Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 53
  1.    #21  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    I followed your link and read through major part of it. It is an interview with Mr. Flew, who used to be an atheist, and, after turning 80, became a theist: "While still rejecting the concept of special revelation, whether Christian, Jewish or Islamic, nonetheless he had concluded that theism was true." So Flew's message basically is that "yes, there is a God, but Jesus was wrong because god does not interact with this world (there is no concept of revelation)"
    Do you agree with that basic message?

    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    I don't find the arguments given convincing, it reminds me of the discussions in the Middle Age dealing with the question of "how many angels fit on the tip of a needle" - a question which seems to be of little value as long as nobody has ever ever shown the existence of angels.

    Look at this for instance:
    "HABERMAS: If God is the First Cause, what about omniscience, or omnipotence?
    FLEW: Well, the First Cause, if there was a First Cause, has very clearly produced everything that is going on."

    - That's totally obvious, isn't it? At least IF a god is the first cause, and IF a god exists at all... only there is no sign of that. You can still believe in a god or gods, with or without revelation, but I think you have to accept that there is no evidence whatsoever around. That's why it is called faith, isn't it?
    First off, as I have stated in other threads, the Biblical concept of "faith" is not a presumption of fact apart from evidence, but rather a confidence in an as yet unseen reality.

    What Flew discusses is a logical conclusion based on the evidence available.

    What is it about Flew's conclusion that there is a god (Deistically, not revelationally) that lacks evidence?

    Further, while Flew stops short of endorsing the concept of an interacting god, he does acknowledge that scientific discovery better supports a god-based genesis rather than spontaneous. And, again, though he is not (yet) convinced of an interacting God, he does acknolwedge that it is not as far-fetched as once thought (pages 3-4)

    HABERMAS: Once you mentioned to me that your view might be called Deism. Do you think that would be a fair designation?

    FLEW: Yes, absolutely right. What Deists, such as the Mr. Jefferson who drafted the American Declaration of Independence, believed was that, while reason, mainly in the form of arguments to design, assures us that there is a God, there is no room either for any supernatural revelation of that God or for any transactions between that God and individual human beings.

    HABERMAS: Then, would you comment on your “openness” to the notion of theistic revelation?

    FLEW: Yes. I am open to it, but not enthusiastic about potential revelation from God. On the positive side, for example, I am very much impressed with physicist Gerald Schroeder’s comments on Genesis 1. That this biblical account might be scientifically accurate raises the possibility that it is revelation.

    HABERMAS: You very kindly noted that our debates and discussions had influenced your move in the direction of theism. You mentioned that this initial influence contributed in part to your comment that naturalistic efforts have never succeeded in producing “a plausible conjecture as to how any of these complex molecules might have evolved from simple entities.” Then in
    your recently rewritten introduction to the forthcoming edition of your classic volume God and Philosophy, you say that the original version of that book is now obsolete. You mention a number of trends in theistic argumentation that you find convincing, like big bang cosmology, fine tuning and Intelligent Design arguments. Which arguments for God’s existence did you find most persuasive?

    FLEW: I think that the most impressive arguments for God’s existence are those that are supported by recent scientific discoveries. I’ve never been much impressed by the kalam cosmological argument, and I don’t think it has gotten any stronger recently. However, I think the argument to Intelligent Design is enormously stronger than it was when I first met it.


    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    However that may be, I don't think the Darwinian idea is questioned in that interview. They only mention Darwin in one sentence, without any arguments as to why the present day scientific view of evolution should be wrong.
    Not questioned? Flew's mention of Darwin is in the context of where he finds flaw (or lack) with Darwinian theory fails (page 5)

    HABERMAS: So of the major theistic arguments, such as the cosmological, teleological, moral, and ontological, the only really impressive ones that you take to be decisive are the scientific forms of teleology?

    FLEW: Absolutely. It seems to me that Richard Dawkins constantly overlooks the fact that Darwin himself, in the fourteenth chapter of The Origin of Species, pointed out that his whole argument began with a being which already possessed reproductive powers. This is the creature the evolution of which a truly comprehensive theory of evolution must give some account. Darwin himself was well aware that he had not produced such an account. It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design.


    Incidentally, reliance on Darwinian theory absent of the "being which already ppossessed reproductive powers" is a better example of the "faith" you mentioned.
  2. #22  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    First off, as I have stated in other threads, the Biblical concept of "faith" is not a presumption of fact apart from evidence, but rather a confidence in an as yet unseen reality.

