? God has invoked nature in many miracles.
Quote from: Armor of Light on October 22, 2013, 07:35:47 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 22, 2013, 07:24:21 PM
Quote from: Armor of Light on October 22, 2013, 07:23:08 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 22, 2013, 07:21:18 PM
Here's the thing about miracles. Most people define them as being against the laws of nature. If they are against the laws of nature, they are impossible. If we can learn how they happen, they will no longer be against the laws of nature, and hence not be miracles.
I don't define miracles that way, and neither does the Church.
How then?
Well, for starters..
Who says miracles have to against the laws of nature? God has invoked nature in many miracles.
I use the word Miracle to mean an interference with Nature by supernatural power." ........"It is therefore inaccurate to define a miracle as something that breaks the laws of Nature. It doesn't. ... If God creates a miraculous spermatozoon in the body of a virgin, it does not proceed to break any laws. The laws at once take it over. Nature is ready. Pregnancy follows, according to all the normal laws, and nine months later a child is born. ... The divine art of miracle is not an art of suspending the pattern. ... And they (naturalist) are sure that all reality must be interrelated and consistent. I agree with them. But I think they have mistaken a partial system within reality, namely Nature, for the whole. That being so, the miracle and the previous history of Nature may be interlocked after all but not in the way the Naturalists expected: rather in a much more roundabout fashion. The great complex event called Nature, and the new particular event introduced into it by the miracle, are related by their common origin in God, and doubtless, if we knew enough, most intricately related in his purpose and design, ..... In that way the miracles and the previous course of Nature are as well interlocked as any other two realities, but you must go back as far as their common Creator to find the interlocking. You will not find it within Nature. ... The rightful demand that all reality should be consistent and systematic does not therefore exclude miracles: but it has a very valuable contribution to make to our conception of them. It reminds us that miracles, if they occur, must, like all events, be revelations of that total harmony of all that exists. Nothing arbitrary, nothing simply "stuck on" and left unreconciled with the texture of total reality, can be admitted. By definition, miracles must of course interrupt the usual course of Nature; but if they are real they must, in the very act of so doing, assert all the more the unity and self-consistency of total reality at some deeper level. ... In calling them miracles we do not mean that they are contradictions or outrages; we mean that, left to her [Nature] own resources, she could never produce them."..................................................."In other words, there are rules behind the rules, and a unity which is deeper than uniformity. ... I do not say that the normalities of Nature are unreal. ... But to think that a disturbance of them would constitute a breach of the living rule and organic unity whereby God, from his own point of view, works, is a mistake.
You said all that so much better than I would've!
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 22, 2013, 07:24:21 PM
Quote from: Armor of Light on October 22, 2013, 07:23:08 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 22, 2013, 07:21:18 PM
Here's the thing about miracles. Most people define them as being against the laws of nature. If they are against the laws of nature, they are impossible. If we can learn how they happen, they will no longer be against the laws of nature, and hence not be miracles.
I don't define miracles that way, and neither does the Church.
How then?
Ask him to produce the Churches definition of Miracles Flyboy...hes blowing smoke on this subject.
consider this reasoning:
I use the word Miracle to mean an interference with Nature by supernatural power." ........"It is therefore inaccurate to define a miracle as something that breaks the laws of Nature. It doesn't. ... If God creates a miraculous spermatozoon in the body of a virgin, it does not proceed to break any laws. The laws at once take it over. Nature is ready. Pregnancy follows, according to all the normal laws, and nine months later a child is born. ... The divine art of miracle is not an art of suspending the pattern. ... And they (naturalist) are sure that all reality must be interrelated and consistent. I agree with them. But I think they have mistaken a partial system within reality, namely Nature, for the whole. That being so, the miracle and the previous history of Nature may be interlocked after all but not in the way the Naturalists expected: rather in a much more roundabout fashion. The great complex event called Nature, and the new particular event introduced into it by the miracle, are related by their common origin in God, and doubtless, if we knew enough, most intricately related in his purpose and design, ..... In that way the miracles and the previous course of Nature are as well interlocked as any other two realities, but you must go back as far as their common Creator to find the interlocking. You will not find it within Nature. ... The rightful demand that all reality should be consistent and systematic does not therefore exclude miracles: but it has a very valuable contribution to make to our conception of them. It reminds us that miracles, if they occur, must, like all events, be revelations of that total harmony of all that exists. Nothing arbitrary, nothing simply "stuck on" and left unreconciled with the texture of total reality, can be admitted. By definition, miracles must of course interrupt the usual course of Nature; but if they are real they must, in the very act of so doing, assert all the more the unity and self-consistency of total reality at some deeper level. ... In calling them miracles we do not mean that they are contradictions or outrages; we mean that, left to her [Nature] own resources, she could never produce them."..................................................."In other words, there are rules behind the rules, and a unity which is deeper than uniformity. ... I do not say that the normalities of Nature are unreal. ... But to think that a disturbance of them would constitute a breach of the living rule and organic unity whereby God, from his own point of view, works, is a mistake.
Quote from: Armor of Light on October 22, 2013, 07:40:20 PM
You said all that so much better than I would've!
it wasnt me it was an evil protestan named cs lewis (according to Robert hes an evil protestant anyway and shouldnt be listened to no matter how much sense it makes.
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on October 22, 2013, 07:40:39 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 22, 2013, 07:24:21 PM
Quote from: Armor of Light on October 22, 2013, 07:23:08 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 22, 2013, 07:21:18 PM
Here's the thing about miracles. Most people define them as being against the laws of nature. If they are against the laws of nature, they are impossible. If we can learn how they happen, they will no longer be against the laws of nature, and hence not be miracles.
I don't define miracles that way, and neither does the Church.
How then?
Ask him to produce the Churches definition of Miracles Flyboy...hes blowing smoke on this subject.
consider this reasoning:
I use the word Miracle to mean an interference with Nature by supernatural power." ........"It is therefore inaccurate to define a miracle as something that breaks the laws of Nature. It doesn't. ... If God creates a miraculous spermatozoon in the body of a virgin, it does not proceed to break any laws. The laws at once take it over. Nature is ready. Pregnancy follows, according to all the normal laws, and nine months later a child is born. ... The divine art of miracle is not an art of suspending the pattern. ... And they (naturalist) are sure that all reality must be interrelated and consistent. I agree with them. But I think they have mistaken a partial system within reality, namely Nature, for the whole. That being so, the miracle and the previous history of Nature may be interlocked after all but not in the way the Naturalists expected: rather in a much more roundabout fashion. The great complex event called Nature, and the new particular event introduced into it by the miracle, are related by their common origin in God, and doubtless, if we knew enough, most intricately related in his purpose and design, ..... In that way the miracles and the previous course of Nature are as well interlocked as any other two realities, but you must go back as far as their common Creator to find the interlocking. You will not find it within Nature. ... The rightful demand that all reality should be consistent and systematic does not therefore exclude miracles: but it has a very valuable contribution to make to our conception of them. It reminds us that miracles, if they occur, must, like all events, be revelations of that total harmony of all that exists. Nothing arbitrary, nothing simply "stuck on" and left unreconciled with the texture of total reality, can be admitted. By definition, miracles must of course interrupt the usual course of Nature; but if they are real they must, in the very act of so doing, assert all the more the unity and self-consistency of total reality at some deeper level. ... In calling them miracles we do not mean that they are contradictions or outrages; we mean that, left to her [Nature] own resources, she could never produce them."..................................................."In other words, there are rules behind the rules, and a unity which is deeper than uniformity. ... I do not say that the normalities of Nature are unreal. ... But to think that a disturbance of them would constitute a breach of the living rule and organic unity whereby God, from his own point of view, works, is a mistake.
Hey now..
I'm not 'blowing smoke'. Yeesh man! You invited me to join over here! I'm not as edumacated as you are on this. I didn't address the church's definition of a miracle because I have to look it up! I know enough to know that it does not say that a miracle has to defy the laws of nature.
www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=8016 (http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=8016)
It is rather lengthy and I think voxx cliff noted it beautifully.
Quote from: Armor of Light on October 22, 2013, 07:44:57 PM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on October 22, 2013, 07:40:39 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 22, 2013, 07:24:21 PM
Quote from: Armor of Light on October 22, 2013, 07:23:08 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 22, 2013, 07:21:18 PM
Here's the thing about miracles. Most people define them as being against the laws of nature. If they are against the laws of nature, they are impossible. If we can learn how they happen, they will no longer be against the laws of nature, and hence not be miracles.
I don't define miracles that way, and neither does the Church.
How then?
Ask him to produce the Churches definition of Miracles Flyboy...hes blowing smoke on this subject.
consider this reasoning:
I use the word Miracle to mean an interference with Nature by supernatural power." ........"It is therefore inaccurate to define a miracle as something that breaks the laws of Nature. It doesn't. ... If God creates a miraculous spermatozoon in the body of a virgin, it does not proceed to break any laws. The laws at once take it over. Nature is ready. Pregnancy follows, according to all the normal laws, and nine months later a child is born. ... The divine art of miracle is not an art of suspending the pattern. ... And they (naturalist) are sure that all reality must be interrelated and consistent. I agree with them. But I think they have mistaken a partial system within reality, namely Nature, for the whole. That being so, the miracle and the previous history of Nature may be interlocked after all but not in the way the Naturalists expected: rather in a much more roundabout fashion. The great complex event called Nature, and the new particular event introduced into it by the miracle, are related by their common origin in God, and doubtless, if we knew enough, most intricately related in his purpose and design, ..... In that way the miracles and the previous course of Nature are as well interlocked as any other two realities, but you must go back as far as their common Creator to find the interlocking. You will not find it within Nature. ... The rightful demand that all reality should be consistent and systematic does not therefore exclude miracles: but it has a very valuable contribution to make to our conception of them. It reminds us that miracles, if they occur, must, like all events, be revelations of that total harmony of all that exists. Nothing arbitrary, nothing simply "stuck on" and left unreconciled with the texture of total reality, can be admitted. By definition, miracles must of course interrupt the usual course of Nature; but if they are real they must, in the very act of so doing, assert all the more the unity and self-consistency of total reality at some deeper level. ... In calling them miracles we do not mean that they are contradictions or outrages; we mean that, left to her [Nature] own resources, she could never produce them."..................................................."In other words, there are rules behind the rules, and a unity which is deeper than uniformity. ... I do not say that the normalities of Nature are unreal. ... But to think that a disturbance of them would constitute a breach of the living rule and organic unity whereby God, from his own point of view, works, is a mistake.
Hey now..
I'm not 'blowing smoke'. Yeesh man! You invited me to join over here! I'm not as edumacated as you are on this. I didn't address the church's definition of a miracle because I have to look it up! I know enough to know that it does not say that a miracle has to defy the laws of nature.
Armor of light im sorry I thought that was someone elses quote in the box to flyboy..mea culpa! :cry:
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on October 22, 2013, 08:34:06 PM
Quote from: Armor of Light on October 22, 2013, 07:44:57 PM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on October 22, 2013, 07:40:39 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 22, 2013, 07:24:21 PM
Quote from: Armor of Light on October 22, 2013, 07:23:08 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 22, 2013, 07:21:18 PM
Here's the thing about miracles. Most people define them as being against the laws of nature. If they are against the laws of nature, they are impossible. If we can learn how they happen, they will no longer be against the laws of nature, and hence not be miracles.
I don't define miracles that way, and neither does the Church.
How then?
Ask him to produce the Churches definition of Miracles Flyboy...hes blowing smoke on this subject.
consider this reasoning:
I use the word Miracle to mean an interference with Nature by supernatural power." ........"It is therefore inaccurate to define a miracle as something that breaks the laws of Nature. It doesn't. ... If God creates a miraculous spermatozoon in the body of a virgin, it does not proceed to break any laws. The laws at once take it over. Nature is ready. Pregnancy follows, according to all the normal laws, and nine months later a child is born. ... The divine art of miracle is not an art of suspending the pattern. ... And they (naturalist) are sure that all reality must be interrelated and consistent. I agree with them. But I think they have mistaken a partial system within reality, namely Nature, for the whole. That being so, the miracle and the previous history of Nature may be interlocked after all but not in the way the Naturalists expected: rather in a much more roundabout fashion. The great complex event called Nature, and the new particular event introduced into it by the miracle, are related by their common origin in God, and doubtless, if we knew enough, most intricately related in his purpose and design, ..... In that way the miracles and the previous course of Nature are as well interlocked as any other two realities, but you must go back as far as their common Creator to find the interlocking. You will not find it within Nature. ... The rightful demand that all reality should be consistent and systematic does not therefore exclude miracles: but it has a very valuable contribution to make to our conception of them. It reminds us that miracles, if they occur, must, like all events, be revelations of that total harmony of all that exists. Nothing arbitrary, nothing simply "stuck on" and left unreconciled with the texture of total reality, can be admitted. By definition, miracles must of course interrupt the usual course of Nature; but if they are real they must, in the very act of so doing, assert all the more the unity and self-consistency of total reality at some deeper level. ... In calling them miracles we do not mean that they are contradictions or outrages; we mean that, left to her [Nature] own resources, she could never produce them."..................................................."In other words, there are rules behind the rules, and a unity which is deeper than uniformity. ... I do not say that the normalities of Nature are unreal. ... But to think that a disturbance of them would constitute a breach of the living rule and organic unity whereby God, from his own point of view, works, is a mistake.
Hey now..
I'm not 'blowing smoke'. Yeesh man! You invited me to join over here! I'm not as edumacated as you are on this. I didn't address the church's definition of a miracle because I have to look it up! I know enough to know that it does not say that a miracle has to defy the laws of nature.
Armor of light im sorry I thought that was someone elses quote in the box to flyboy..mea culpa! :cry:
S'ok..
I thought it might have been a mix-up. But just as our Lord turned bad into good...I did look up the definition!
I hope the crimson thorn comes back. I have a logical dilemma for him.
A thorn? Call me a gadfly. What's the dilemma?
Ah.. You know I'm just teasing a bit..
I have to go soon (I'm at work), so I'll have to cut and run for tonight..but here it is.
I had a dream a few months ago. I dreamed of a lovely chicken dinner with all the sides. So vivid. Woke up drooling.
You can prove I was dreaming, but no way you can prove what I was dreaming about. That dream was not of my own making (and no way can science tell my exactly how I came to dream this). I did not control it, but I did go out and procure myself some delicious chicken the next day as a reaction to the dream. You have had similar experiences...we all have. It is a common experience shared by all men from all time. So, you believe me when I report my dream even though you have no proof, and science cannot and has not proven me to be truthful and correct. Now...does my report of a dream force you into some sort of action or submission of your will against your wishes? No. It has little effect on you. Why would you need proof of my truthfulness in this matter? Because my dream has no effect on you.
But God and eternity does matter. That is the only effect worth worrying about. Is it really fear of changing ones life that stands in the way of an atheist (not you necessarily) seeking God?
Quote from: Armor of Light on October 22, 2013, 09:17:19 PM
Ah.. You know I'm just teasing a bit..
I have to go soon (I'm at work), so I'll have to cut and run for tonight..but here it is.
I had a dream a few months ago. I dreamed of a lovely chicken dinner with all the sides. So vivid. Woke up drooling.
You can prove I was dreaming, but no way you can prove what I was dreaming about. That dream was not of my own making (and no way can science tell my exactly how I came to dream this). I did not control it, but I did go out and procure myself some delicious chicken the next day as a reaction to the dream. You have had similar experiences...we all have. It is a common experience shared by all men from all time. So, you believe me when I report my dream even though you have no proof, and science cannot and has not proven me to be truthful and correct. Now...does my report of a dream force you into some sort of action or submission of your will against your wishes? No. It has little effect on you. Why would you need proof of my truthfulness in this matter? Because my dream has no effect on you.
But God and eternity does matter. That is the only effect worth worrying about. Is it really fear of changing ones life that stands in the way of an atheist (not you necessarily) seeking God?
I know and take no offense. Your right that science can't tell what you were dreaming about, now. Maybe someday though. If you told me you were dreaming about chicken, that would not be so out of the norm. It doesn't require much effort to believe something like that. God and eternity are a different story, however. Mother are very much outside of the normal lives which we live as humans. Everything we do is in a finite sphere, and yet we are asked to contemplate something infinite. Everything we experience involves matter, and yet we are asked to contemplate the spiritual. You say these things matter, but only if they are true. If we accept things because there is noting to disprove them, then what else will we accept? Why not Valhalla? This is where I think we get things backward. It does no good to posit something and then claim that it must be true as long as no one can disprove it.
What stands in the way of an atheist seeking or finding God? I think that depends on the individual atheist. Some don't want to give something up, that's true. Some just don't feel any presence of God. Some have a philosophical difference with Christianity. Some need proof of God. There are countless reasons.
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on October 22, 2013, 07:42:21 PM
Quote from: Armor of Light on October 22, 2013, 07:40:20 PM
You said all that so much better than I would've!
it wasnt me it was an evil protestan named cs lewis (according to Robert hes an evil protestant anyway and shouldnt be listened to no matter how much sense it makes.