    What Flew discusses is a logical conclusion based on the evidence available
    ....
    Since the time the article you have quoted was published, Flew himself has realised how ignorant his arguments were...

    "Update (January 2005)

    Antony Flew has retracted one of his recent assertions. In a letter to me dated 29 December 2004, Flew concedes:

    I now realize that I have made a fool of myself by believing that there were no presentable theories of the development of inanimate matter up to the first living creature capable of reproduction.


    He blames his error on being "misled" by Richard Dawkins because Dawkins "has never been reported as referring to any promising work on the production of a theory of the development of living matter," even though this is false (e.g., Richard Dawkins and L. D. Hurst, "Evolutionary Chemistry: Life in a Test Tube," Nature 357: pp. 198-199, 21 May 1992) and hardly relevant: it was Flew's responsibility to check the state of the field (there are several books by actual protobiologists published in just the last five years), rather than wait for the chance possibility that one particular evolutionist would write on the subject. Now that he has done what he was supposed to do in the first place, he has retracted his false statement about the current state of protobiological science.

    Flew also makes another admission: "I have been mistaught by Gerald Schroeder." He says "it was precisely because he appeared to be so well qualified as a physicist (which I am not) that I was never inclined to question what he said about physics." Apart from his unreasonable plan of trusting a physicist on the subject of biochemistry (after all, the relevant field is biochemistry, not physics--yet it would seem Flew does not recognize the difference), this attitude seems to pervade Flew's method of truthseeking, of looking to a single author for authoritative information and never checking their claims (or, as in the case of Dawkins, presumed lack of claims)." (from http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=369)


    I think this settles the discussion about how meaningful and significant Flew's previous comments on the origin of life were. I agree with Flew that he made a fool of himself by not checking his sources.

    It is true that so far there is no experimental proof for the abiotic origin of life. However, nothing points into the direction of it being impossible (to the contrary), given a few hundered million years of time, under the conditions prevailing on earth at the time. Of course creationists do their best to confuse things and to make the origin of life look as improbable as possible, or even impossible without the help of a god, but this is just that: an attempt to confuse people, and to further their cause with pseudo-scientific arguments. If you want to learn more, you can find it e.g. here:
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html
    Last edited by clulup; 01/19/2005 at 09:46 AM.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  3.    #23  
    Original Question Retracted:

    New question: Why is there such confidence in abiogenesis despite the lack of experimental evidence, yet such hostile opposition design theories?
  4. #24  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    Original Question Retracted:

    New question: Why is there such confidence in abiogenesis despite the lack of experimental evidence, yet such hostile opposition design theories?
    The main problem I have with creationism and "intelligent design" theories is that their proponents are not honest about what they present as arguments in favour of their view, and also not honest about the points that speak in favour of evolution and abiogenesis. The article you have quoted is a good example. Mr. Flew's arguments were baseless. The exception here is that Mr. Flew realized his error and that he was honest enough to admit it. This is not the case with most proponents of creationism. Here are some examples:
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cre-error.html

    Creationists start with their biblical belief system and then try to find evidence for that. The result of that quest is not convincing at all, but their dogmatic beliefs do not allow them to accept that. They go on and on, constantly coming up with new twists in their argumentation, whenever possible trying to ignore the counter-arguments based on real scientific evidence. By doing so, they create a pseudo-science not based on evidence, but on (more or less deliberate) misconceptions about scientific evidence.