I little libel, Vox? I never said anyone was evil. Nor did I ever say not to listen to anything C.S. Lewis said. I said that particularly in a matter of religious doctrine alone, any Catholic has a right to not listen to him, because he does not have the true Faith.
And, this is where you live in contradiction. In a matter of pure secular science you say to stay away completely from atheists' works. Yet... in a subject of religious doctrine, which is
much more important, you will delve into a Protestant's works, who does not have the Faith.
Cs lewis is much less a risk to the soul than atheistic jews...oy vey!
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on October 23, 2013, 07:52:54 AM
Cs lewis is much less a risk to the soul than atheistic jews...oy vey!
Apparently you didn't get the message. Not when the atheists are dealing with a
secular subject and a heretic is dealing with
religious doctrine.
You have it backwards.
QuoteIf you told me you were dreaming about chicken, that would not be so out of the norm.
What is the percentage of modern smart humans that believe in God? Way more than 50%, making belief in God the norm.
QuoteMost are very much outside of the normal lives which we live as humans. Everything we do is in a finite sphere, and yet we are asked to contemplate something infinite.
We are not asked so much as we are wired to do it. Always have been.
QuoteEverything we experience involves matter
Uhh.. Nope.
QuoteYou say these things matter, but only if they are true.
I think that is where atheism dodges into selfishness. "It can't be true because I don't want it to matter". In a way, that is like saying working and studying for a career in music only is worthwhile if you end up being a working musician. The pursuit of God is the whole point! Since most atheists (I assume) subscribe to the "I'm a good person" theory, then the jump to God is really not that big. All the "good" that you do and all the charity you can muster up IS GOD working in you.
QuoteIf we accept things because there is noting to disprove them, then what else will we accept? Why not Valhalla? This is where I think we get things backward. It does no good to posit something and then claim that it must be true as long as no one can disprove it.
Atheism fails here. You put as much faith in something that cannot be proven. And..I wonder: Why are you (not you individually) not debating people that have been abducted by aliens? I'm sure there is a forum!! You want to lump us into the same crackpot category, and the ramifications of their claims would have a pretty big effect on humanity if proven to be true. Why is religion your nemesis?
QuoteWhat stands in the way of an atheist seeking or finding God? I think that depends on the individual atheist. Some don't want to give something up, that's true. Some just don't feel any presence of God. Some have a philosophical difference with Christianity. Some need proof of God. There are countless reasons.
This is where we can agree. All the reasons we (catholics) fail are of our own making as well. Pride is our downfall.
1. I wasn't making reference to belief, but to experience. I have experienced chickens in a very real way, I have held a live chicken in my hands and I have eaten a dead chicken. I have only experienced God in a very subjective way. Was it really God, or just my own mind and emotions? How could I really know?
2. I have an incredibly hard time contemplating the infinite. All my experiences are within a finite sphere, so to contemplate the infinite is to contemplate something I have no experience with. You may as well ask me to contemplate what a fourth dimension would look like. I haven't the slightest idea, because I live my life in three dimensions, therefore it is impossible to get my mind around a fourth dimension. I also live my life in the finite, therefore it is impossible to get my mind around the infinite.
3. In what way do we experience something which is not matter or that stems from matter?
4. Only existent things matter, because the non-existent can do us neither harm nor good. How much do you concern yourself with Zeus and his laws? God matters only if we can prove his existence.
5. People who claim to have been abducted by aliens are crack pots. They provide no real evidence and expect people to simply believe their ridiculous claims. When they do come up with any evidence at all, it is some fuzzy film which proves nothing at all. I don't even bother with such idiots. Religion has a strong impact on all of our lives, whether we practice religion or not. The alien crowd has no impact on anyone's lives, the vast majority of humanity simply ignores them. The question of religion is important, the question of aliens is not. And, what do you think I put my faith into which cannot be proven?
6. How are doubt and pride related?
"There is no God" (atheism) cannot be proven. I know the common work-around for this among atheists is some variation of "I can't / won't believe believe in something that can't be proven..I'm not saying God does not exist, but I refuse to give my assent to that which cannot be proven."
Well, guess what? We are not so different! No of course God cannot be proven because God is not "of" science or nature so you will not find Him there. We (me at least) also do not KNOW that God is true. At times I have known it. At times I have felt it. Good enough for me to keep going! Too late for me to get away with atheism!!
My point with the chicken dinner story (true BTW) is that humans do have a common frame of reference that is not explainable or provable but true nonetheless.
The fact that since the dawn of time, man has indeed contemplated the infinite should be a clue as to God's presence. The fact that we CAN contemplate is a clue as well. why are we the only creatures that can? Please don't tell me animals contemplate. Please.
Quote from: Armor of Light on October 23, 2013, 09:16:49 AM
The fact that since the dawn of time, man has indeed contemplated the infinite should be a clue as to God's presence. The fact that we CAN contemplate is a clue as well. why are we the only creatures that can? Please don't tell me animals contemplate. Please.
Of course animals don't contemplate, they haven't the reason to be capable.
Quote
Well, guess what? We are not so different! No of course God cannot be proven because God is not "of" science or nature so you will not find Him there. We (me at least) also do not KNOW that God is true. At times I have known it. At times I have felt it. Good enough for me to keep going! Too late for me to get away with atheism!!
This is very honest of you, and I commend you. Now you sound a lot like Camus, which is ironic because I am reading a book of his right now called The Myth of Sisyphus. In a way he turns his concept of the absurd into God, tells himself he cannot know it, but then decides to soldier on anyway. I also hear a bit of the Karamazov father in you.
Crimson, look what you do. You insist on evidence. We give verified evidence, not merely a claim. And after you recieve it, you go out looking for a claim that was NOT verified and then act as if that unverified claim has any value to trumping verified evidence. You are showing your bias.
You see the record of Theresa Neumann from the GBWR, surviving on a quarter ounce of daily "bread" for 35 years. Then, as if it has anything to do with it at all, you go for some claim that the woman lied about something else. First of all, it is an unverified claim, secondly, it has nothing to do with the GBWR.
Will seeing the x-ray of a man's completely severed leg before and after visiting Lourdes really mean anything to you? Or will you go find an article that says the man lied to his doctor about having having the flu, and then go into know-nothing mode about his leg?
Quote from: RobertJS on October 23, 2013, 10:17:31 AM
Crimson, look what you do. You insist on evidence. We give verified evidence, not merely a claim. And after you recieve it, you go out looking for a claim that was NOT verified and then act as if that unverified claim has any value to trumping verified evidence. You are showing your bias.
You see the record of Theresa Neumann from the GBWR, surviving on a quarter ounce of daily "bread" for 35 years. Then, as if it has anything to do with it at all, you go for some claim that the woman lied about something else. First of all, it is an unverified claim, secondly, it has nothing to do with the GBWR.
Will seeing the x-ray of a man's completely severed leg before and after visiting Lourdes really mean anything to you? Or will you go find an article that says the man lied to his doctor about having having the flu, and then go into know-nothing mode about his leg?
The woman very well may have lied about only eating 'bread'. You gave me evidence, yet I contest that evidence. Hindu yogis have made this claim and have tried to bring forth evidence, some even went without food for several days while under surveillance. Yet, in the end these yogis were found to be frauds. Why are miracles so important? You seem to be seeking physical evidence for your immaterial God. I don't find the search for miracles very intellectually stimulating, the philosophy, however, is very interesting. Let's just stick to philosophy.
Philosophy-wise then..
How do you reconcile the atheist mindset with the fact that atheism cannot be proven?
Quote from: Armor of Light on October 23, 2013, 10:40:33 AM
Philosophy-wise then..
How do you reconcile the atheist mindset with the fact that atheism cannot be proven?
I start with by clearing the table of my mind and refuse to put anything back on which I cannot prove.
Quote from: Armor of Light on October 23, 2013, 09:16:49 AM
"There is no God" (atheism) cannot be proven. I know the common work-around for this among atheists is some variation of "I can't / won't believe believe in something that can't be proven..I'm not saying God does not exist, but I refuse to give my assent to that which cannot be proven."
Well, guess what? We are not so different! No of course God cannot be proven because God is not "of" science or nature so you will not find Him there. We (me at least) also do not KNOW that God is true. At times I have known it. At times I have felt it. Good enough for me to keep going! Too late for me to get away with atheism!!
Dead wrong, Armalite!
"Anyone who says that the existence of God cannot be known with certainty by the light of natural reason alone... anathema sit!" It's de fide! There are multiple ways to prove the necessary existence of God without any reference to bible-bashers, Mohammad, or any other peculiar gurus. It is just a fact of any science that does not rely on self-contradictory (absurd) premises. It does not rely on any opinions or "gut feelings" or cultic fads... it is a cold, hard scientific fact... like it or not.
Atheists, and all other idolaters, (unless they are blamelessly deceived credulous dreamers) make a religion out of absurdity.
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 23, 2013, 11:35:16 AM
Quote from: Armor of Light on October 23, 2013, 10:40:33 AM
Philosophy-wise then..
How do you reconcile the atheist mindset with the fact that atheism cannot be proven?
I start with by clearing the table of my mind and refuse to put anything back on which I cannot prove.
That makes no sense. So, you are NOT an atheist?
Quote from: Armor of Light on October 23, 2013, 11:46:41 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 23, 2013, 11:35:16 AM
Quote from: Armor of Light on October 23, 2013, 10:40:33 AM
Philosophy-wise then..
How do you reconcile the atheist mindset with the fact that atheism cannot be proven?
I start with by clearing the table of my mind and refuse to put anything back on which I cannot prove.
That makes no sense. So, you are NOT an atheist?
How'd you get that?
Quote from: Oldavid on October 23, 2013, 11:44:06 AM
Quote from: Armor of Light on October 23, 2013, 09:16:49 AM
"There is no God" (atheism) cannot be proven. I know the common work-around for this among atheists is some variation of "I can't / won't believe believe in something that can't be proven..I'm not saying God does not exist, but I refuse to give my assent to that which cannot be proven."
Well, guess what? We are not so different! No of course God cannot be proven because God is not "of" science or nature so you will not find Him there. We (me at least) also do not KNOW that God is true. At times I have known it. At times I have felt it. Good enough for me to keep going! Too late for me to get away with atheism!!
Dead wrong, Armalite!
"Anyone who says that the existence of God cannot be known with certainty by the light of natural reason alone... anathema sit!" It's de fide! There are multiple ways to prove the necessary existence of God without any reference to bible-bashers, Mohammad, or any other peculiar gurus. It is just a fact of any science that does not rely on self-contradictory (absurd) premises. It does not rely on any opinions or "gut feelings" or cultic fads... it is a cold, hard scientific fact... like it or not.
Atheists, and all other idolaters, (unless they are blamelessly deceived credulous dreamers) make a religion out of absurdity.
This is what I have been trying to get at. How do we prove the existence of God?
Quote from: Oldavid on October 23, 2013, 11:44:06 AM
Quote from: Armor of Light on October 23, 2013, 09:16:49 AM
"There is no God" (atheism) cannot be proven. I know the common work-around for this among atheists is some variation of "I can't / won't believe believe in something that can't be proven..I'm not saying God does not exist, but I refuse to give my assent to that which cannot be proven."
Well, guess what? We are not so different! No of course God cannot be proven because God is not "of" science or nature so you will not find Him there. We (me at least) also do not KNOW that God is true. At times I have known it. At times I have felt it. Good enough for me to keep going! Too late for me to get away with atheism!!
Dead wrong, Armalite!
"Anyone who says that the existence of God cannot be known with certainty by the light of natural reason alone... anathema sit!" It's de fide! There are multiple ways to prove the necessary existence of God without any reference to bible-bashers, Mohammad, or any other peculiar gurus. It is just a fact of any science that does not rely on self-contradictory (absurd) premises. It does not rely on any opinions or "gut feelings" or cultic fads... it is a cold, hard scientific fact... like it or not.
Atheists, and all other idolaters, (unless they are blamelessly deceived credulous dreamers) make a religion out of absurdity.
..that's the point I'm trying to make.
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 23, 2013, 11:47:17 AM
Quote from: Armor of Light on October 23, 2013, 11:46:41 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 23, 2013, 11:35:16 AM
Quote from: Armor of Light on October 23, 2013, 10:40:33 AM
Philosophy-wise then..
How do you reconcile the atheist mindset with the fact that atheism cannot be proven?
I start with by clearing the table of my mind and refuse to put anything back on which I cannot prove.
That makes no sense. So, you are NOT an atheist?
How'd you get that?
Easy.
Atheism cannot be proven, so it is not on you brain table.
Atheism is not a thing, it is a lack of a thing.
Quote from: Oldavid on October 23, 2013, 11:44:06 AM
Quote from: Armor of Light on October 23, 2013, 09:16:49 AM
"There is no God" (atheism) cannot be proven. I know the common work-around for this among atheists is some variation of "I can't / won't believe believe in something that can't be proven..I'm not saying God does not exist, but I refuse to give my assent to that which cannot be proven."
Well, guess what? We are not so different! No of course God cannot be proven because God is not "of" science or nature so you will not find Him there. We (me at least) also do not KNOW that God is true. At times I have known it. At times I have felt it. Good enough for me to keep going! Too late for me to get away with atheism!!
Dead wrong, Armalite!
"Anyone who says that the existence of God cannot be known with certainty by the light of natural reason alone... anathema sit!" It's de fide! There are multiple ways to prove the necessary existence of God without any reference to bible-bashers, Mohammad, or any other peculiar gurus. It is just a fact of any science that does not rely on self-contradictory (absurd) premises. It does not rely on any opinions or "gut feelings" or cultic fads... it is a cold, hard scientific fact... like it or not.
Atheists, and all other idolaters, (unless they are blamelessly deceived credulous dreamers) make a religion out of absurdity.
The document to which you allude is called Filius Dei. I looked it up online. I had heard of this dogma, but have yet to read the document. It has something odd in the first paragraph:
"The holy, Catholic, Apostolic, Roman Church believes and confesses that there is one, true, living God, Creator and Lord of heaven and earth, omnipotent, eternal, immense, incomprehensible, infinite in intellect and will, and in every perfection; who, although He is one, singular, altogether simple and unchangeable spiritual substance, must be proclaimed distinct in reality and essence from the world; most blessed in Himself and of Himself, and ineffably most high above all things which are or can be conceived outside Himself."
Notice the word incomprehensible, how can God be incomprehensible? If he is, how can we even say his name, for to give a thing a name is to comprehend that thing at least somewhat.
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 23, 2013, 12:12:08 PM
Atheism is not a thing, it is a lack of a thing.
...UHH....
So, there is no such thing as darkness?
Quote from: Armor of Light on October 23, 2013, 12:26:22 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 23, 2013, 12:12:08 PM
Atheism is not a thing, it is a lack of a thing.
...UHH....
So, there is no such thing as darkness?
No, darkness is a lack of light. An atheist is not someone who believes something, but rather someone who does not believe something.
That's a tap dance.
You do believe something that cannot be proven.
Quote from: Armor of Light on October 23, 2013, 12:38:16 PM
That's a tap dance.
You do believe something that cannot be proven.
Not quite, atheism is not a belief, but rather a lack of belief. What say ye about the Filius Dei document?
Well, jeez..I hope I'm not anathema sit. I'll have to read it! I was just offering my own opinion earlier.
At first glance I'd say that it is reasonable to say God can be known through reason and I'd also say that the operative word there is 'can'.
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 23, 2013, 12:40:11 PM
Quote from: Armor of Light on October 23, 2013, 12:38:16 PM
That's a tap dance.
You do believe something that cannot be proven.
Not quite, atheism is not a belief, but rather a lack of belief. What say ye about the Filius Dei document?
TAP DANCE!!!
Look...atheism says certain things. Atheists believe certain things.
Quote from: Armor of Light on October 23, 2013, 12:50:50 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 23, 2013, 12:40:11 PM
Quote from: Armor of Light on October 23, 2013, 12:38:16 PM
That's a tap dance.
You do believe something that cannot be proven.
Not quite, atheism is not a belief, but rather a lack of belief. What say ye about the Filius Dei document?
TAP DANCE!!!
Look...atheism says certain things. Atheists believe certain things.
Atheists can believe anything, atheism is not a grouping of beliefs. Get 100 atheists together and you might have 100 different philosophical systems, the only thing they would have in common is the lack of belief in God or other gods.
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 23, 2013, 12:25:35 PM
The document to which you allude is called Filius Dei. I looked it up online. I had heard of this dogma, but have yet to read the document. It has something odd in the first paragraph:
"The holy, Catholic, Apostolic, Roman Church believes and confesses that there is one, true, living God, Creator and Lord of heaven and earth, omnipotent, eternal, immense, incomprehensible, infinite in intellect and will, and in every perfection; who, although He is one, singular, altogether simple and unchangeable spiritual substance, must be proclaimed distinct in reality and essence from the world; most blessed in Himself and of Himself, and ineffably most high above all things which are or can be conceived outside Himself."
No. What I said is pretty much verbatim from the original, which, I think, comes from the first Vatican Council.... which is pretty much just a summary proclamation of what was always believed and a summary of the explanations given by St. Thomas Aquinas. Nothing new at all, really... just the manner and force with which it was delivered.
I will give a summary of the reasoning and logic behind it if anyone is genuinely interested.
Quote from: Oldavid on October 23, 2013, 01:07:32 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 23, 2013, 12:25:35 PM
The document to which you allude is called Filius Dei. I looked it up online. I had heard of this dogma, but have yet to read the document. It has something odd in the first paragraph:
"The holy, Catholic, Apostolic, Roman Church believes and confesses that there is one, true, living God, Creator and Lord of heaven and earth, omnipotent, eternal, immense, incomprehensible, infinite in intellect and will, and in every perfection; who, although He is one, singular, altogether simple and unchangeable spiritual substance, must be proclaimed distinct in reality and essence from the world; most blessed in Himself and of Himself, and ineffably most high above all things which are or can be conceived outside Himself."
No. What I said is pretty much verbatim from the original, which, I think, comes from the first Vatican Council.... which is pretty much just a summary proclamation of what was always believed and a summary of the explanations given by St. Thomas Aquinas. Nothing new at all, really... just the manner and force with which it was delivered.
I will give a summary of the reasoning and logic behind it if anyone is genuinely interested.
I am very much genuinely interested. And Filius Dei comes from Vatican I.
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 23, 2013, 12:25:35 PM
Notice the word incomprehensible, how can God be incomprehensible? If he is, how can we even say his name, for to give a thing a name is to comprehend that thing at least somewhat.
You are right. We can only speak of God by analogy, in terms that ARE comprehensible to our finite minds.
The science of physics does the same thing. The terms "light year" or "speed of sound" make use of analogous thinking (although in a way different than how we talk about God). Saying an object is a "light year" away helps us comprehend the distance a little better because we are able to think in terms of a thing we are very familiar with (i.e. light), its speed, and the distance it can travel in a space of time we are familiar with. This is not perfectly comparable to the sort of analogous thinking that we employ when we discuss God and the infinite, but it illustrates how such analogous thinking works.
If the only way we can know God through reason is by analogy, the we cannot know God through reason.
Crimson, seeing all your responses and interactions here, I would say you are a completely lost soul who is only certain he exists, and everything else is uncertain. You are a humanist who fashions his personal world of beliefs by what feels good for the moment. What are you doing here?
You make statements of a sort of conviction, and then retract and act against those convictions when put on the spot. Earlier you mentioned you wanted testimony, and then when it is presented and plenty of it, you renege and say you can't trust it. You said you trust the Guinness Book of World Records, and then when presented with a record, you simply say you don't trust it. You claim to love verified empirical evidence, and then when presented with it, you bring up unverified claims as if they signify something against the verified evidence. Let's face it, what you want is to witness a first class miracle yourself, or to heck with everything. You say you trust reason and logic, but you don't. You say you go on cost/benefit balance, and then show you really don't adhere to it.
There are tons of proofs for the existence of God, and you play the game like you are willing, and when something strong comes through, you simply say you don't trust it. It is absurd that you are here. You are only here to get a kick out of stirring up people, and sowing doubt. That is a classic troll.
Now I will start to comment on what I think happened to you, and the only reason why I will is because you have been candid enough about your recent past.....
I think that since you were born around 1981, you were likely baptized in the Novus Ordo, no?
Quote from: RobertJS on October 23, 2013, 04:12:01 PM
Crimson, seeing all your responses and interactions here, I would say you are a completely lost soul who is only certain he exists, and everything else is uncertain. You are a humanist who fashions his personal world of beliefs by what feels good for the moment. What are you doing here?
You make statements of a sort of conviction, and then retract and act against those convictions when put on the spot. Earlier you mentioned you wanted testimony, and then when it is presented and plenty of it, you renege and say you can't trust it. You said you trust the Guinness Book of World Records, and then when presented with a record, you simply say you don't trust it. You claim to love verified empirical evidence, and then when presented with it, you bring up unverified claims as if they signify something against the verified evidence. Let's face it, what you want is to witness a first class miracle yourself, or to heck with everything. You say you trust reason and logic, but you don't. You say you go on cost/benefit balance, and then show you really don't adhere to it.
There are tons of proofs for the existence of God, and you play the game like you are willing, and when something strong comes through, you simply say you don't trust it. It is absurd that you are here. You are only here to get a kick out of stirring up people, and sowing doubt. That is a classic troll.
Now I will start to comment on what I think happened to you, and the only reason why I will is because you have been candid enough about your recent past.....
I think that since you were born around 1981, you were likely baptized in the Novus Ordo, no?
I was in born in 1980, and yes I away baptized in the Novus Ordo.
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 23, 2013, 04:16:31 PM
Quote from: RobertJS on October 23, 2013, 04:12:01 PM
Crimson, seeing all your responses and interactions here, I would say you are a completely lost soul who is only certain he exists, and everything else is uncertain. You are a humanist who fashions his personal world of beliefs by what feels good for the moment. What are you doing here?
You make statements of a sort of conviction, and then retract and act against those convictions when put on the spot. Earlier you mentioned you wanted testimony, and then when it is presented and plenty of it, you renege and say you can't trust it. You said you trust the Guinness Book of World Records, and then when presented with a record, you simply say you don't trust it. You claim to love verified empirical evidence, and then when presented with it, you bring up unverified claims as if they signify something against the verified evidence. Let's face it, what you want is to witness a first class miracle yourself, or to heck with everything. You say you trust reason and logic, but you don't. You say you go on cost/benefit balance, and then show you really don't adhere to it.
There are tons of proofs for the existence of God, and you play the game like you are willing, and when something strong comes through, you simply say you don't trust it. It is absurd that you are here. You are only here to get a kick out of stirring up people, and sowing doubt. That is a classic troll.
Now I will start to comment on what I think happened to you, and the only reason why I will is because you have been candid enough about your recent past.....
I think that since you were born around 1981, you were likely baptized in the Novus Ordo, no?
I was in born in 1980, and yes I away baptized in the Novus Ordo.
Judging from your past. And, judging from your present mentality....I would say it is very likely that you never had the
divine virtue of Faith, because maybe you were not validly baptized in the Novus Ordo. This would entail that you have essentially lived, in reality, as a
catechumen for such a long stretch of time, thinking you were Catholic. The SSPX does conditional confirmations (rightfully so), but they wrongfully do not look into doing conditional baptisms for those supposedly baptized in the Novus Ordo. Baptism gives the free gift of divine Faith to one who does not already have it. Atheists just don't come here, so it tells me deep down you are a catechumen, and probably need condition baptism. Unfortunately, it cannot be done unless you regain some explicit zeal and desire to be Catholic.
I think with all the images of Our Lady you say you have kept, she is giving you a big grace to be here. I think you should regularly, even if hypothetically, pray to Our Lady for assistance. Try also reading about the conversion of the "Ratisbonne brothers", who were anti-Catholic Jews.
During my time at the seminary I found myself reaching for some philosophical grounding, but finding none. There must be some grounding to use as a starting point upon which to build. What is that for you?
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 23, 2013, 03:53:56 PM
If the only way we can know God through reason is by analogy, the we cannot know God through reason.
Please explain. I find that analogy is quite useful for arriving at greater knowledge.
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 23, 2013, 04:43:58 PM
During my time at the seminary I found myself reaching for some philosophical grounding, but finding none. There must be some grounding to use as a starting point upon which to build. What is that for you?
Philosophy is wisdom. It is based on reason. It is wise and reasonable for you to go and diligently research the miracles I have presented, as well as the loads of other ones that exist. You have your starting point.
Quote from: rbjmartin on October 23, 2013, 04:51:08 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 23, 2013, 03:53:56 PM
If the only way we can know God through reason is by analogy, the we cannot know God through reason.
Please explain. I find that analogy is quite useful for arriving at greater knowledge.
Analogy can be very helpful when describing a complex idea. If we start from a known object and then construct an analogy to explain that thing, we do very well. There is the thing, and then the analogy that describes the thing. If we can only speak of God in analogous terms, then we can only know the analogy of God, but not God himself. But, how do we know that this analogy represents the actual God well?
Quote from: RobertJS on October 23, 2013, 04:54:00 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 23, 2013, 04:43:58 PM
During my time at the seminary I found myself reaching for some philosophical grounding, but finding none. There must be some grounding to use as a starting point upon which to build. What is that for you?
Philosophy is wisdom. It is based on reason. It is wise and reasonable for you to go and diligently research the miracles I have presented, as well as the loads of other ones that exist. You have your starting point.
Read Cs Lewises book called Miracles...it short..logical and well written. Its a good starting point into christianity. It helped lead me back to the Catholic faith. Since your an atheist it wont matter that cs lewis (MAY HAVE) died a protestant.
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on October 23, 2013, 07:37:52 PM
Quote from: RobertJS on October 23, 2013, 04:54:00 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 23, 2013, 04:43:58 PM
During my time at the seminary I found myself reaching for some philosophical grounding, but finding none. There must be some grounding to use as a starting point upon which to build. What is that for you?
Philosophy is wisdom. It is based on reason. It is wise and reasonable for you to go and diligently research the miracles I have presented, as well as the loads of other ones that exist. You have your starting point.
Read Cs Lewises book called Miracles...it short..logical and well written. Its a good starting point into christianity. It helped lead me back to the Catholic faith. Since your an atheist it wont matter that cs lewis (MAY HAVE) died a protestant.
Hate to be a nitpicker but I have seen you use "your" incorrectly one too many times for me to take. "You are" is "you're"
Thank you, carry on.
Quote from: Roland Deschain on October 23, 2013, 08:17:33 PM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on October 23, 2013, 07:37:52 PM
Quote from: RobertJS on October 23, 2013, 04:54:00 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 23, 2013, 04:43:58 PM
During my time at the seminary I found myself reaching for some philosophical grounding, but finding none. There must be some grounding to use as a starting point upon which to build. What is that for you?
Philosophy is wisdom. It is based on reason. It is wise and reasonable for you to go and diligently research the miracles I have presented, as well as the loads of other ones that exist. You have your starting point.
Read Cs Lewises book called Miracles...it short..logical and well written. Its a good starting point into christianity. It helped lead me back to the Catholic faith. Since your an atheist it wont matter that cs lewis (MAY HAVE) died a protestant.
Hate to be a nitpicker but I have seen you use "your" incorrectly one too many times for me to take. "You are" is "you're"
Thank you, carry on.
No thank you...peeps think im illiterate...actually if Im at home Im too tired an lazy to be grammatical...and if Im on the phone then its near impossible because Im textually challenged,
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 23, 2013, 04:43:58 PM
During my time at the seminary I found myself reaching for some philosophical grounding, but finding none. There must be some grounding to use as a starting point upon which to build. What is that for you?
Watch this space! I don't have a lot of spare time on my hands but I do have what you've been looking for. Please be patient.
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 23, 2013, 04:43:58 PM
During my time at the seminary I found myself reaching for some philosophical grounding, but finding none. There must be some grounding to use as a starting point upon which to build. What is that for you?
Try "From Atheism to Catholicism: How Scientists and Philosophers Led Me to Truth" by Kevin Vost
Quote from: red solo cup on October 24, 2013, 05:35:53 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 23, 2013, 04:43:58 PM
During my time at the seminary I found myself reaching for some philosophical grounding, but finding none. There must be some grounding to use as a starting point upon which to build. What is that for you?
Try "From Atheism to Catholicism: How Scientists and Philosophers Led Me to Truth" by Kevin Vost
I'm currently reading http://www.amazon.com/Illogical-Atheism-Comprehensive-Contemporary-Freethinker-ebook/dp/B00D19LIVW
It's $2.99 download for kindle but have found it very well reasoned and written.
This one was recommended by Dr. Edward Feser: http://www.amazon.com/Mind-Cosmos-Materialist-Neo-Darwinian-Conception/dp/0199919755
Written by an atheist who admits the shortcomings of atheism.
Everyone's different. I personally knew a man (now deceased) who said he was an atheist, painting pictures on the streets of New York in the 1930's. He said he read the autobiography of St. Therese of Liseiux and converted. He eventually became a religious brother later in life, and passed away in that state of life.
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 23, 2013, 05:02:06 PM
Quote from: rbjmartin on October 23, 2013, 04:51:08 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 23, 2013, 03:53:56 PM
If the only way we can know God through reason is by analogy, the we cannot know God through reason.
Please explain. I find that analogy is quite useful for arriving at greater knowledge.
Analogy can be very helpful when describing a complex idea. If we start from a known object and then construct an analogy to explain that thing, we do very well. There is the thing, and then the analogy that describes the thing. If we can only speak of God in analogous terms, then we can only know the analogy of God, but not God himself. But, how do we know that this analogy represents the actual God well?
This is true, to a certain extent. We can only know God by analogy. We cannot know Him as He truly is, unless He wills to reveal Himself in a way that is beyond our nature, and He somehow enables that. Of course, this is where faith and revelation come in.
Nevertheless, even though understanding by analogy is imperfect, it is still real understanding. To use a Platonic image, if I see your shadow on a wall, I'm seeing an image of something real, even though I'm not seeing you as you actually are. I can still know SOMETHING about you, i.e. the knowledge is real. If God is Being itself, and thereby communicates being to all things that exist, then all of the observable world is going to reveal these "shadows" of God.
I think I heard you mention in another thread your explanation of the origin of the universe...something along the lines of "it always was." Is that accurate?
Quote from: rbjmartin on October 24, 2013, 09:37:28 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 23, 2013, 05:02:06 PM
Quote from: rbjmartin on October 23, 2013, 04:51:08 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 23, 2013, 03:53:56 PM
If the only way we can know God through reason is by analogy, the we cannot know God through reason.
Please explain. I find that analogy is quite useful for arriving at greater knowledge.
Analogy can be very helpful when describing a complex idea. If we start from a known object and then construct an analogy to explain that thing, we do very well. There is the thing, and then the analogy that describes the thing. If we can only speak of God in analogous terms, then we can only know the analogy of God, but not God himself. But, how do we know that this analogy represents the actual God well?
This is true, to a certain extent. We can only know God by analogy. We cannot know Him as He truly is, unless He wills to reveal Himself in a way that is beyond our nature, and He somehow enables that. Of course, this is where faith and revelation come in.
Nevertheless, even though understanding by analogy is imperfect, it is still real understanding. To use a Platonic image, if I see your shadow on a wall, I'm seeing an image of something real, even though I'm not seeing you as you actually are. I can still know SOMETHING about you, i.e. the knowledge is real. If God is Being itself, and thereby communicates being to all things that exist, then all of the observable world is going to reveal these "shadows" of God.
I think I heard you mention in another thread your explanation of the origin of the universe...something along the lines of "it always was." Is that accurate?
As far as the origin of the universe, I am waiting to see what happens with the multi-verse theory. But as for our universe, I think the universe was put together through spontaneous order. It is a theory in economics that says order comes from the bottom up, not the top down. The more complex a system is, the less likely it is that order could come from the top, and the more likely it is that order could come from the bottom. The universe is the most complex system there is, so it seems to me impossible for order to come from anywhere but the bottom. The laws of nature simply are. No one needed to create them, as no one needed to create the laws of supply and demand. These laws come about when men make observations, and then construct laws to understand these observations. This is how I think the order we see in the universe came about. It is not a perfect order, but order nonetheless.
edit: Yes, I think the laws of nature always have been in existence.
Quote from: rbjmartin on October 24, 2013, 09:37:28 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 23, 2013, 05:02:06 PM
Quote from: rbjmartin on October 23, 2013, 04:51:08 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 23, 2013, 03:53:56 PM
If the only way we can know God through reason is by analogy, the we cannot know God through reason.
Please explain. I find that analogy is quite useful for arriving at greater knowledge.
Analogy can be very helpful when describing a complex idea. If we start from a known object and then construct an analogy to explain that thing, we do very well. There is the thing, and then the analogy that describes the thing. If we can only speak of God in analogous terms, then we can only know the analogy of God, but not God himself. But, how do we know that this analogy represents the actual God well?
This is true, to a certain extent. We can only know God by analogy. We cannot know Him as He truly is, unless He wills to reveal Himself in a way that is beyond our nature, and He somehow enables that. Of course, this is where faith and revelation come in.
Nevertheless, even though understanding by analogy is imperfect, it is still real understanding. To use a Platonic image, if I see your shadow on a wall, I'm seeing an image of something real, even though I'm not seeing you as you actually are. I can still know SOMETHING about you, i.e. the knowledge is real. If God is Being itself, and thereby communicates being to all things that exist, then all of the observable world is going to reveal these "shadows" of God.
I think I heard you mention in another thread your explanation of the origin of the universe...something along the lines of "it always was." Is that accurate?
Analogy is definitely real understanding, in so far as the analogy points to a real thing. But, first we must start with the real thing, and then form an analogy to describe the real thing. The analogy is true when it matches the real thing. I know there is a sun, because I can see it and study it. I can form an analogy to describe it, and the analogy is true in so far as it matches the actual sun. Now, if I had no knowledge of the sun, I could not form an analogy of the sun. To attempt to create an analogy of an unknown sun is to use the analogy backward. I would be starting with the analogy, when I should have started with the real thing.