    Science goes the other way round. You don't start with the conclusion, you look at the facts you observe in nature, and then base your hypothesis on that. Whenever new results arise, scientists check whether they fit to the explanations the hypothesis offers. If they fit, the hypothesis is confirmed. If new results contradict the hypothesis, the hypothesis has to be adapted or abandoned. Science constantly evolves and manages to explain reality better and better thanks to this. Creationism, "intelligent design" etc. just repeat the same old dogmas on and on, and try to adapt reality to their beliefs.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  5. #25  
    Actually a thread much like this, and it's response is one of the things (well, also helping my wife with her recovery from a masectomy) is what caused my long silence. Atheism, Theism, Evolution, Communism, etc. all require that a person take certain things on faith (regardless of anyone's claims otherwise). Deeply held convictions that arise from experience are almost always unshakeble by the use of debate/logic. As certain people can't let certain declarations go unchallenged I don't think you'll ever find a forum where a discussion on the subjects won't denegerate. It's much easier to have a rational discussion on these subjects face-to-face as opposed to online, semi-anonomously (sic).
    Michael
    "I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."
  6. #26  
    Quote Originally Posted by BobbyMike
    Actually a thread much like this, and it's response is one of the things (well, also helping my wife with her recovery from a masectomy) is what caused my long silence. Atheism, Theism, Evolution, Communism, etc. all require that a person take certain things on faith (regardless of anyone's claims otherwise). Deeply held convictions that arise from experience are almost always unshakeble by the use of debate/logic. As certain people can't let certain declarations go unchallenged I don't think you'll ever find a forum where a discussion on the subjects won't denegerate. It's much easier to have a rational discussion on these subjects face-to-face as opposed to online, semi-anonomously (sic).
    Michael
    I guess by "certain people [who] can't let certain declarations go unchallenged" you were referring to Shopharim, who repeatedly asked for our opininon on the things discussed? (Not that I see any bad in that)


    I agree with you that one cannot argue about faith. Faith, according to Merriam Webster, is "firm belief in something for which there is no proof". Personally, I don't see a basis for firm belief if there is no proof, but I know others have a different view and I respect that. Take e.g. faith in afterlife: there is no way you can prove there is one, and no way to prove the opposite. So some people believe in it and othes don't.

    But sometimes religions make claims which can be verified or falsified. In those cases, I think it is fair to challenge them and examine whether those claims allign with the things we observe in reality. Take the evolution of species as one example. Some Christian groups oppose this idea (not e.g. the Roman Catholic church, by far the largest Christian community). However, there are enormous amounts of facts both from observations in nature and in the lab, from fossile records and from present day events, which show that the evolution of species is reality. The evolution of species is a fact by any definition of fact people use in everyday life. So if somebody says evolution in a myth or "only" a theory, I feel free to express my view and provide some of the evidence in favour of evolution.

    Everybody is free to present contradicting evidence and to disagree, but let's discuss verifiable and falsifiable ideas on the basis of evidence, not just claims and dogmas, and make a fair assessment of what speaks in favour of a certain idea and what contradicts it.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  7.    #27  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    I guess by "certain people [who] can't let certain declarations go unchallenged" you were referring to Shopharim, who repeatedly asked for our opininon on the things discussed? (Not that I see any bad in that)
    I resemble that remark
  8.    #28  
    Quote Originally Posted by BobbyMike
    Actually a thread much like this, and it's response is one of the things (well, also helping my wife with her recovery from a masectomy) is what caused my long silence. Atheism, Theism, Evolution, Communism, etc. all require that a person take certain things on faith (regardless of anyone's claims otherwise). Deeply held convictions that arise from experience are almost always unshakeble by the use of debate/logic. As certain people can't let certain declarations go unchallenged I don't think you'll ever find a forum where a discussion on the subjects won't denegerate. It's much easier to have a rational discussion on these subjects face-to-face as opposed to online, semi-anonomously (sic).
    Michael
    I think most of our threads on such topics have remained civil.
  9.    #29  
    Meanwhile, back to Mr. Flew...I am well aware that while the originally posted article seems to lean toward my understanding and, consequentially, my belief system, the subsequently posted retraction demonstrates that he may feel/believe/be convinced otherwise in the future.

    I agree with clulup on this matter, namely that hypothesis must conform to the evidence. I happen to think that popular evolution (i.e. as taught in schools) is dogmatically supported to the extent that the weaknesses or gaps are over-looked rather than presented for examination.
  10. #30  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    I agree with clulup on this matter, namely that hypothesis must conform to the evidence. I happen to think that popular evolution (i.e. as taught in schools) is dogmatically supported to the extent that the weaknesses or gaps are over-looked rather than presented for examination.
    There are no gaps and weaknesses in the theory of evolution. There is no disagreement among scientists about any of the main points which make up evolution. If you would look at the evidence for and against evolution, as well as the evidence for or against intelligent design in an unbiased way, you, too, would realize intelligent design and creationism totally lacks evidence, while you would come to accept evolution as a fact. Of course not every detail about how evolution works on every level is known, the scientific process goes on, and of course there is still scientific debate about many points. But there is no uncertainty about the basic facts.