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 24, 2013, 10:26:55 AM
Quote from: rbjmartin on October 24, 2013, 09:37:28 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 23, 2013, 05:02:06 PM
Quote from: rbjmartin on October 23, 2013, 04:51:08 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 23, 2013, 03:53:56 PM
If the only way we can know God through reason is by analogy, the we cannot know God through reason.
Please explain. I find that analogy is quite useful for arriving at greater knowledge.
Analogy can be very helpful when describing a complex idea. If we start from a known object and then construct an analogy to explain that thing, we do very well. There is the thing, and then the analogy that describes the thing. If we can only speak of God in analogous terms, then we can only know the analogy of God, but not God himself. But, how do we know that this analogy represents the actual God well?
This is true, to a certain extent. We can only know God by analogy. We cannot know Him as He truly is, unless He wills to reveal Himself in a way that is beyond our nature, and He somehow enables that. Of course, this is where faith and revelation come in.
Nevertheless, even though understanding by analogy is imperfect, it is still real understanding. To use a Platonic image, if I see your shadow on a wall, I'm seeing an image of something real, even though I'm not seeing you as you actually are. I can still know SOMETHING about you, i.e. the knowledge is real. If God is Being itself, and thereby communicates being to all things that exist, then all of the observable world is going to reveal these "shadows" of God.
I think I heard you mention in another thread your explanation of the origin of the universe...something along the lines of "it always was." Is that accurate?
Analogy is definitely real understanding, in so far as the analogy points to a real thing. But, first we must start with the real thing, and then form an analogy to describe the real thing. The analogy is true when it matches the real thing. I know there is a sun, because I can see it and study it. I can form an analogy to describe it, and the analogy is true in so far as it matches the actual sun. Now, if I had no knowledge of the sun, I could not form an analogy of the sun. To attempt to create an analogy of an unknown sun is to use the analogy backward. I would be starting with the analogy, when I should have started with the real thing.
I disagree..
You know how I feel today?
I'll tell you. Like that dude in Munch's "The Scream".
Yes, the painting is real, but the subject is not.
Are you saying our analogy of God is like the painting 'the Scream'?
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 24, 2013, 09:52:41 AM
As far as the origin of the universe, I am waiting to see what happens with the multi-verse theory. But as for our universe, I think the universe was put together through spontaneous order. It is a theory in economics that says order comes from the bottom up, not the top down.
Economics is a discipline that is dependent on human action for its "laws" and theories (which are usually not hard and fast rules). So to apply economic theory to empirical science is a mistake.
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 24, 2013, 09:52:41 AMThe more complex a system is, the less likely it is that order could come from the top, and the more likely it is that order could come from the bottom.
I don't think this is verifiable by the scientific method. It remains only an unverified theory, and one based on economics, at that.
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 24, 2013, 09:52:41 AMThe universe is the most complex system there is, so it seems to me impossible for order to come from anywhere but the bottom. The laws of nature simply are. No one needed to create them, as no one needed to create the laws of supply and demand. These laws come about when men make observations, and then construct laws to understand these observations. This is how I think the order we see in the universe came about. It is not a perfect order, but order nonetheless.
edit: Yes, I think the laws of nature always have been in existence.
Your final statement is unverifiable by scientific standards, and it is also incomprehensible by human standards, because it necessarily invokes the concept of infinity (much in the same way God is spoken of in natural theology).
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 24, 2013, 10:26:55 AM
Analogy is definitely real understanding, in so far as the analogy points to a real thing. But, first we must start with the real thing, and then form an analogy to describe the real thing. The analogy is true when it matches the real thing. I know there is a sun, because I can see it and study it. I can form an analogy to describe it, and the analogy is true in so far as it matches the actual sun. Now, if I had no knowledge of the sun, I could not form an analogy of the sun. To attempt to create an analogy of an unknown sun is to use the analogy backward. I would be starting with the analogy, when I should have started with the real thing.
I disagree, particularly with the bolded statement. Science has come to the knowledge of certain unobservable existents by first positing theories. No one had observed the existence of atoms up until very recently. We had no way of knowing they are real things, other than by deduction. But science has been certain of their existence for over 100 years, which started out with a posited theory, and then observations were made that mesh with the theory.
Deduction and analogy are valuabe tools in coming to REAL knowledge of unobservable facts.
Quote from: rbjmartin on October 24, 2013, 11:35:21 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 24, 2013, 09:52:41 AM
As far as the origin of the universe, I am waiting to see what happens with the multi-verse theory. But as for our universe, I think the universe was put together through spontaneous order. It is a theory in economics that says order comes from the bottom up, not the top down.
Economics is a discipline that is dependent on human action for its "laws" and theories (which are usually not hard and fast rules). So to apply economic theory to empirical science is a mistake.
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 24, 2013, 09:52:41 AMThe more complex a system is, the less likely it is that order could come from the top, and the more likely it is that order could come from the bottom.
I don't think this is verifiable by the scientific method. It remains only an unverified theory, and one based on economics, at that.
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 24, 2013, 09:52:41 AMThe universe is the most complex system there is, so it seems to me impossible for order to come from anywhere but the bottom. The laws of nature simply are. No one needed to create them, as no one needed to create the laws of supply and demand. These laws come about when men make observations, and then construct laws to understand these observations. This is how I think the order we see in the universe came about. It is not a perfect order, but order nonetheless.
edit: Yes, I think the laws of nature always have been in existence.
Your final statement is unverifiable by scientific standards, and it is also incomprehensible by human standards, because it necessarily invokes the concept of infinity (much in the same way God is spoken of in natural theology).
I didn't mean to apply an economic theory to the origin of the universe directly. I spoke of the economic theory merely as a way of describing where I first learned of this idea. I went to business school, so my ideas normally start there. Here is what Wikipedia as to say about spontaneous order:
Spontaneous order, also known as "self-organization", is the spontaneous emergence of order out of seeming chaos. It is a process found in physical, biological, and social networks, as well as economics, though the term "self-organization" is more often used for physical and biological processes, while "spontaneous order" is typically used to describe the emergence of various kinds of social orders from a combination of self-interested individuals who are not intentionally trying to create order through planning. The evolution of life on Earth, language, crystal structure, the Internet and a free market economy have all been proposed as examples of systems which evolved through spontaneous order.[1] Naturalists often point to the inherent "watch-like" precision of uncultivated ecosystems and to the universe itself as ultimate examples of this phenomenon.
So, the idea I have been running around in my mind goes like this: what if the theory of spontaneous order applied to the entire universe?
Quote from: rbjmartin on October 24, 2013, 11:45:54 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 24, 2013, 10:26:55 AM
Analogy is definitely real understanding, in so far as the analogy points to a real thing. But, first we must start with the real thing, and then form an analogy to describe the real thing. The analogy is true when it matches the real thing. I know there is a sun, because I can see it and study it. I can form an analogy to describe it, and the analogy is true in so far as it matches the actual sun. Now, if I had no knowledge of the sun, I could not form an analogy of the sun. To attempt to create an analogy of an unknown sun is to use the analogy backward. I would be starting with the analogy, when I should have started with the real thing.
I disagree, particularly with the bolded statement. Science has come to the knowledge of certain unobservable existents by first positing theories. No one had observed the existence of atoms up until very recently. We had no way of knowing they are real things, other than by deduction. But science has been certain of their existence for over 100 years, which started out with a posited theory, and then observations were made that mesh with the theory.
Deduction and analogy are valuabe tools in coming to REAL knowledge of unobservable facts.
That's a good point. But, wouldn't that mean that God is a theory?
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 24, 2013, 11:32:04 AM
Are you saying our analogy of God is like the painting 'the Scream'?
No. The fact that you are able to understand the reference and reach a conclusion based on that reference shows that your previous statement:
"Analogy is definitely real understanding, in so far as the analogy points to a real thing. But, first we must start with the real thing, and then form an analogy to describe the real thing. The analogy is true when it matches the real thing."
..is not strictly true. You can surmise how I'm feeling today if I say I'm feeling like that dude in 'the Scream'. even though the subject is not real. You may have a different take on how I'm feeling based on your interpretation of the painting, but the fact that you immediately can put my feelings into a context shows that analogy does not have to be based on a "real" thing i/e the sun.
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 24, 2013, 11:59:50 AM
I didn't mean to apply an economic theory to the origin of the universe directly. I spoke of the economic theory merely as a way of describing where I first learned of this idea. I went to business school, so my ideas normally start there. Here is what Wikipedia as to say about spontaneous order:
Spontaneous order, also known as "self-organization", is the spontaneous emergence of order out of seeming chaos. It is a process found in physical, biological, and social networks, as well as economics, though the term "self-organization" is more often used for physical and biological processes, while "spontaneous order" is typically used to describe the emergence of various kinds of social orders from a combination of self-interested individuals who are not intentionally trying to create order through planning. The evolution of life on Earth, language, crystal structure, the Internet and a free market economy have all been proposed as examples of systems which evolved through spontaneous order.[1] Naturalists often point to the inherent "watch-like" precision of uncultivated ecosystems and to the universe itself as ultimate examples of this phenomenon.
So, the idea I have been running around in my mind goes like this: what if the theory of spontaneous order applied to the entire universe?
How do you define "order"?
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 24, 2013, 12:02:51 PM
Quote from: rbjmartin on October 24, 2013, 11:45:54 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 24, 2013, 10:26:55 AM
Analogy is definitely real understanding, in so far as the analogy points to a real thing. But, first we must start with the real thing, and then form an analogy to describe the real thing. The analogy is true when it matches the real thing. I know there is a sun, because I can see it and study it. I can form an analogy to describe it, and the analogy is true in so far as it matches the actual sun. Now, if I had no knowledge of the sun, I could not form an analogy of the sun. To attempt to create an analogy of an unknown sun is to use the analogy backward. I would be starting with the analogy, when I should have started with the real thing.
I disagree, particularly with the bolded statement. Science has come to the knowledge of certain unobservable existents by first positing theories. No one had observed the existence of atoms up until very recently. We had no way of knowing they are real things, other than by deduction. But science has been certain of their existence for over 100 years, which started out with a posited theory, and then observations were made that mesh with the theory.
Deduction and analogy are valuabe tools in coming to REAL knowledge of unobservable facts.
That's a good point. But, wouldn't that mean that God is a theory?
In a sense, yes, but people regularly operate based on theories. Although we speak of many things as "theories," they are often treated as "knowledge." Gravity, relativity, evolution are all theories, but they are generally treated as fact.
Also, for religious people, the natural knowledge of God (or the theory of God) is insufficient, anyway. The next step for us is the personal interaction, i.e. the acceptance of His grace and the supernatural virtue of Faith.
Quote from: rbjmartin on October 24, 2013, 12:13:39 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 24, 2013, 11:59:50 AM
I didn't mean to apply an economic theory to the origin of the universe directly. I spoke of the economic theory merely as a way of describing where I first learned of this idea. I went to business school, so my ideas normally start there. Here is what Wikipedia as to say about spontaneous order:
Spontaneous order, also known as "self-organization", is the spontaneous emergence of order out of seeming chaos. It is a process found in physical, biological, and social networks, as well as economics, though the term "self-organization" is more often used for physical and biological processes, while "spontaneous order" is typically used to describe the emergence of various kinds of social orders from a combination of self-interested individuals who are not intentionally trying to create order through planning. The evolution of life on Earth, language, crystal structure, the Internet and a free market economy have all been proposed as examples of systems which evolved through spontaneous order.[1] Naturalists often point to the inherent "watch-like" precision of uncultivated ecosystems and to the universe itself as ultimate examples of this phenomenon.
So, the idea I have been running around in my mind goes like this: what if the theory of spontaneous order applied to the entire universe?
How do you define "order"?
I think of order this way: when things are arranged in a system, or there is a type of structure to a thing. Our solar system is in order, as the planets follow a predictable path around the sun. We can figure out how they move and make predictions of where they will be in the future, and these predictions turn out to be very accurate. That's not really a definition, but it is how I think of the term. How do you define 'order'?
Quote from: rbjmartin on October 24, 2013, 12:20:04 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 24, 2013, 12:02:51 PM
Quote from: rbjmartin on October 24, 2013, 11:45:54 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 24, 2013, 10:26:55 AM
Analogy is definitely real understanding, in so far as the analogy points to a real thing. But, first we must start with the real thing, and then form an analogy to describe the real thing. The analogy is true when it matches the real thing. I know there is a sun, because I can see it and study it. I can form an analogy to describe it, and the analogy is true in so far as it matches the actual sun. Now, if I had no knowledge of the sun, I could not form an analogy of the sun. To attempt to create an analogy of an unknown sun is to use the analogy backward. I would be starting with the analogy, when I should have started with the real thing.
I disagree, particularly with the bolded statement. Science has come to the knowledge of certain unobservable existents by first positing theories. No one had observed the existence of atoms up until very recently. We had no way of knowing they are real things, other than by deduction. But science has been certain of their existence for over 100 years, which started out with a posited theory, and then observations were made that mesh with the theory.
Deduction and analogy are valuabe tools in coming to REAL knowledge of unobservable facts.
That's a good point. But, wouldn't that mean that God is a theory?
In a sense, yes, but people regularly operate based on theories. Although we speak of many things as "theories," they are often treated as "knowledge." Gravity, relativity, evolution are all theories, but they are generally treated as fact.
Also, for religious people, the natural knowledge of God (or the theory of God) is insufficient, anyway. The next step for us is the personal interaction, i.e. the acceptance of His grace and the supernatural virtue of Faith.
I don't know if we are using the word theory here properly. In science something is not a theory until it has withstood certain tests. Gravity, relativity, and evolution are all called theories, but they are also known to be true. I should not have used the word theory in my question. It sounds more like God is a hypothesis rather than a theory.
Quote from: Armor of Light on October 24, 2013, 12:11:26 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 24, 2013, 11:32:04 AM
Are you saying our analogy of God is like the painting 'the Scream'?
No. The fact that you are able to understand the reference and reach a conclusion based on that reference shows that your previous statement:
"Analogy is definitely real understanding, in so far as the analogy points to a real thing. But, first we must start with the real thing, and then form an analogy to describe the real thing. The analogy is true when it matches the real thing."
..is not strictly true. You can surmise how I'm feeling today if I say I'm feeling like that dude in 'the Scream'. even though the subject is not real. You may have a different take on how I'm feeling based on your interpretation of the painting, but the fact that you immediately can put my feelings into a context shows that analogy does not have to be based on a "real" thing i/e the sun.
If the painting "the Scream" is to the man in the painting, then our analogy of God is to the actual God. Then to use this analogy and say the man in the painting is not real is to lead somewhere I don't think you want to go. Am I misunderstanding?
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 24, 2013, 12:21:01 PM
I think of order this way: when things are arranged in a system, or there is a type of structure to a thing. Our solar system is in order, as the planets follow a predictable path around the sun. We can figure out how they move and make predictions of where they will be in the future, and these predictions turn out to be very accurate. That's not really a definition, but it is how I think of the term. How do you define 'order'?
So is "predictability" the defining characteristic of "order"?
I think "order" is only meaningful in terms of intelligibility. One person may not see order in the pattern made by scattering animal bones in the dirt. But to another, who has a Matrix-like ability to simultaneously observe the actions of each and every bone (as if in slow motion) as it lands and bounces into place, may observe order in the outcome, because it was predictable based on his astute observation and his knowledge of how objects move. Or, another observer may impose order, reading meaning into the scattering of the bones as an omen of things to come.
So there are different ways to observe order and to speak of it, but I think the common thread has to be our subjective understanding of the "order" contained in any observable phenomenon.
Personally, I believe there is order in everything because all existents have imposed upon them the intelligence of God, Who has ordered all things. I think whether we see order in any particular thing is based on our ability to comprehend, which is severely limited by sense data and our own weak intellects.
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 24, 2013, 12:24:27 PM
Quote from: rbjmartin on October 24, 2013, 12:20:04 PM
In a sense, yes, but people regularly operate based on theories. Although we speak of many things as "theories," they are often treated as "knowledge." Gravity, relativity, evolution are all theories, but they are generally treated as fact.
Also, for religious people, the natural knowledge of God (or the theory of God) is insufficient, anyway. The next step for us is the personal interaction, i.e. the acceptance of His grace and the supernatural virtue of Faith.
I don't know if we are using the word theory here properly. In science something is not a theory until it has withstood certain tests. Gravity, relativity, and evolution are all called theories, but they are also known to be true. I should not have used the word theory in my question. It sounds more like God is a hypothesis rather than a theory.
I think we could easily argue that the "theory of God" has been tested through deduction. For example, the law of inertia tells us objects at rest will stay at rest unless acted upon by an external force. By deduction, we can determine that a First Mover (or a Primary Force) is necessary.
So the "testing" done here is by deduction, which should be valid to a scientific mind.
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 24, 2013, 10:26:55 AMAnalogy is definitely real understanding, in so far as the analogy points to a real thing. But, first we must start with the real thing, and then form an analogy to describe the real thing. The analogy is true when it matches the real thing. I know there is a sun, because I can see it and study it. I can form an analogy to describe it, and the analogy is true in so far as it matches the actual sun. Now, if I had no knowledge of the sun, I could not form an analogy of the sun. To attempt to create an analogy of an unknown sun is to use the analogy backward. I would be starting with the analogy, when I should have started with the real thing.
You just make things up for yourself, trying to re-invent the wheel.
One does not have to know a thing perfectly to make an analogy. Knowing something, means you know aspects, attributes and facets of it. This could be hundreds or thousands of things. If you first meet a person, and only speak for 5 minutes, you know the person exists, his name, where he lives, and what he sounds like and what he looks like. Perhaps what he smells like, and a few beliefs in his head and manners. It is limited, but you
know the person. His wife of 30 years of marriage knows him far better. His own mother perhaps less. Part of our knowledge of another person is not something we have observed or sense, but what we have reasoned using logic. The unseen reasoning process gives certitude also.
We know what germs are. Nobody has seen them through natural means. We know that sanitizing gets rid of them. We know in great abundance they can cause us harm. We know them based on their effects.
The same with the radio waves that are bombarding us right now, we have no clue naturally they are there, but they are swarming about. We need some artificial contraption to convert it to our natural sense of hearing and seeing.
A newborn grows, and so does his knowledge of his parents. As long as we know some aspects of two things, we can make analogies.
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 24, 2013, 12:28:25 PM
Quote from: Armor of Light on October 24, 2013, 12:11:26 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 24, 2013, 11:32:04 AM
Are you saying our analogy of God is like the painting 'the Scream'?
No. The fact that you are able to understand the reference and reach a conclusion based on that reference shows that your previous statement:
"Analogy is definitely real understanding, in so far as the analogy points to a real thing. But, first we must start with the real thing, and then form an analogy to describe the real thing. The analogy is true when it matches the real thing."
..is not strictly true. You can surmise how I'm feeling today if I say I'm feeling like that dude in 'the Scream'. even though the subject is not real. You may have a different take on how I'm feeling based on your interpretation of the painting, but the fact that you immediately can put my feelings into a context shows that analogy does not have to be based on a "real" thing i/e the sun.
If the painting "the Scream" is to the man in the painting, then our analogy of God is to the actual God. Then to use this analogy and say the man in the painting is not real is to lead somewhere I don't think you want to go. Am I misunderstanding?
After some more consideration, I think I may have misinterpreted the point being made thus far. The emotions conveyed by the artist and the emotions the painting evokes in the viewer are, in fact, real.
Quote from: rbjmartin on October 24, 2013, 12:34:03 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 24, 2013, 12:21:01 PM
I think of order this way: when things are arranged in a system, or there is a type of structure to a thing. Our solar system is in order, as the planets follow a predictable path around the sun. We can figure out how they move and make predictions of where they will be in the future, and these predictions turn out to be very accurate. That's not really a definition, but it is how I think of the term. How do you define 'order'?
So is "predictability" the defining characteristic of "order"?
I think "order" is only meaningful in terms of intelligibility. One person may not see order in the pattern made by scattering animal bones in the dirt. But to another, who has a Matrix-like ability to simultaneously observe the actions of each and every bone (as if in slow motion) as it lands and bounces into place, may observe order in the outcome, because it was predictable based on his astute observation and his knowledge of how objects move. Or, another observer may impose order, reading meaning into the scattering of the bones as an omen of things to come.
So there are different ways to observe order and to speak of it, but I think the common thread has to be our subjective understanding of the "order" contained in any observable phenomenon.
Personally, I believe there is order in everything because all existents have imposed upon them the intelligence of God, Who has ordered all things. I think whether we see order in any particular thing is based on our ability to comprehend, which is severely limited by sense data and our own weak intellects.
Yes, I think predictability is a key component of order. If we can predict what a system will do, there is a strong chance that system has order. If we can not predict what a system will do, then there is either no order, or the order is too difficult to see.
I agree, order can sometimes be difficult to see. In an episode of "Through the Wormhole" with Morgan Freeman there was a sort of machine arm that moved around in a crazy manner. To look at the arm one would never see order, yet a mathematician had figured out what the order is. It was very interesting.
So, what is order? It seems to me that order is inherent within reality. I say this because I know of no natural systems that lack order. What would a universe without order look like?
Quote from: RobertJS on October 24, 2013, 12:45:03 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 24, 2013, 10:26:55 AMAnalogy is definitely real understanding, in so far as the analogy points to a real thing. But, first we must start with the real thing, and then form an analogy to describe the real thing. The analogy is true when it matches the real thing. I know there is a sun, because I can see it and study it. I can form an analogy to describe it, and the analogy is true in so far as it matches the actual sun. Now, if I had no knowledge of the sun, I could not form an analogy of the sun. To attempt to create an analogy of an unknown sun is to use the analogy backward. I would be starting with the analogy, when I should have started with the real thing.
You just make things up for yourself, trying to re-invent the wheel.
One does not have to know a thing perfectly to make an analogy. Knowing something, means you know aspects, attributes and facets of it. This could be hundreds or thousands of things. If you first meet a person, and only speak for 5 minutes, you know the person exists, his name, where he lives, and what he sounds like and what he looks like. Perhaps what he smells like, and a few beliefs in his head and manners. It is limited, but you know the person. His wife of 30 years of marriage knows him far better. His own mother perhaps less. Part of our knowledge of another person is not something we have observed or sense, but what we have reasoned using logic. The unseen reasoning process gives certitude also.
We know what germs are. Nobody has seen them through natural means. We know that sanitizing gets rid of them. We know in great abundance they can cause us harm. We know them based on their effects.
The same with the radio waves that are bombarding us right now, we have no clue naturally they are there, but they are swarming about. We need some artificial contraption to convert it to our natural sense of hearing and seeing.
A newborn grows, and so does his knowledge of his parents. As long as we know some aspects of two things, we can make analogies.
You're right in that we don't have to know a thing perfectly in order to make an analogy of it. But, we must know it to some extent. If God is only comprehensible in an analogous way, then how do we come by this analogy? If I made an analogy of a man sitting in a dark room, my analogy would not just be imperfect, but non-sense. This is because I would have to know that there is a man in the dark room before I make an analogy of the man. I couldn't even begin to make an analogy of 'a thing' in the room, because I would have to know that there is some 'thing' in the room first. In order to create an analogy of something, first I must know that there is a 'something' from which to make an analogy. So, there is no way that we can know God only through analogy. We must have some knowledge of God first, even if only a tiny bit, even if only his existence. Then from there we could construct an analogy of him. Are you starting with St. Thomas' five ways and then constructing an analogy from there?
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 24, 2013, 01:24:39 PM
You're right in that we don't have to know a thing perfectly in order to make an analogy of it. But, we must know it to some extent. If God is only comprehensible in an analogous way, then how do we come by this analogy? If I made an analogy of a man sitting in a dark room, my analogy would not just be imperfect, but non-sense. This is because I would have to know that there is a man in the dark room before I make an analogy of the man. I couldn't even begin to make an analogy of 'a thing' in the room, because I would have to know that there is some 'thing' in the room first. In order to create an analogy of something, first I must know that there is a 'something' from which to make an analogy. So, there is no way that we can know God only through analogy. We must have some knowledge of God first, even if only a tiny bit, even if only his existence. Then from there we could construct an analogy of him. Are you starting with St. Thomas' five ways and then constructing an analogy from there?
But we are arguing that you DO know that a "something" is there. If you see a shadow, you know that it is a shadow of something, even if you can't identify that something. We are arguing that we see shadows of an intelligent God everywhere, and it is enough to know that SOMETHING is there, even if we can only comprehend it in an imperfect way.
Quote from: rbjmartin on October 24, 2013, 01:29:25 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 24, 2013, 01:24:39 PM
You're right in that we don't have to know a thing perfectly in order to make an analogy of it. But, we must know it to some extent. If God is only comprehensible in an analogous way, then how do we come by this analogy? If I made an analogy of a man sitting in a dark room, my analogy would not just be imperfect, but non-sense. This is because I would have to know that there is a man in the dark room before I make an analogy of the man. I couldn't even begin to make an analogy of 'a thing' in the room, because I would have to know that there is some 'thing' in the room first. In order to create an analogy of something, first I must know that there is a 'something' from which to make an analogy. So, there is no way that we can know God only through analogy. We must have some knowledge of God first, even if only a tiny bit, even if only his existence. Then from there we could construct an analogy of him. Are you starting with St. Thomas' five ways and then constructing an analogy from there?
But we are arguing that you DO know that a "something" is there. If you see a shadow, you know that it is a shadow of something, even if you can't identify that something. We are arguing that we see shadows of an intelligent God everywhere, and it is enough to know that SOMETHING is there, even if we can only comprehend it in an imperfect way.
That makes sense. I was arguing that we cannot know a thing purely by analogy. So, the Catholic argument then is that we know God first, at some level, then we construct an analogy to come to a better understanding of God. Is that right?
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 24, 2013, 01:13:47 PM
Yes, I think predictability is a key component of order. If we can predict what a system will do, there is a strong chance that system has order. If we can not predict what a system will do, then there is either no order, or the order is too difficult to see.
I agree, order can sometimes be difficult to see. In an episode of "Through the Wormhole" with Morgan Freeman there was a sort of machine arm that moved around in a crazy manner. To look at the arm one would never see order, yet a mathematician had figured out what the order is. It was very interesting.
So, what is order? It seems to me that order is inherent within reality. I say this because I know of no natural systems that lack order. What would a universe without order look like?
But even "predictibility" is a subjective, intelligence-centric term. The predictibility of an event is dependent on the intelligence of the observer.
So if order is inherent with reality, is there such a thing as "disorder"?
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 24, 2013, 01:34:25 PM
Quote from: rbjmartin on October 24, 2013, 01:29:25 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 24, 2013, 01:24:39 PM
You're right in that we don't have to know a thing perfectly in order to make an analogy of it. But, we must know it to some extent. If God is only comprehensible in an analogous way, then how do we come by this analogy? If I made an analogy of a man sitting in a dark room, my analogy would not just be imperfect, but non-sense. This is because I would have to know that there is a man in the dark room before I make an analogy of the man. I couldn't even begin to make an analogy of 'a thing' in the room, because I would have to know that there is some 'thing' in the room first. In order to create an analogy of something, first I must know that there is a 'something' from which to make an analogy. So, there is no way that we can know God only through analogy. We must have some knowledge of God first, even if only a tiny bit, even if only his existence. Then from there we could construct an analogy of him. Are you starting with St. Thomas' five ways and then constructing an analogy from there?
But we are arguing that you DO know that a "something" is there. If you see a shadow, you know that it is a shadow of something, even if you can't identify that something. We are arguing that we see shadows of an intelligent God everywhere, and it is enough to know that SOMETHING is there, even if we can only comprehend it in an imperfect way.
That makes sense. I was arguing that we cannot know a thing purely by analogy. So, the Catholic argument then is that we know God first, at some level, then we construct an analogy to come to a better understanding of God. Is that right?
Yes, we can know that He exists by reason, and then we have to use analogy to further describe Him. This is prior to the inclusion of any revealed knowledge.
Quote from: rbjmartin on October 24, 2013, 01:38:23 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 24, 2013, 01:13:47 PM
Yes, I think predictability is a key component of order. If we can predict what a system will do, there is a strong chance that system has order. If we can not predict what a system will do, then there is either no order, or the order is too difficult to see.
I agree, order can sometimes be difficult to see. In an episode of "Through the Wormhole" with Morgan Freeman there was a sort of machine arm that moved around in a crazy manner. To look at the arm one would never see order, yet a mathematician had figured out what the order is. It was very interesting.
So, what is order? It seems to me that order is inherent within reality. I say this because I know of no natural systems that lack order. What would a universe without order look like?
But even "predictibility" is a subjective, intelligence-centric term. The predictibility of an event is dependent on the intelligence of the observer.
So if order is inherent with reality, is there such a thing as "disorder"?
Consider Pavlov's dog. He could predict that when a light came on he would receive food. This was evident because the dog would start to drool when the light came on. So, did the dog have intelligence, or is intelligence not required in order to predict things? Maybe the more intelligence an animal has, the more ability it has to predict outcomes. What do you think?
No, I don't believe disorder can exist in reality.
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 24, 2013, 01:24:39 PM
Quote from: RobertJS on October 24, 2013, 12:45:03 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 24, 2013, 10:26:55 AMAnalogy is definitely real understanding, in so far as the analogy points to a real thing. But, first we must start with the real thing, and then form an analogy to describe the real thing. The analogy is true when it matches the real thing. I know there is a sun, because I can see it and study it. I can form an analogy to describe it, and the analogy is true in so far as it matches the actual sun. Now, if I had no knowledge of the sun, I could not form an analogy of the sun. To attempt to create an analogy of an unknown sun is to use the analogy backward. I would be starting with the analogy, when I should have started with the real thing.
You just make things up for yourself, trying to re-invent the wheel.
One does not have to know a thing perfectly to make an analogy. Knowing something, means you know aspects, attributes and facets of it. This could be hundreds or thousands of things. If you first meet a person, and only speak for 5 minutes, you know the person exists, his name, where he lives, and what he sounds like and what he looks like. Perhaps what he smells like, and a few beliefs in his head and manners. It is limited, but you know the person. His wife of 30 years of marriage knows him far better. His own mother perhaps less. Part of our knowledge of another person is not something we have observed or sense, but what we have reasoned using logic. The unseen reasoning process gives certitude also.
We know what germs are. Nobody has seen them through natural means. We know that sanitizing gets rid of them. We know in great abundance they can cause us harm. We know them based on their effects.
The same with the radio waves that are bombarding us right now, we have no clue naturally they are there, but they are swarming about. We need some artificial contraption to convert it to our natural sense of hearing and seeing.
A newborn grows, and so does his knowledge of his parents. As long as we know some aspects of two things, we can make analogies.
You're right in that we don't have to know a thing perfectly in order to make an analogy of it. But, we must know it to some extent. If God is only comprehensible in an analogous way, then how do we come by this analogy? If I made an analogy of a man sitting in a dark room, my analogy would not just be imperfect, but non-sense. This is because I would have to know that there is a man in the dark room before I make an analogy of the man. I couldn't even begin to make an analogy of 'a thing' in the room, because I would have to know that there is some 'thing' in the room first. In order to create an analogy of something, first I must know that there is a 'something' from which to make an analogy. So, there is no way that we can know God only through analogy. We must have some knowledge of God first, even if only a tiny bit, even if only his existence. Then from there we could construct an analogy of him. Are you starting with St. Thomas' five ways and then constructing an analogy from there?
Sounds correct. You need to conclude God exists before making analogies. Of course, once you conclude God exists, the knowledge and analogies comes at a more rapid pace.
But, why waste your time on this when you can be researching about miracles and pondering the 5 ways that St. Thomas lays out?
First things, first.
Robert, do you think St. Thomas' five ways are the strongest arguments for the existence of God, or do you know of any stronger?
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 24, 2013, 04:33:17 PM
Robert, do you think St. Thomas' five ways are the strongest arguments for the existence of God, or do you know of any stronger?
Ponder them the best you know how. And, let me ask you, why don't you delve into the evidences for miracles?
Quote from: RobertJS on October 24, 2013, 05:03:28 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 24, 2013, 04:33:17 PM
Robert, do you think St. Thomas' five ways are the strongest arguments for the existence of God, or do you know of any stronger?
Ponder them the best you know how. And, let me ask you, why don't you delve into the evidences for miracles?
I've looked into a few supposed miracles, and there are always problems. The problem is with the concept of miracles. The term miracle is normally defined as a breaking of the laws of nature. If we look into a miracle and find a natural cause, it is not a miracle. If there is no apparent natural cause, then it did not happen or there is a natural cause we cannot find. Those who believe in miracles need no evidence, those who have no faith find no evidence.
I find problems with the five ways of St. Thomas, that's why I asked if you have any better arguments.
I answered that above flyboy. Miracles do not break natural law....that is roberts uninformed opinion
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on October 24, 2013, 06:42:07 PM
I answered that above flyboy. Miracles do not break natural law....that is roberts uninformed opinion
How would you define 'miracle'?
[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGlx11BxF24[/yt]
Beyond Blind Faith
Is Jesus God? Did Jesus ever claim to be God? See proof from the life of Jesus Christ and why it's not blind faith to believe in Him.
http://www.everystudent.com/features/faith.html
Again, an online Bible so you can verify all of the footnotes from the above page.
http://www.drbo.org/
Crimson Flyboy you are wanting all your questions to be answered by mere mortals. You need to make the decision to actually talk to God. You need to ask him to come into your life. He will answer all your questions.
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 24, 2013, 06:10:57 PM
I find problems with the five ways of St. Thomas, that's why I asked if you have any better arguments.
You might find this list helpful: http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm (http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm)
I'm curious. What problem do you have with the First Mover argument?