    Here the view of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, by far the most important and biggest scientific association in the US:

    Recognizing that the "intelligent design theory" represents a challenge to the quality of science education, the Board of Directors of the AAAS unanimously adopts the following resolution:

    Whereas, ID proponents claim that contemporary evolutionary theory is incapable of explaining the origin of the diversity of living organisms;

    Whereas, to date, the ID movement has failed to offer credible scientific evidence to support their claim that ID undermines the current scientifically accepted theory of evolution;

    Whereas, the ID movement has not proposed a scientific means of testing its claims;

    Therefore Be It Resolved, that the lack of scientific warrant for so-called "intelligent design theory" makes it improper to include as a part of science education;

    Therefore Be Further It Resolved, that AAAS urges citizens across the nation to oppose the establishment of policies that would permit the teaching of "intelligent design theory" as a part of the science curricula of the public schools;

    Therefore Be It Further Resolved, that AAAS calls upon its members to assist those engaged in overseeing science education policy to understand the nature of science, the content of contemporary evolutionary theory and the inappropriateness of "intelligent design theory" as subject matter for science education;

    Therefore Be Further It Resolved, that AAAS encourages its affiliated societies to endorse this resolution and to communicate their support to appropriate parties at the federal, state and local levels of the government.

    Approved by the AAAS Board of Directors on 10/18/02
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  11. #31  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Take the evolution of species as one example. Some Christian groups oppose this idea (not e.g. the Roman Catholic church, by far the largest Christian community). However, there are enormous amounts of facts both from observations in nature and in the lab, from fossile records and from present day events, which show that the evolution of species is reality. The evolution of species is a fact by any definition of fact people use in everyday life. So if somebody says evolution in a myth or "only" a theory, I feel free to express my view and provide some of the evidence in favour of evolution.
    I'm not exactly sure what you meant here with saying "not e.g. the Roman Catholic Church". But the Catholic Church has not taken an official stance on how the body of humans was made. They have however taken a stance on that the soul of a human has not evolved. This was made in God's image and was planned. The Catholic church has stated that the evolution theory is a valid "theory".

    Here's an interesting website that tells what the Catholic Church believes....the link itself is to the Evolution portions, just read the second topic that is titled "The Catholic Position".

    Catholic Answers

    This is against what most Protestants teach, so we shouldn't go on a tangent about various forms of Christianity...I just thought it would be intersting to know about the Catholics belief.
  12.    #32  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    There are no gaps and weaknesses in the theory of evolution. There is no disagreement among scientists about any of the main points which make up evolution. If you would look at the evidence for and against evolution, as well as the evidence for or against intelligent design in an unbiased way, you, too, would realize intelligent design and creationism totally lacks evidence, while you would come to accept evolution as a fact. Of course not every detail about how evolution works on every level is known, the scientific process goes on, and of course there is still scientific debate about many points. But there is no uncertainty about the basic facts.
    Is not abiotic origin a "main point" of the theory?

    I ask this question, because earlier you offered the following:

    It is true that so far there is no experimental proof for the abiotic origin of life. However, nothing points into the direction of it being impossible (to the contrary), given a few hundered million years of time, under the conditions prevailing on earth at the time.

    I would think that "not impossible" is a far cry from "it is so"
  13. #33  
    Quote Originally Posted by RicoM
    I'm not exactly sure what you meant here with saying "not e.g. the Roman Catholic Church". But the Catholic Church has not taken an official stance on how the body of humans was made. They have however taken a stance on that the soul of a human has not evolved. This was made in God's image and was planned. The Catholic church has stated that the evolution theory is a valid "theory".

    Here's an interesting website that tells what the Catholic Church believes....the link itself is to the Evolution portions, just read the second topic that is titled "The Catholic Position".

    Catholic Answers

    This is against what most Protestants teach, so we shouldn't go on a tangent about various forms of Christianity...I just thought it would be intersting to know about the Catholics belief.
    From your source: "Concerning cosmological evolution, the Church has infallibly defined...." As you can see, these people are arrogant enough to simply "infallibly define" what is right and what is wrong. Not too long ago, the same organisation knew beyond doubt that sun circles around earth, and tortured and burned people who dared to disagree. Cool stuff.

    However, what I meant is that the Catholic church does not promote ideas like intelligent design and creationism, unlike others.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  14. #34  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    Is not abiotic origin a "main point" of the theory?

    I ask this question, because earlier you offered the following:

    It is true that so far there is no experimental proof for the abiotic origin of life. However, nothing points into the direction of it being impossible (to the contrary), given a few hundered million years of time, under the conditions prevailing on earth at the time.