This thread has gone on long enough, possibly too long, so I will stop bothering y'all. St. Thomas' five ways are weak and are in no way irreducible primaries, in no way can they begin any philosophical foundation. They don't try to prove anything, they are rationalizations intended to make Christianity look logical and they fail at that. I don't look down on those who wish to stay in religion, to each his own. I enjoyed the philosophy with rbjmartin, good on you. I was hoping y'all might have more. Instead what my reason was telling me from the beginning is true, there is no God. I won't close my account, if you want to shoot me a private message, feel free. But, I will stop posting. Good night, and always remember 'who is John Galt?'
Yoldya...flyboy has no interest in truth. It is a toy for him. He was juat her to play paddycakes. Flyboy come back when your ready to grow up and forgive your parents...especially your father.
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on October 25, 2013, 03:31:14 AM
Yoldya...flyboy has no interest in truth. It is a toy for him. He was juat her to play paddycakes. Flyboy come back when your ready to grow up
I said this pages back.
Classic case of pearls before swine. ::)
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 24, 2013, 06:10:57 PM
Quote from: RobertJS on October 24, 2013, 05:03:28 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 24, 2013, 04:33:17 PM
Robert, do you think St. Thomas' five ways are the strongest arguments for the existence of God, or do you know of any stronger?
Ponder them the best you know how. And, let me ask you, why don't you delve into the evidences for miracles?
I've looked into a few supposed miracles, and there are always problems. The problem is with the concept of miracles. The term miracle is normally defined as a breaking of the laws of nature. If we look into a miracle and find a natural cause, it is not a miracle. If there is no apparent natural cause, then it did not happen or there is a natural cause we cannot find. Those who believe in miracles need no evidence, those who have no faith find no evidence.
I find problems with the five ways of St. Thomas, that's why I asked if you have any better arguments.
If that is what "reason" tells you, then you are not reasonable. As I said from the beginning, even if you ascribe to each baffling occurrence a
natural, yet unexplained cause, reason tells us there is something
significant that they baffle modern science and form a
pattern of being connected with Catholicism. Scientists should be intrigued to either explain it or prove the fraud, but they can do neither. The pattern, coincidence and significance is empirical evidence. When a man has a clean break in his lower leg, and the doctor confirms a complete healing was done overnight, and the x-rays prove it, you simply give the empirical evidence a stark denial. When an unprecedented natural occurrence is witnessed by thousands, including unbelievers, and reported by the anti-Catholic press, you ask for testimony, and you ignore the fact that it was predicted months beforehand to the very hour.
That is not being reasonable.
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on October 25, 2013, 03:31:14 AM
Yoldya...flyboy has no interest in truth. It is a toy for him. He was juat her to play paddycakes. Flyboy come back when your ready to grow up and forgive your parents...especially your father.
Pot calling kettle black.
Don't run away, Flyboy.
There is a whole diabolical plot to make Christianity look like a silly superstition.
I will get back but I need more than a few minutes here-and-there.
What CF is referring to in the natural order is the theory of "emergence" which, when coupled with evolutionism, insinuates the capability of accounting for the existence of life without God.
I made a thread about it on FE a while back. It is an interesting theory, besides the fact that it violates some of the most foundational principles of philosophy.
Here is the thread, with a video included: http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/index.php/topic,3445377.0.html (http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/index.php/topic,3445377.0.html)
CF, will you read the book I recommended?
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 24, 2013, 12:24:27 PM
I don't know if we are using the word theory here properly. In science something is not a theory until it has withstood certain tests. Gravity, relativity, and evolution are all called theories, but they are also known to be true. I should not have used the word theory in my question. It sounds more like God is a hypothesis rather than a theory.
I find this funny because a couple of years ago in a conversation with an atheist I argued the same way against evolution, that it's a hypothesis because it can not be proven.
The Merriam-Webster Online dictionary describes a hypothesis as an idea or theory that is not proven but that leads to further study or discussion.
The same dictionary describes a theory as;
: an idea or set of ideas that is intended to explain facts or events
: an idea that is suggested or presented as possibly true but that is not known or proven to be true
: the general principles or ideas that relate to a particular subject
Related to this within the past month I watched a scientist say on CBC that scientific theories can not be proven 100%. This scientist said that science can only come as close as up to 95% in proving a theory.
Yet evolution is taught in our schools as if it were fact.
But God has been taken out of our schools even though the majority of the population have received the Grace needed to believe in their hearts that God has been proven to be Truth.
Quote from: Oldavid on October 25, 2013, 07:22:05 AM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on October 25, 2013, 03:31:14 AM
Yoldya...flyboy has no interest in truth. It is a toy for him. He was juat her to play paddycakes. Flyboy come back when your ready to grow up and forgive your parents...especially your father.
Pot calling kettle black.
Don't run away, Flyboy.
There is a whole diabolical plot to make Christianity look like a silly superstition.
I will get back but I need more than a few minutes here-and-there.
A while back Crimson Flyboy said that he ordered a DVD that was against God. He said you could get the DVD free if you uploaded a video to youtube that blasphemed the Holy Ghost. You know, sins against the Holy Ghost are the only unforgivable sin. Crimson Flyboy said that he didn't do that but paid $28 or something like that for the DVD instead because he didn't want to hurt his mother who is a practicing Catholic. Crimson Flyboy admitted himself that this organization that was selling the DVDs must think that a person's soul is only worth $28. Obviously Crimson Flyboy didn't want to hurt his mother's feelings if she happened to see him in a youtube video blaspheming the Holy Ghost. It's also possible that he had concern for his soul. But what was in the DVD? Possibly enough trash against the Holy Ghost to prevent him from receiving the Grace needed to believe in God. This DVD is just one part of "a whole diabolical plot to make Christianity look like a silly superstition", like you said. The plot truly originates from the devil. It's a shame that Crimson Flyboy fell for what's in that DVD. Voxx is kind of right, but possibly with his mother. Crimson Flyboy doesn't have the guts to tell his mother that he has become an atheist, possibly in part because he doesn't want to hurt her feelings, but also possibly in part because she may box his ears or even disown him. Crimson Flyboy said that he used to be devoted to the Blessed Virgin thanks to his mother, and that he still has statues of the Blessed Virgin around his place. Recognized guilt is powerful.
I have had dealings with a few atheists in real life, and a few here on the internets using the forum machine. I have noticed a couple of things..
The atheist mindset is not as varied as all atheists have claimed. Of course I don't know all of them, but the few have been consistent and divided into 2 camps. the "I'm into NPR and read a lot, so I must be smart..silly catholics.." group and the "All the cool kids are atheists" group. Of course we are blessed with hearing from the smart ones here..
Now, I understand the questions atheists (and all of us from time to time) have about the grand scheme of things, but really we are lucky to have the faith of a child. After all is bandied about, we are God's children and boy do we act like it! All the verbosity involved with and reading required to understand the truly little we know about the divine is fine for some (like Aquinas, Augustine, and the like) but to devote all the effort required to engage the contrary stubbornness (I'm talking mostly to the atheists on this) is above our pay scale. Atheists who come in and get a few good insights and a list of books to read should be engaged of course. Honest inquiry...I have never seen or heard of that happening. Always with the smug back pedaling and double speak wrapped in the blanket of intellectual discourse. Curious? Intrigued? Seeking? Not so much..
So enough with the Ayn Rand bullshit. We get it. Man-boys and sods (as some call them) and wiccans can have Ayn Rand. She sucks.
Go design me a building (I read the Fountainhead). Slug it out in the trenches for a while. Go volunteer at a rehab hospital and tell me if you feel God after a while. Chalk up one thing to the almighty that you "know" is all of your doing. Some "I'm a good person" stuff.
Crimson Flyboys tagline and reference to Galt indicates that the liberal and intellectual gravitation towards helping one's neighbor takes a back seat to self interests. Take a while to imagine self preservation.
Quote from: Oldavid on October 25, 2013, 07:22:05 AM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on October 25, 2013, 03:31:14 AM
Yoldya...flyboy has no interest in truth. It is a toy for him. He was juat her to play paddycakes. Flyboy come back when your ready to grow up and forgive your parents...especially your father.
Pot calling kettle black.
Don't run away, Flyboy.
There is a whole diabolical plot to make Christianity look like a silly superstition.
I will get back but I need more than a few minutes here-and-there.
Did you finish that getting stuffed project...if you finish that up you could have more time
Quote from: mikemac on October 25, 2013, 09:32:33 AM
Possibly enough trash against the Holy Ghost to prevent him from receiving the Grace needed to believe in God.
Precisely. Often a key component missing in order for atheists to turn to God is by being open to receiving graces from the Holy Ghost. It isn't enough for an atheist to become merely a theist, as even the demons 'believe' in God and in Scriptures acknowledged who Christ truly was (and, of course, is). It takes even further grace to go from just believing/accepting God exists to desiring God.
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on October 24, 2013, 06:42:07 PM
I answered that above flyboy. Miracles do not break natural law....that is roberts uninformed opinion
I never said "break". I said "against", as in
contrary to.
I just tried looking up
miracle with the literal text "against nature", and found a few Protestant authors of the 1800's saying explicitly that miracles were NOT against nature.
However, here are Catholic sources saying otherwise:
"the power of nature is surpassed in three ways: firstly, in the substance of the deed, for instance, if two bodies occupy the same place, or if the sun goes backwards; or if a human body is glorified: such things nature is absolutely unable to do; and these hold the highest rank among miracles. " - St. Thomas Aquinas
"the Fathers of the Church and theologians employ the terms
above, contrary to, and
outside nature." - Catholic Encyclopedia, 1913
"some miracles are
above nature, others
beside nature, others
against nature." - Natural Theology, Bernard Boedder, S.J. (Stonyhurst Philosophical Series) 1915
So robert we are both right. About time you broght your sources..
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on October 25, 2013, 02:20:09 PM
So robert we are both right. About time you broght your sources..
So, did C.S.S. Lewis actually flatly state that miracles were not "against" the law of nature?
Quote from: RobertJS on October 25, 2013, 03:13:55 PM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on October 25, 2013, 02:20:09 PM
So robert we are both right. About time you broght your sources..
So, did C.S.S. Lewis actually flatly state that miracles were not "against" the law of nature?
Yes but your quote exonerated him because it says that SOME miracles do NOT go against nature. And frankly your quotes arent opposed to his quote at all...but since your faith is so fragile that reading one cs lewis quote could shipwreck it...you wont read it to make a comparison.
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on October 25, 2013, 05:41:33 PM
Quote from: RobertJS on October 25, 2013, 03:13:55 PM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on October 25, 2013, 02:20:09 PM
So robert we are both right. About time you broght your sources..
So, did C.S.S. Lewis actually flatly state that miracles were not "against" the law of nature?
Yes but your quote exonerated him because it says that SOME miracles do NOT go against nature. And frankly your quotes arent opposed to his quote at all...but since your faith is so fragile that reading one cs lewis quote could shipwreck it...you wont read it to make a comparison.
You didn't answer my question. Did he state that miracles, overall, were not against nature?
Read it yourself and tell me...im not gonna due your research for you. I can tell you his position is not condemned by the quotes you posted. He is NOT saying miracles are of natural explaination. He is saying the nature was created by God to have miacles occur...nature compliments and Gives glory ti His. Miracles. When you used the words that miracles are against nature...or contray to nature ...what you mean...or should mean is...they are against the normal processes of natural laws. After all your scientific arguing about the sanctity of natural law you seem to be now saying that the miraculous are not part of them...which is silly.....mracles are not illusions...they are reality.....Gods larger reality....as opposed to the lesser realty which we inhabit. The Kingdom of heaven is in operation here and now...miracles are performed by God to show us it is so.
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on October 26, 2013, 05:30:27 AM
Read it yourself and tell me...im not gonna due your research for you. I can tell you his position is not condemned by the quotes you posted. He is NOT saying miracles are of natural explaination. He is saying the nature was created by God to have miacles occur...nature compliments and Gives glory ti His. Miracles. When you used the words that miracles are against nature...or contray to nature ...what you mean...or should mean is...they are against the normal processes of natural laws. After all your scientific arguing about the sanctity of natural law you seem to be now saying that the miraculous are not part of them...which is silly.....mracles are not illusions...they are reality.....Gods larger reality....as opposed to the lesser realty which we inhabit. The Kingdom of heaven is in operation here and now...miracles are performed by God to show us it is so.
C.S. Lewis was partly right and partly wrong. Partly wrong in matters of doctrine is a bad thing. Holy Mother Church recommends we don't learn our doctrine from non-Catholics. Heeding that recommendation is a good thing....so don't criticize me for that, otherwise you are, in effective, criticizing the Church for Her recommendation.
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on October 25, 2013, 03:44:56 AM
Classic case of pearls before swine. ::)
I'm kinda surprised how many of you actually got sucked into this. It was pretty clear from the start he didn't really want to discuss anything, just to stroke his ego in front of an audience.
Quote from: Armor of Light on October 25, 2013, 10:20:59 AMHonest inquiry...I have never seen or heard of that happening. Always with the smug back pedaling and double speak wrapped in the blanket of intellectual discourse. Curious? Intrigued? Seeking? Not so much..
bingo
Quote from: RobertJS on October 26, 2013, 07:25:37 AM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on October 26, 2013, 05:30:27 AM
Read it yourself and tell me...im not gonna due your research for you. I can tell you his position is not condemned by the quotes you posted. He is NOT saying miracles are of natural explaination. He is saying the nature was created by God to have miacles occur...nature compliments and Gives glory ti His. Miracles. When you used the words that miracles are against nature...or contray to nature ...what you mean...or should mean is...they are against the normal processes of natural laws. After all your scientific arguing about the sanctity of natural law you seem to be now saying that the miraculous are not part of them...which is silly.....mracles are not illusions...they are reality.....Gods larger reality....as opposed to the lesser realty which we inhabit. The Kingdom of heaven is in operation here and now...miracles are performed by God to show us it is so.
C.S. Lewis was partly right and partly wrong. Partly wrong in matters of doctrine is a bad thing. Holy Mother Church recommends we don't learn our doctrine from non-Catholics. Heeding that recommendation is a good thing....so don't criticize me for that, otherwise you are, in effective, criticizing the Church for Her recommendation.
Please...the popes are partly right and partly wrong alot nowadays...does that mean I cant resd what the popes write anymore?
Further..it is up to you to show me were mr lewis is partly wrong in the specific quote I offered...I vetted it already...the quote is orthodox truth concerning miracles...if you see something erronius and Ill agree with you.
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on October 26, 2013, 01:22:09 PM
Quote from: RobertJS on October 26, 2013, 07:25:37 AM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on October 26, 2013, 05:30:27 AM
Read it yourself and tell me...im not gonna due your research for you. I can tell you his position is not condemned by the quotes you posted. He is NOT saying miracles are of natural explaination. He is saying the nature was created by God to have miacles occur...nature compliments and Gives glory ti His. Miracles. When you used the words that miracles are against nature...or contray to nature ...what you mean...or should mean is...they are against the normal processes of natural laws. After all your scientific arguing about the sanctity of natural law you seem to be now saying that the miraculous are not part of them...which is silly.....mracles are not illusions...they are reality.....Gods larger reality....as opposed to the lesser realty which we inhabit. The Kingdom of heaven is in operation here and now...miracles are performed by God to show us it is so.
C.S. Lewis was partly right and partly wrong. Partly wrong in matters of doctrine is a bad thing. Holy Mother Church recommends we don't learn our doctrine from non-Catholics. Heeding that recommendation is a good thing....so don't criticize me for that, otherwise you are, in effective, criticizing the Church for Her recommendation.
Please...the popes are partly right and partly wrong alot nowadays...does that mean I cant resd what the popes write anymore?
Further..it is up to you to show me were mr lewis is partly wrong in the specific quote I offered...I vetted it already...the quote is orthodox truth concerning miracles...if you see something erronius and Ill agree with you.
True, C.S. Lewis may have been correct, and it was you who partly misunderstood him. However, I don't care. I have found Catholic sources to learn from, and I won't bother evaluating what that Protestant said.
By the way, I reject any papal claimant as a false pope who officially promotes and accepts Vatican II. So, you may think you are looking at "partly wrong popes", but I view them as wholly wrong for being partly wrong in doctrine: "whosoever shall keep the whole law, but offend in one point, is become guilty of all." (St. James 2:10)
Quote from: Recovering NOer on October 26, 2013, 12:37:47 PM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on October 25, 2013, 03:44:56 AM
Classic case of pearls before swine. ::)
I'm kinda surprised how many of you actually got sucked into this. It was pretty clear from the start he didn't really want to discuss anything, just to stroke his ego in front of an audience.
Of course, firstly heeding any subjective danger we may perceive to our faith, we should then always, in charity, heartily assume another is sincere until we actually obtain evidence otherwise. Of course, I only went on what he was saying following his apology and re-admittance.
Quote from: red solo cup on October 18, 2013, 08:05:15 AM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on October 18, 2013, 04:11:00 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 18, 2013, 02:12:29 AM
I'm back. Thank you Louis for letting me come back on y'all's forum. I am sorry for mocking y'all on The Thinking Atheist forum, that wasn't very nice of me. I have learned quite a lot from y'all, such as my need to brush up on philosophy. I have many assumptions in my philosophical world view which I struggle to explain adequately. Thanks for the help so far.
Your not fooling me...your insincere and deliberately obtuse
TRUTH is a toy to you...to sincere Catholics...Jesus Christ is Truth.....not A truth....but THE Truth. You want to redeem yourself? What say ye friend of Jesus Christ.?
I agree with VP on this one. I think the TTAs are here looking for more ammo so they can run another snarky "who's craziest" poll. They're like children who ring the
the doorbell and run away. I guess that's par for the course from a bunch of wet-behind the-ears twenty somethings.
This is not the first post in this thread that appears to violate your own rules, to whit:
"4) Do not use Suscipe Domine to disparage other Internet forums or other persons."
Be that as it may, not all of us at TTA are "wet-behind the-ears twenty somethings".
Quote from: Chas on October 27, 2013, 01:18:10 PM
Quote from: red solo cup on October 18, 2013, 08:05:15 AM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on October 18, 2013, 04:11:00 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 18, 2013, 02:12:29 AM
I'm back. Thank you Louis for letting me come back on y'all's forum. I am sorry for mocking y'all on The Thinking Atheist forum, that wasn't very nice of me. I have learned quite a lot from y'all, such as my need to brush up on philosophy. I have many assumptions in my philosophical world view which I struggle to explain adequately. Thanks for the help so far.
Your not fooling me...your insincere and deliberately obtuse
TRUTH is a toy to you...to sincere Catholics...Jesus Christ is Truth.....not A truth....but THE Truth. You want to redeem yourself? What say ye friend of Jesus Christ.?
I agree with VP on this one. I think the TTAs are here looking for more ammo so they can run another snarky "who's craziest" poll. They're like children who ring the
the doorbell and run away. I guess that's par for the course from a bunch of wet-behind the-ears twenty somethings.
This is not the first post in this thread that appears to violate your own rules, to whit:
"4) Do not use Suscipe Domine to disparage other Internet forums or other persons."
Be that as it may, not all of us at TTA are "wet-behind the-ears twenty somethings".
what do you care about rules? There is no right or wrong...there is no good and evil...there is no justice and injustice. Please go play Im smarter than God somewhere else. And to deny the existence of God is the very HEIGHT of immaturity...it simply shows you have not learned anything in your long life. I actually excuse atheism in the young person....its unfathomable in an adult...at least an adult who has actually engaged in a decent existence.
Quote from: Chas on October 27, 2013, 01:18:10 PM
Quote from: red solo cup on October 18, 2013, 08:05:15 AM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on October 18, 2013, 04:11:00 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 18, 2013, 02:12:29 AM
I'm back. Thank you Louis for letting me come back on y'all's forum. I am sorry for mocking y'all on The Thinking Atheist forum, that wasn't very nice of me. I have learned quite a lot from y'all, such as my need to brush up on philosophy. I have many assumptions in my philosophical world view which I struggle to explain adequately. Thanks for the help so far.
Your not fooling me...your insincere and deliberately obtuse
TRUTH is a toy to you...to sincere Catholics...Jesus Christ is Truth.....not A truth....but THE Truth. You want to redeem yourself? What say ye friend of Jesus Christ.?
I agree with VP on this one. I think the TTAs are here looking for more ammo so they can run another snarky "who's craziest" poll. They're like children who ring the
the doorbell and run away. I guess that's par for the course from a bunch of wet-behind the-ears twenty somethings.
This is not the first post in this thread that appears to violate your own rules, to whit:
"4) Do not use Suscipe Domine to disparage other Internet forums or other persons."
Be that as it may, not all of us at TTA are "wet-behind the-ears twenty somethings".
I think it is understood by everyone to mean other traditional Catholic forums.
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on October 27, 2013, 01:23:56 PM
Quote from: Chas on October 27, 2013, 01:18:10 PM
This is not the first post in this thread that appears to violate your own rules, to whit:
"4) Do not use Suscipe Domine to disparage other Internet forums or other persons."
Be that as it may, not all of us at TTA are "wet-behind the-ears twenty somethings".
what do you care about rules? There is no right or wrong...there is no good and evil...there is no justice and injustice. Please go play Im smarter than God somewhere else. And to deny the existence of God is the very HEIGHT of immaturity...it simply shows you have not learned anything in your long life. I actually excuse atheism in the young person....its unfathomable in an adult...at least an adult who has actually engaged in a decent existence.
You appear to have no understanding of atheism or morality or ethics beyond a knee-jerk reaction to any disagreement with your position.
Of course I respect rules and understand the difference between right and wrong. I have certainly learned plenty in my life and led a decent existence.
Your presumptions are immature and ignorant.
Quote from: RobertJS on October 27, 2013, 01:44:27 PM
Quote from: Chas on October 27, 2013, 01:18:10 PM
Quote from: red solo cup on October 18, 2013, 08:05:15 AM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on October 18, 2013, 04:11:00 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 18, 2013, 02:12:29 AM
I'm back. Thank you Louis for letting me come back on y'all's forum. I am sorry for mocking y'all on The Thinking Atheist forum, that wasn't very nice of me. I have learned quite a lot from y'all, such as my need to brush up on philosophy. I have many assumptions in my philosophical world view which I struggle to explain adequately. Thanks for the help so far.
Your not fooling me...your insincere and deliberately obtuse
TRUTH is a toy to you...to sincere Catholics...Jesus Christ is Truth.....not A truth....but THE Truth. You want to redeem yourself? What say ye friend of Jesus Christ.?
I agree with VP on this one. I think the TTAs are here looking for more ammo so they can run another snarky "who's craziest" poll. They're like children who ring the
the doorbell and run away. I guess that's par for the course from a bunch of wet-behind the-ears twenty somethings.
This is not the first post in this thread that appears to violate your own rules, to whit:
"4) Do not use Suscipe Domine to disparage other Internet forums or other persons."
Be that as it may, not all of us at TTA are "wet-behind the-ears twenty somethings".
I think it is understood by everyone to mean other traditional Catholic forums.
It doesn't say that.
Quote from: Chas on October 27, 2013, 01:48:07 PM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on October 27, 2013, 01:23:56 PM
Quote from: Chas on October 27, 2013, 01:18:10 PM
This is not the first post in this thread that appears to violate your own rules, to whit:
"4) Do not use Suscipe Domine to disparage other Internet forums or other persons."
Be that as it may, not all of us at TTA are "wet-behind the-ears twenty somethings".
what do you care about rules? There is no right or wrong...there is no good and evil...there is no justice and injustice. Please go play Im smarter than God somewhere else. And to deny the existence of God is the very HEIGHT of immaturity...it simply shows you have not learned anything in your long life. I actually excuse atheism in the young person....its unfathomable in an adult...at least an adult who has actually engaged in a decent existence.
You appear to have no understanding of atheism or morality or ethics beyond a knee-jerk reaction to any disagreement with your position.
Of course I respect rules and understand the difference between right and wrong. I have certainly learned plenty in my life and led a decent existence.
Your presumptions are immature and ignorant.
by what standard do you use to decipher something as "wrong". And if you haven't learned that there is an intelligence beyond ours at work in the universe by your age- you may have " learned plenty" but you haven't learned enough to lecture even the simplest Catholic. This is not knee jerk...I already looked into the atheist position and have found only theists who pretend there is no God. The god they worship is their own intellect.
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on October 27, 2013, 01:59:18 PM
Quote from: Chas on October 27, 2013, 01:48:07 PM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on October 27, 2013, 01:23:56 PM
Quote from: Chas on October 27, 2013, 01:18:10 PM
This is not the first post in this thread that appears to violate your own rules, to whit:
"4) Do not use Suscipe Domine to disparage other Internet forums or other persons."
Be that as it may, not all of us at TTA are "wet-behind the-ears twenty somethings".
what do you care about rules? There is no right or wrong...there is no good and evil...there is no justice and injustice. Please go play Im smarter than God somewhere else. And to deny the existence of God is the very HEIGHT of immaturity...it simply shows you have not learned anything in your long life. I actually excuse atheism in the young person....its unfathomable in an adult...at least an adult who has actually engaged in a decent existence.
You appear to have no understanding of atheism or morality or ethics beyond a knee-jerk reaction to any disagreement with your position.
Of course I respect rules and understand the difference between right and wrong. I have certainly learned plenty in my life and led a decent existence.
Your presumptions are immature and ignorant.
by what standard do you use to decipher something as "wrong". And if you haven't learned that there is an intelligence beyond ours at work in the universe by your age- you may have " learned plenty" but you haven't learned enough to lecture even the simplest Catholic. This is not knee jerk...I already looked into the atheist position and have found only theists who pretend there is no God. The god they worship is their own intellect.
I have learned that evidence and reason are the path to knowledge. We all have a common, shared feeling of right and wrong that evolved in our species and is evident in other species as well.
Upon that basis, we create ethics and morals together, in societies.
I don't 'pretend there is no God', I see no evidence of any gods.
QuoteI don't 'pretend there is no God', I see no evidence of any gods.
Another lightweight noob.
Read "An Atheist's Guide to Reality" by Alex Rosenberg and get back to us. Then you would understand why your statement shows that you are a complete lightweight.
QuoteOf course I respect rules and understand the difference between right and wrong. I have certainly learned plenty in my life and led a decent existence.
Your presumptions are immature and ignorant.
No, they are not immature and ignorant. They are the hippo in the bath tub you fail to acknowledge. What the heck is a "decent" life? What is "right" and "wrong"?
The leader of a drug mafia is driving down the road, sees a 16 yr. old girl, stops and rapes her. Then puts a bullet through her brain. He led a decent life, in that he did what he wanted and never had any want. He knew right from wrong. Right was satisfying his sexual urges, wrong was going without sex. When you can explain that, then we can take you seriously.
Quote from: james03 on October 27, 2013, 02:26:10 PM
QuoteOf course I respect rules and understand the difference between right and wrong. I have certainly learned plenty in my life and led a decent existence.
Your presumptions are immature and ignorant.
No, they are not immature and ignorant. They are the hippo in the bath tub you fail to acknowledge. What the heck is a "decent" life? What is "right" and "wrong"?
The leader of a drug mafia is driving down the road, sees a 16 yr. old girl, stops and rapes her. Then puts a bullet through her brain. He led a decent life, in that he did what he wanted and never had any want. He knew right from wrong. Right was satisfying his sexual urges, wrong was going without sex. When you can explain that, then we can take you seriously.
Your example is of a psychopath. Try again.
Just out of pure interest, all the people who are saying atheists have no morals because morals only come from God; what would you do if God appeared to you and told you he felt it moral for you acquire an axe and murder as many random people as possible?
If you refuse, you show personal morals independent of God.
If you plead with him not to make you do this, you show personal morals independent of God.
If you obey his command but feel any small twinge of guilt or regret, you show personal morals independent of God.
So, what would you do?
Quote from: Hughsie on October 27, 2013, 05:02:17 PM
Just out of pure interest, all the people who are saying atheists have no morals because morals only come from God; what would you do if God appeared to you and told you he felt it moral for you acquire an axe and murder as many random people as possible?
This is one of those questions that asks someone to assume that God isn't God in order to prove that He isn't God. Like the "stone so heavy that He couldn't pick it up" one - it begs the question by ignoring thr attributes that describe Him and positing that He has limits. So...there's no answer to your question, because it is flawed.
Quote from: Pheo on October 27, 2013, 05:11:53 PM
This is one of those questions that asks someone to assume that God isn't God in order to prove that He isn't God. Like the "stone so heavy that He couldn't pick it up" one - it begs the question by ignoring thr attributes that describe Him and positing that He has limits. So...there's no answer to your question, because it is flawed.
It's a hypothetical question and seems completely valid to me.
Arguing about his attributes is what is invalid. The same question could be applied to a God that is undefined and does not have any known attributes appearing and revealing himself to be the creator. In such an instance what would you do?
Quote from: Pheo on October 27, 2013, 05:11:53 PM
Quote from: Hughsie on October 27, 2013, 05:02:17 PM
Just out of pure interest, all the people who are saying atheists have no morals because morals only come from God; what would you do if God appeared to you and told you he felt it moral for you acquire an axe and murder as many random people as possible?
This is one of those questions that asks someone to assume that God isn't God in order to prove that He isn't God. Like the "stone so heavy that He couldn't pick it up" one - it begs the question by ignoring thr attributes that describe Him and positing that He has limits. So...there's no answer to your question, because it is flawed.
Not really. The Bible is full of stories of God commanding the killing of people, including innocents, women, children.
Quote from: Hughsie on October 27, 2013, 05:20:13 PM
Quote from: Pheo on October 27, 2013, 05:11:53 PM
This is one of those questions that asks someone to assume that God isn't God in order to prove that He isn't God. Like the "stone so heavy that He couldn't pick it up" one - it begs the question by ignoring thr attributes that describe Him and positing that He has limits. So...there's no answer to your question, because it is flawed.
It's a hypothetical question and seems completely valid to me.
It completely begs the question. We don't claim to worship a God who arbitrarily modifies morality at a whim. Willful murder is a sin that cries out to Heaven for vengeance...so you ask us to suspend belief in the immutability of God just so we can see how mutable He is.
Quote from: Chas on October 27, 2013, 05:24:13 PMNot really. The Bible is full of stories of God commanding the killing of people, including innocents, women, children.
Are you interested in an explanation of these? It's just that in my experience, atheists who condense these episodes down to cheap one-liners are only interested in belittling Christianity.
Quote from: Pheo on October 27, 2013, 05:29:50 PM
It completely begs the question. We don't claim to worship a God who arbitrarily modifies morality at a whim. Willful murder is a sin that cries out to Heaven for vengeance...so you ask us to suspend belief in the immutability of God just so we can see how mutable He is.
If you worship God, even in part, because you agree with his stance on murder (or your understanding of it) then that also shows a personal morality.
Quote from: Hughsie on October 27, 2013, 05:32:59 PMIf you worship God, even in part, because you agree with his stance on murder (or your understanding of it) then that also shows a personal morality.
I wouldn't call that personal morality - that's the Natural Law. I think we disagree on its source though.
Quote from: Pheo on October 27, 2013, 05:36:15 PM
I wouldn't call that personal morality - that's the Natural Law. I think we disagree on its source though.
For you to
agree with or
approve of God's approach then you must have your own views for God's to be similar (or the same) to.
Quote from: Hughsie on October 27, 2013, 05:39:49 PM
Quote from: Pheo on October 27, 2013, 05:36:15 PM
I wouldn't call that personal morality - that's the Natural Law. I think we disagree on its source though.
For you to agree with or approve of God's approach then you must have your own views for God's to be similar (or the same) to.
Sorry, I wasn't addressing that part of your post. In any case it seems that we also have very different conceptions of Natural Law. The Natural Law exists independent of my agreement of approval - Christians believe that it is written on every man's heart, so in that sense it precedes any act of the will (at least when things are properly ordered). I can choose whether or not to follow it, but failure to follow this Law is what we call sin...it is an objective standard.
Quote from: ChasYour example is of a psychopath. Try again.
Dude, you are such a lightweight. You claim you don't believe in God because you can't see Him, etc... And yet you throw around words like "decent life", "good" and "evil".
I don't believe in something called a "decent life", nor "good", nor "evil". Can you show them to me? You see the problem? You are trying to discuss metaphysical concepts like God, good, evil, decent, even the scientific method, but are talking about it with "physical" vocabulary. It is absurd.
And no, in my example the drug lord is perfectly psychologically normal. He likes raping girls, and considers it good and a decent life. Explain why he is wrong without hitchhiking onto Catholic concepts like good and evil.
QuoteJust out of pure interest, all the people who are saying atheists have no morals because morals only come from God; what would you do if God appeared to you and told you he felt it moral for you acquire an axe and murder as many random people as possible?
Ah, now you are starting to ask the right questions. Yes, morality, right and wrong, good and evil come from God. In fact, (per impossibile) without God, there is no morality, right, wrong, etc...
We don't murder people with an axe because it is evil. Why? Because God says it is evil. However if God wants to wipe out some baby killing Caananites, and tells you to do it, then you'd do it. Because God is the standard of morality.
Quote from: james03 on October 27, 2013, 08:06:39 PM
Ah, now you are starting to ask the right questions. Yes, morality, right and wrong, good and evil come from God. In fact, (per impossibile) without God, there is no morality, right, wrong, etc...
We don't murder people with an axe because it is evil. Why? Because God says it is evil. However if God wants to wipe out some baby killing Caananites, and tells you to do it, then you'd do it. Because God is the standard of morality.
I don't mean this in an offensive way and I hope you don't take it as such, but that scares me. The idea that you would happily pick up the axe if commanded, without so much as a second thought, is terrifying to me. It makes me wonder how many other people there are out there who could also kill so easily (many of whom may be mentally ill and prone to hearing voices etc).