    I would think that "not impossible" is a far cry from "it is so"
    Evolution is about the development of living organisms.

    The abiotic origin of life is different from that (hence "abiotic"). As mentioned before, the abiotic origin of life cannot be shown experimentally because it is a rare event that takes a lot of time. We can, however, easily show that the basic molecules living organisms consist of (such as amino acids, nucleic acids, etc.) form spontaneously. The current state of scientific results show that it is perfectly alright to assume the abiotic origin of life is likely enough to occur under the conditions prevailing on earth at the time.

    The creationist claims that abiotic origin is too unlikely to occur have been shown to be wrong and biased (see above).
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  15. #35  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    From your source: "Concerning cosmological evolution, the Church has infallibly defined...." As you can see, these people are arrogant enough to simply "infallibly define" what is right and what is wrong. Not too long ago, the same organisation knew beyond doubt that sun circles around earth, and tortured and burned people who dared to disagree. Cool stuff.

    However, what I meant is that the Catholic church does not promote ideas like intelligent design and creationism, unlike others.
    Why should this be arrogant? Should I say you are being arrogant because you are using any tool that was given to you? In the bible (in several different spots) the Catholic church (and the pope) is given the tool of being infallible. This is a whole new thread upon itself so I don't want to discuss it here. (I also don't want to insult any other Christian here while taking a tangent to an existing discussion) But without any understanding of a religion, I think it's arrogant of you to throw out accusations.

    And your second statement about "knowing beyond doubt that the sun circles around the earth" again is completely incorrect.
    Galileo Controversy .

    You suprised me there clulup. Most of your statements are usually very well thought out and have a lot of merit behind them (although I usually disagree completely with your point of view). But this time, you threw out some accusations that are totally unsubstantiated and are totally untrue. Like many anti-Catholics (even Christian anti-Catholics), you remember arguments that have been said over the years (and have always been untrue). If you say a rumor long enough and loud enough, it doesn't make it true.

    And for your original statement, yes, you are correct. The Catholic church does not promote intelligent design nor evolution.
  16.    #36  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Evolution is about the development of living organisms.
    Fair enough. What scientific term is used to describe the body of knowledge that addresses the origin of life?

    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    The abiotic origin of life is different from that (hence "abiotic"). As mentioned before, the abiotic origin of life cannot be shown experimentally because it is a rare event that takes a lot of time. We can, however, easily show that the basic molecules living organisms consist of (such as amino acids, nucleic acids, etc.) form spontaneously. The current state of scientific results show that it is perfectly alright to assume the abiotic origin of life is likely enough to occur under the conditions prevailing on earth at the time.
    Given this, do the following conclusions accruately assess the state of science as it relates to the origins of life:

    1. The Theory of evolution, which in and of itself addresses the "development" of living organisms, assumes a definite starting point (or, possibly a set of starting points relative to the 3 major groups of life)

    2. Scientists are willing rely on the assumption of abiotic genesis as that "starting point" because spontaneous generation of basic molecules can be demonstrated in a test environment

    3. Scientists are not willing to rely on an assumption of a "creator" as the "starting point" because the existence of such an being can not be demonstrated in a test environment
  17. #37  
    Quote Originally Posted by RicoM
    Why should this be arrogant? Should I say you are being arrogant because you are using any tool that was given to you? In the bible (in several different spots) the Catholic church (and the pope) is given the tool of being infallible. This is a whole new thread upon itself so I don't want to discuss it here. (I also don't want to insult any other Christian here while taking a tangent to an existing discussion) But without any understanding of a religion, I think it's arrogant of you to throw out accusations.
    Of course you are totally wrong about me being "without an understanding of religion". I have been a Catholic Christian for 20 years, and went to church on a quite regular basis, even without being forced by my parents or so. Believe me, I stand on firm ground when I speak about religion and the Catholic Chuch in particular.

    Of course the pope was not given the tool of being infallible by the bible. This was essentially given to the pope by the pope, or, more specifically, it was defined dogmatically by the First Vatican Council as late as 1870(!). The whole idea of being infallible is totally arrogant towards Non-Catholics, because it basically means that the Catholic church is better than the others. They are infallible, so the others are wrong and hence second class Christians whenever they disagree - and they actually DO disagree with the pope also in matters where he claims to be infallible (which is not the case with everything the pope says).

    May I remind you of the Catholic view about women? They are not worthy or capable of being priests, according to the pope. That's pretty close to women being second class human beings, no? Lets not start discussing the Catholic church, it could get ugly, because there are many more examples...

    And your second statement about "knowing beyond doubt that the sun circles around the earth" again is completely incorrect.
    Galileo Controversy .

    You suprised me there clulup. Most of your statements are usually very well thought out and have a lot of merit behind them (although I usually disagree completely with your point of view). But this time, you threw out some accusations that are totally unsubstantiated and are totally untrue.
    What makes you think I was referring to Galileo Gallilei?
    I never said I was, this is just you thinking that and attacking me based on that false assumption. How about Giordano Bruno, who was burned at the stake 404 years ago for claiming (among other things) that earth circles around the sun? Again, there are many more examples...

    Besides, what are you asking for? That the Catholic church is awarded a price for only showing the instruments of torture to Galilei, without actually using them (in this case!) because he recanted before that?
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  18. #38  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    Fair enough. What scientific term is used to describe the body of knowledge that addresses the origin of life?
    Check out this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_...origin_of_life


    Given this, do the following conclusions accruately assess the state of science as it relates to the origins of life:

    1. The Theory of evolution, which in and of itself addresses the "development" of living organisms, assumes a definite starting point (or, possibly a set of starting points relative to the 3 major groups of life)
    Interesting that you mention the three major groups of life. There are indeed three, the Bacteria, the Archaea, and he Eucarya (including e.g. plants, animals and fungi), though I am not sure these are the three you meant.

    Now, back to your question: There may have been several events resulting in abiogenesis, but there is good evidence that all life on this planet originates from the same ancestral life form, so one can say there was one starting point.

    2. Scientists are willing rely on the assumption of abiotic genesis as that "starting point" because spontaneous generation of basic molecules can be demonstrated in a test environment
    Indeed. See link above.

    3. Scientists are not willing to rely on an assumption of a "creator" as the "starting point" because the existence of such an being can not be demonstrated in a test environment
    No, this is not the case. Some scientists believe in god, others (the majority, actually) don't. Regarding abiogenesis, there is simply no reason to assume that a "creator" was taking influence. This does not mean there isn't a creator - there is no proof that gods don't exist or influence things (be it evolution, abiogenesis, or the results of the latest NBA match). But, on the other hand, why believe in something for which we have no indication (in my view). I don't KNOW there is no god, I just don't think/believe there is.
    Last edited by clulup; 01/21/2005 at 08:42 AM.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  19. #39  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Of course you are totally wrong about me being "without an understanding of religion". I have been a Catholic Christian for 20 years, and went to church on a quite regular basis, even without being forced by my parents or so. Believe me, I stand on firm ground when I speak about religion and the Catholic Chuch in particular.
    My mistake. I assumed from your attack that you didn't have a firm understanding of Catholicism (never said religion). However, being a catholic for over 20 years doesn't automatically bestow understanding on the catholic faith. Just like the commonly heard phase..."he/she was just running through the motions".

    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Of course the pope was not given the tool of being infallible by the bible. This was essentially given to the pope by the pope, or, more specifically, it was defined dogmatically by the First Vatican Council as late as 1870(!).
    Again, I have to agree and disagree a bit here with you. True, the bible did not give the pope infalliability (and you are correct, everything the Pope says isn't automatically infalliable). But more importantly, Jesus gave the Pope this tool/gift. And I'm sure with all your years, you know of some of the quotes I'm referring to. Off memory, the only one I can point you to is Mathew chapter 16 (or maybe 17).....paraphrased it says, "Whatsoever you bind here on earth will be bound in heaven and whatsoever you loose here on earth will be loosed in heaven". Here Jesus himself is giving the head of the Catholic Church this gift. So the bible doesn't give the Pope this gift....Jesus does, but it is recorded in the bible.

    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    The whole idea of being infallible is totally arrogant towards Non-Catholics, because it basically means that the Catholic church is better than the others. They are infallible, so the others are wrong and hence second class Christians whenever they disagree - and they actually DO disagree with the pope also in matters where he claims to be infallible (which is not the case with everything the pope says).
    I think this again is wrong because from my personal observations, it seems that Catholics are much more tolerant of other Christians than vice-versa. So they're not "second-class citizens". However, Catholics do believe that they are priviledged to the full truth of Christianity. How is this different than any other form of Christianity? Doesn't the Baptist believe he/she is correct and that the Catholics believe things that aren't necessarily true (i.e. sacraments).