Thank you for your honesty though, I admire that. :)
Yes, in your hypothetical example, it would be scary, wouldn't it? That someone could decide to kill a bunch of people. Now lets get back to the real world.
God does not permit murder, or stealing, or lying, or adultery. Those who He did wipe out with the Israelis were pretty vicious people, like the Moloch worshippers who slowly cooked babies. Pretty sick.
So if you are with Christians, and Catholics in particular, you are safe from being murdered, or stolen from, or lied to, for the general case (you always have the mental cases, etc... in every group).
But what about atheists? As I've demonstrated, an atheist can kill me anytime he wants. The only logical constraint would be if he can get away with it or not. For a consistent atheist, if he doesn't like the color of my jacket, he can kill me if he wants. If I have the slightest minuscule negative impact on his life, he can kill me.
And this is why when the atheists have come to power, like the commies, they slaughter millions. In Cambodia, the atheists decided if you had a high school education, you could not be "reformed". So what to do with them? Kill them. WHY WOULDN'T THEY COME TO THAT CONCLUSION?
That's the real world bub, and yes, atheists, especially in government, scare the piss out of me, and for good reason, not some hypothetical like you cooked up.
edit: "negative"
Quote from: james03 on October 27, 2013, 08:24:11 PM
Yes, in your hypothetical example, it would be scary, wouldn't it? That someone could decide to kill a bunch of people. Now lets get back to the real world.
God does not permit murder, or stealing, or lying, or adultery. Those who He did wipe out with the Israelis were pretty vicious people, like the Moloch worshippers who slowly cooked babies. Pretty sick.
So if you are with Christians, and Catholics in particular, you are safe from being murdered, or stolen from, or lied to, for the general case (you always have the mental cases, etc... in every group).
But what about atheists? As I've demonstrated, an atheist can kill me anytime he wants. The only logical constraint would be if he can get away with it or not. For a consistent atheist, if he doesn't like the color of my jacket, he can kill me if he wants. If I have the slightest minuscule negative impact on his life, he can kill me.
And this is why when the atheists have come to power, like the commies, they slaughter millions. In Cambodia, the atheists decided if you had a high school education, you could not be "reformed". So what to do with them? Kill them. WHY WOULDN'T THEY COME TO THAT CONCLUSION?
That's the real world bub, and yes, atheists, especially in government, scare the piss out of me, and for good reason, not some hypothetical like you cooked up.
edit: "negative"
If atheists have no morals then how do you explain me acting morally (I know you only have my word for the fact I'm not a mass-murderer but trust me, I'm not)?
The reason you act morally is because GOD EXISTS. Your very question is the hippo in the bath tub that you refuse to acknowledge. YOU NEED TO ASK YOURSELF THAT QUESTION. In my example, how do you KNOW that raping some girl is "wrong"?
God exists, so there also exists a spiritual side, which includes love, justice, good, evil, right, wrong. It falls under the broader abstract of Truth, which you also hitch hike on for your scientism.
Anyhow, you don't commit evil acts BECAUSE YOU KNOW THEY ARE WRONG. You can't explain why you feel this, but we can because we have the Truth. You just hitchhike on premises that WE established.
All rights come from justice. Justice comes from the ability to be owed. You can be owed because...... There is not explanation, except in Theology.
Atheists act morally because deep down they dont belive the crap they espouse.. And atheists to the man so to speak are as shallow as a puddle on plate glass. You act morally because you are responding to the hardwiring that God put there. Only you pretend its your own Idea. And please dont start the crap about our God being murderous....the two times atheists have gotten political power in Russia and China the blood flowed beyond anything seen in history. Athistic govts are bloodthirsty monsters. Like James said...there is no intellectually consistant argument against any evil exceptselfishness.
Quote from: james03 on October 27, 2013, 09:03:55 PM
The reason you act morally is because GOD EXISTS. Your very question is the hippo in the bath tub that you refuse to acknowledge. YOU NEED TO ASK YOURSELF THAT QUESTION. In my example, how do you KNOW that raping some girl is "wrong"?
God exists, so there also exists a spiritual side, which includes love, justice, good, evil, right, wrong. It falls under the broader abstract of Truth, which you also hitch hike on for your scientism.
Anyhow, you don't commit evil acts BECAUSE YOU KNOW THEY ARE WRONG. You can't explain why you feel this, but we can because we have the Truth. You just hitchhike on premises that WE established.
All rights come from justice. Justice comes from the ability to be owed. You can be owed because...... There is not explanation, except in Theology.
If I am opposed to murder because God deems it immoral, as opposed to my own views, then why do I have no opposition to homosexuality or abortion? That implies that God has forced some of his morals on me (without me knowing by making me believe they are my own) but he has chosen not to make me follow some of his other morals. That seems nonsensical.
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on October 27, 2013, 09:06:45 PM
Atheists act morally because deep down they dont belive the crap they espouse.. And atheists to the man so to speak are as shallow as a puddle on plate glass. You act morally because you are responding to the hardwiring that God put there. Only you pretend its your own Idea. And please dont start the crap about our God being murderous....the two times atheists have gotten political power in Russia and China the blood flowed beyond anything seen in history. Athistic govts are bloodthirsty monsters. Like James said...there is no intellectually consistant argument against any evil exceptselfishness.
You mean I don't truly believe there is no God. Sorry to disappoint you but I can assure you I do. I choose my own morals, if they are only there because they were hard-wired by God then I should be opposed to homosexuality and abortion, but I'm not.
As for "atheist Governments" have you heard before (I suspect you will have) the phrase "correlation does not necessarily equal causation"?
Because you pick and choose which things you call good and evil does not negate the fact that you have an inate ability to do so. Explain further how you expect others to have the same general moral understandings. Again you say you are moral because you choose to be...so what if everyone else besides you chooses NOT to be moral? Well I guess youd be fine with that till they cut your throat to steal your sneakers. And if you cant find a coralation between atheistic communism and the ukrainian genoside I doubt you could find your own arse on a toilet seat. Go play elswhere...your insanity is boring.
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on October 27, 2013, 09:23:19 PM
Because you pick and choose which things you call good and evil does not negate the fact that you have an inate ability to do so. Explain further how you expect others to have the same general moral understandings. Again you say you are moral because you choose to be...so what if everyone else besides you chooses NOT to be moral? Well I guess youd be fine with that till they cut your throat to steal your sneakers. And if you cant find a coralation between atheistic communism and the ukrainian genoside I doubt you could find your own arse on a toilet seat. Go play elswhere...your insanity is boring.
I dare say that certain psychological traits were selected for as we evolved as a species. Those who were pre-disposed to work individually instead of collectively would have had reduced chance of survival and reproduction, therefore over time those traits became very rare. Acting in what we consider a "moral" way was a more effective way of surviving, therefore those who did so had a better chance of surviving and passing on the genes that made them act that way.
And no, I've never been presented with actual evidence on the "atheist Government" thing, only assertion. However, if it's as clear as you say then there must be far more to it than baseless assertion and guesswork, there must be evidence. I'm sure you'll have no issue linking me to some of it if it's that easy to find.
Your mind is beffudled and narcissisitic. But athism will do that.
You need a link to prove the existance of athestic communism? And proof they killed millions? Its called google. But you dont belive in truth anyway...at least you shouldnt if your an atheist.
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on October 27, 2013, 09:42:56 PM
Your mind is beffudled and narcissisitic. But athism will do that.
I take it you're resorting to insults because you can no longer reply with valid points?
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on October 27, 2013, 09:47:44 PM
You need a link to prove the existance of athestic communism? And proof they killed millions? Its called google. But you dont belive in truth anyway...at least you shouldnt if your an atheist.
Read my post again, I didn't dispute that. I disputed the claim that their atheism was a cause for their actions. Saying "they were atheists and they killed millions therefore the atheism is what made them do it" isn't correct in itself. Where is the proof that the atheism was a cause?
Quote from: Hughsie on October 27, 2013, 09:29:30 PM
one anotherI dare say that certain psychological traits were selected for as we evolved as a species. Those who were pre-disposed to work individually instead of collectively would have had reduced chance of survival and reproduction, therefore over time those traits became very rare. Acting in what we consider a "moral" way was a more effective way of surviving, therefore those who did so had a better chance of surviving and passing on the genes that made them act that way.
Hughsie,
You're relying on a philosophical, physical, chemical, biological, mathematical impossibility that defies all the known Natural Laws.
Look up entropy; it applies always and everywhere in all macro-physics that can be tested or measured.
Quote from: Hughsie on October 27, 2013, 10:08:07 PM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on October 27, 2013, 09:42:56 PM
Your mind is beffudled and narcissisitic. But athism will do that.
I take it you're resorting to insults because you can no longer reply with valid points?
No, he does that even when he's been proven right!
Quote from: per_passionem_eius on October 27, 2013, 10:15:29 PM
Quote from: Hughsie on October 27, 2013, 10:08:07 PM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on October 27, 2013, 09:42:56 PM
Your mind is beffudled and narcissisitic. But athism will do that.
I take it you're resorting to insults because you can no longer reply with valid points?
No, he does that even when he's been proven right!
Yeah its my ting....besides hughsie youve been insulting my intelligence sibce you got here.....evolutionary morality...pfffgts..bwa ha ha ha!
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on October 27, 2013, 10:23:21 PM
Yeah its my ting....besides hughsie youve been insulting my intelligence sibce you got here.....evolutionary morality...pfffgts..bwa ha ha ha!
Well, with apologists like you B'nai B'rith can vote themselves redundant.
Quote from: Oldavid on October 27, 2013, 11:46:52 PM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on October 27, 2013, 10:23:21 PM
Yeah its my ting....besides hughsie youve been insulting my intelligence sibce you got here.....evolutionary morality...pfffgts..bwa ha ha ha!
Well, with apologists like you B'nai B'rith can vote themselves redundant.
you see this is a case where your arrogance makes you stupid... do you really think you're going to reach this man with reason when he denies the very source of all reason? you see you have common cause with the atheists... that's why you felt it necessary to make this comment against me. so you'll go round n round in circles with your atheistic friend... and in the end the only thing you will have accomplished is exposing the room to even more atheistic nonsense... so I say give them hell and let God sort em out... my approach will be more productive.
Quote from: Oldavid on October 27, 2013, 10:13:08 PM
Quote from: Hughsie on October 27, 2013, 09:29:30 PM
one anotherI dare say that certain psychological traits were selected for as we evolved as a species. Those who were pre-disposed to work individually instead of collectively would have had reduced chance of survival and reproduction, therefore over time those traits became very rare. Acting in what we consider a "moral" way was a more effective way of surviving, therefore those who did so had a better chance of surviving and passing on the genes that made them act that way.
Hughsie,
You're relying on a philosophical, physical, chemical, biological, mathematical impossibility that defies all the known Natural Laws.
Look up entropy; it applies always and everywhere in all macro-physics that can be tested or measured.
Oh yeah this will get through to him ::)
1. Atheist argument, the hypothetical case that God decides one day (ignoring what outside of time means) to break His rules and order us to randomly murder people with an axe.
2. Reality. The NECESSARY final end to atheism. Morality is merely a convenience that may be ignored:
[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWMIwziGrAQ[/yt]
QuoteIf I am opposed to murder because God deems it immoral, as opposed to my own views,
Your views based on what? It is based on your soul. You know, more like feel, a spiritual repulsion to murder. Good for you, your conscience still has some life to it. HOWEVER, you are inconsistent. You can not condemn other atheists in the Weather Underground, for example, who decide to kill 25 million because it helps them with their goals. So you have to decide if morality is merely a convenience, or if there is "something" there. For example, why do we reserve such harsh terms like "traitor" and "two faced" for people who commit acts of injustice and betray us? There is something deeper there, and you know it.
Quotethen why do I have no opposition to homosexuality or abortion? That implies that God has forced some of his morals on me (without me knowing by making me believe they are my own) but he has chosen not to make me follow some of his other morals. That seems nonsensical.
God forces no morals on you. You have free will. He merely has written His rules on your heart, and given you a conscience to recognize it. A conscience that you can kill off by ignoring. As far as sodomites, every psychologically normal man is repulsed by it. Viewing two deranged men getting sexual gratification while playing with feces is repulsive. Unless you are an active sodomite who has destroyed his conscience, I believe you would be naturally repulsed if you saw it. Why do boys naturally beat up sodomites in high school? Remember sodomy is rarely discussed at home, and yet if boys find out that someone is a sodomite in high school, they are liable to kick the crap out of him. There is reality again for you.
On abortion, you are a man. Let's look at reality. A woman who has an abortion is always traumatized by it because she just murdered her baby. Many hide it, but for many they can't and will have a break down afterwards. As they have more and more abortions, they will feel it less and less. Such people scare the piss out of me.
Quote from: Oldavid on October 27, 2013, 10:13:08 PM
Quote from: Hughsie on October 27, 2013, 09:29:30 PM
one anotherI dare say that certain psychological traits were selected for as we evolved as a species. Those who were pre-disposed to work individually instead of collectively would have had reduced chance of survival and reproduction, therefore over time those traits became very rare. Acting in what we consider a "moral" way was a more effective way of surviving, therefore those who did so had a better chance of surviving and passing on the genes that made them act that way.
Hughsie,
You're relying on a philosophical, physical, chemical, biological, mathematical impossibility that defies all the known Natural Laws.
Look up entropy; it applies always and everywhere in all macro-physics that can be tested or measured.
What violations of natural laws do you see? Entropy doesn't actually figure in this.
QuoteI disputed the claim that their atheism was a cause for their actions. Saying "they were atheists and they killed millions therefore the atheism is what made them do it" isn't correct in itself. Where is the proof that the atheism was a cause?
The body count is the proof. The comments of atheists seen in the video I posted is the proof.
Atheism has no morality, except as a convenience. Therefore if it is more convenient for an atheist, or a group of atheists, to murder 25 million people vs. letting them live, then the people will get murdered. That is the consistent end to denying God.
edit: time for work. In closing, the fact that you are looking for answers and posting here is proof that your conscience is not dead. Someone like Bill Ayers would never post here. He is a complete atheist who is consistent in his outlook on life.
Quote from: james03 on October 28, 2013, 05:21:22 AM
QuoteI disputed the claim that their atheism was a cause for their actions. Saying "they were atheists and they killed millions therefore the atheism is what made them do it" isn't correct in itself. Where is the proof that the atheism was a cause?
The body count is the proof. The comments of atheists seen in the video I posted is the proof.
Atheism has no morality, except as a convenience. Therefore if it is more convenient for an atheist, or a group of atheists, to murder 25 million people vs. letting them live, then the people will get murdered. That is the consistent end to denying God.
edit: time for work. In closing, the fact that you are looking for answers and posting here is proof that your conscience is not dead. Someone like Bill Ayers would never post here. He is a complete atheist who is consistent in his outlook on life.
Good to know. So voxxpopulisuxx posting on TTA is proof that his faith is weak and he's seeking rational answers.
Quote from: Hughsie on October 27, 2013, 10:08:07 PM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on October 27, 2013, 09:42:56 PM
Your mind is beffudled and narcissisitic. But athism will do that.
I take it you're resorting to insults because you can no longer reply with valid points?
I don't think those are insults. More like statements of fact.
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on October 27, 2013, 10:23:21 PM
Yeah its my ting....besides hughsie youve been insulting my intelligence sibce you got here.....evolutionary morality...pfffgts..bwa ha ha ha!
???
Quote from: Chas on October 28, 2013, 05:40:24 AM
Quote from: james03 on October 28, 2013, 05:21:22 AM
QuoteI disputed the claim that their atheism was a cause for their actions. Saying "they were atheists and they killed millions therefore the atheism is what made them do it" isn't correct in itself. Where is the proof that the atheism was a cause?
The body count is the proof. The comments of atheists seen in the video I posted is the proof.
Atheism has no morality, except as a convenience. Therefore if it is more convenient for an atheist, or a group of atheists, to murder 25 million people vs. letting them live, then the people will get murdered. That is the consistent end to denying God.
edit: time for work. In closing, the fact that you are looking for answers and posting here is proof that your conscience is not dead. Someone like Bill Ayers would never post here. He is a complete atheist who is consistent in his outlook on life.
Good to know. So voxxpopulisuxx posting on TTA is proof that his faith is weak and he's seeking rational answers.
I wouldnt waste my time on an idiotic atheist site. Intellegent athism is an oxymoron.
This thread is now locked. Here are the ground rules that all forum members will be expected to follow:
1. If you have a sincere question about the Faith, about why traditional Catholics act and think as they do, or about why the Church teaches what She does, then you may begin a new thread in the Ask a Traditionalist subforum. You may ask questions in order to understand, not to ridicule nor to attempt to prove Catholicism/theism to be an incorrect worldview.
2. No promotion of atheism will be tolerated.
3. In keeping with the already-established forum rules, no name-calling, insult-throwing, or anything of that nature will be tolerated. Discuss ideas, not the people presenting them.
4. If you cannot adhere to these rules, post only about mundane topics, cease posting altogether, or wait to be banned.
5. If you have questions or concerns, contact a moderator via private message.