    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    May I remind you of the Catholic view about women? They are not worthy or capable of being priests, according to the pope. That's pretty close to women being second class human beings, no?
    Second class human beings? Since your a former-Catholic, let me say a few lines that I'm sure you're familiar with...."Hail Mary, full of grace". Full of grace is a title/description given to only one person in the bible...a woman. And Mary is pretty highly honored in the Catholic Faith....so much in fact that some other Protestant denominations accuse the Catholic Faith as worshipping her (which isn't true).

    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Lets not start discussing the Catholic church, it could get ugly, because there are many more examples...
    It never bothers me discussing Catholicism. I hope and pray that discussing it in forums like this could bring maybe one person to a Catholic Mass....just to start thinking. This is not a personal attack on you...but you seem VERY hostile to Catholicism. Are you angry because, "you feel ripped off for believing in a religion that you later felt was wrong", or did someone in the Catholic faith wrong you tremendously? I'm seriously curious, because you do seem very hostile.

    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    What makes you think I was referring to Galileo Gallilei?
    I never said I was, this is just you thinking that and attacking me based on that false assumption. How about Giordano Bruno, who was burned at the stake 404 years ago for claiming (among other things) that earth circles around the sun? Again, there are many more examples...
    I stated this because this is a huge misconception by non-catholics(Galileo). Personally, I don't know much about Giordano Bruno, but would be happy to reserach it for you. I will say that the Catholic church has made mistakes (it's 2000+ years old and humans are in charge of it...inspired by the directional guidance of God, but still managed by humans, to think it would have a perfect track record is a bit naive), but Catholics believe that when the church does go astray, that new leaders bring it back on course.


    And as a sidenote, this is the response that I'm use to from you. I prefer it much better than the previous one. It has great arguments, which get people thinking.
    Last edited by RicoM; 01/20/2005 at 03:03 PM.
  20. #40  
    Quote Originally Posted by RicoM
    My mistake. I assumed from your attack that you didn't have a firm understanding of Catholicism (never said religion).
    Strange that you say that, I am still pretty sure that your sentence "But without any understanding of a religion, I think it's arrogant of you to throw out accusations." contains the word "religion".

    Off memory, the only one I can point you to is Mathew chapter 16 (or maybe 17).....paraphrased it says, "Whatsoever you bind here on earth will be bound in heaven and whatsoever you loose here on earth will be loosed in heaven". Here Jesus himself is giving the head of the Catholic Church this gift. So the bible doesn't give the Pope this gift....Jesus does, but it is recorded in the bible.
    Since you are quoting, I think you do realize that Jesus gives "this gift" to Peter, and not to the pope.... that Peter is the first pope is merely the interpretation of the Catholic church, used to prove their view that they are the one and only real thing, and totally different from the interpretation of other Christian denominations - but hey, what do I care, that is up to you to settle.

    Second class human beings? Since your a former-Catholic, let me say a few lines that I'm sure you're familiar with...."Hail Mary, full of grace". Full of grace is a title/description given to only one person in the bible...a woman. And Mary is pretty highly honored in the Catholic Faith....so much in fact that some other Protestant denominations accuse the Catholic Faith as worshipping her (which isn't true).
    Full of grace maybe, but that's about it. Intellectually and/or emotionally not capable of e.g. becoming a priest, no matter how graceful... again, what do I care, if you like this view, go ahead.

    It never bothers me discussing Catholicism. I hope and pray that discussing it in forums like this could bring maybe one person to a Catholic Mass....just to start thinking. This is not a personal attack on you...but you seem VERY hostile to Catholicism. Are you angry because, "you feel ripped off for believing in a religion that you later felt was wrong", or did someone in the Catholic faith wrong you tremendously? I'm seriously curious, because you do seem very hostile.
    I feel no hostility, and nobody ever did any wrong to me. I just don't understand how people can accept some of the things the present pope and the rest of the Catholic church does. E.g. the views on women, gays, and the like. Or how they tried to protect paedophile priests from being caught. I think there is more hypocrisy in the Catholic church than in other churches.

    I stated this because this is a huge misconception by non-catholics(Galileo). Personally, I don't know much about Giordano Bruno, but would be happy to reserach it for you.
    That's very kind of you, but let me assure you that I already did the research myself, before I posted my first post about the Catholic Church forcing others to believe that the sun is circling earth.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions