Jump to content
An Old School Catholic Message Board

Descendant Of Charles Darwin Becomes A Catholic Apologist


Chiquitunga

Recommended Posts

Chiquitunga

I watched parts of it. I'll watch the whole thing if you read through the links I post for my rebuttal. Deal?

 

Okay, deal :like: except that I should let you know, I do not intend to debate you here in this thread. My belief in the Eucharist is not based on Eucharistic miracles, although I believe them and they are awesome! Besides the fact though that this is in the Scriptures and is a dogmatic teaching of the Church, the Lord has made it completely obvious to me (I was going to say blatantly but then realized that might not sound right here, lol) that He is truly present in the Eucharist, as He has for so many of us. He is Love itself... I wish I could take this that He puts in my heart and put it into yours right now, but that is not possible, so I have to pray instead. And that is what the Lord is calling me to (cloistered religious life) rather than to be a Catholic apologist, like the descendant of Darwin here. So again, I do not intend to debate you here. But I will read what you have to say. 

 

Also, this video isn't really the best out there on Eucharistic miracles to let you know, although it is not bad. It was just that the title of it reminded me of the discussion in this thread. It includes a few other things like a crying and bleeding statue of the Crown of Thorns in Bolivia and a mystic whom I know little about, and I know that many of these can be false. The Crown of Thorns statue I have heard of before and believe it though. But to let you know, there is much more especially on Eucharistic miracles out there. Still I think this is pretty good. 

 

God bless!

 

p.s. I have a side question for you though... (sorry! I know I just said I wasn't going to debate you) I remember we were once discussing exorcism in another thread some months ago..I remember you by your like-able name :smile3: You mentioned that you do believe that in some very rare cases people can be possessed. However, if you do not believe in God, how can this be? What would a person be possessed with if not a demon? And if there are demons, how did they come about if not in rebellion to God who first created them as angels? Sorry, I don't mean to go off on a side topic too much. Just wondering. :like:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CatholicsAreKewl

Okay, deal :like: except that I should let you know, I do not intend to debate you here in this thread. My belief in the Eucharist is not based on Eucharistic miracles, although I believe them and they are awesome! Besides the fact though that this is in the Scriptures and is a dogmatic teaching of the Church, the Lord has made it completely obvious to me (I was going to say blatantly but then realized that might not sound right here, lol) that He is truly present in the Eucharist, as He has for so many of us. He is Love itself... I wish I could take this that He puts in my heart and put it into yours right now, but that is not possible, so I have to pray instead. And that is what the Lord is calling me to (cloistered religious life) rather than to be a Catholic apologist, like the descendant of Darwin here. So again, I do not intend to debate you here. But I will read what you have to say. 

Definitely. I think both of us can learn from these exchanges. I never intended to convert anyone. 

 

 

 


Also, this video isn't really the best out there on Eucharistic miracles to let you know, although it is not bad. It was just that the title of it reminded me of the discussion in this thread. It includes a few other things like a crying and bleeding statue of the Crown of Thorns in Bolivia and a mystic whom I know little about, and I know that many of these can be false. The Crown of Thorns statue I have heard of before and believe it though. But to let you know, there is much more especially on Eucharistic miracles out there. Still I think this is pretty good. 

No doubt. Though I'm very skeptical, I don't deny that miracles can happen. I just think that these occurrences are not limited to Christianity. 

 

 

 


 

God bless!

 

p.s. I have a side question for you though... (sorry! I know I just said I wasn't going to debate you) I remember we were once discussing exorcism in another thread some months ago..I remember you by your like-able name  :smile3: You mentioned that you do believe that in some very rare cases people can be possessed. However, if you do not believe in God, how can this be? What would a person be possessed with if not a demon? And if there are demons, how did they come about if not in rebellion to God who first created them as angels? Sorry, I don't mean to go off on a side topic too much. Just wondering.  :like:

 

Good memory! I could have worded it better. If the details I've read about are in anyway true for some of the cases, it's possible. It is interesting that such a phenomenon is common in non-Christian areas as well. It seems to be a culture-bound syndrome in some ways. I don't know if the cause of possession is a spirit per say but I would admit that religious doctors (priests in this case) would be best suited to heal some of these possessed patients. I'm open to being convinced either way. 

Edited by CatholicsAreKewl
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Watched the Sam Harris video you posted. Then watched a few more while I was doing cardio. I like the guy and he makes great arguments. And he's a nice guy. These issues need to be talked about in this day and age. And from the Christian side it can't be a I'm right you're wrong because God and the Bible said so type argument. That just wont work anymore. And on the atheist side it has to be done in a way Harris does it where both sides can give their points. Good stuff and I also enjoy the debate in this thread. Good points by both sides.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

CatholicsAreKewl

Watched the Sam Harris video you posted. Then watched a few more while I was doing cardio. I like the guy and he makes great arguments. And he's a nice guy. These issues need to be talked about in this day and age. And from the Christian side it can't be a I'm right you're wrong because God and the Bible said so type argument. That just wont work anymore. And on the atheist side it has to be done in a way Harris does it where both sides can give their points. Good stuff and I also enjoy the debate in this thread. Good points by both sides.

 

3t3nrt.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Catholics Are Kewl you posted a comment about how some guy a 100 years before Jesus had the same story and things attributed to him. I've heard and read how some fictional characters had similar stories to Jesus. But can you go into detail about the one you posted about in this thread ? Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They're not any more reasonable then the claims of any other religion. 

 

 

That's, like, your opinion, man.

 

 

Hmm, I'm not claiming that's the case but it is much more reasonable to believe that than to believe that Jesus was the son of God.

 

 

Perhaps then you can tell what you think is the case.  You only find the claim unreasonable because of your a priori prejudice against the existence of God.  

If you accept that God exists (something that can be known through reason), it is perfectly reasonable to believe that He can become incarnate as Man for the purpose of saving and setting an example for the human race.

 

And yes, the story of Jesus Christ is indeed amazing and remarkable, but if I thought that Jesus Christ was just a regular dude, and that the events of His life were ordinary, normal, and unremarkable, I would have no reason to be Christian.

 

 

Also, it's a little curious that Christ's story isn't at all unique. In fact a similar figure popped up nearly 100 years before Christ by the name of Appollonius of Tyana.

 

 

Actually, Christ's story is extremely unique.  While there are other holy men and sages of various religions (including Catholic saints), Jesus Christ is the only actual historical figure claimed to be the Only Begotten Son of the One Eternal God Most high - the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

 

Appollonius of Tyana was a pagan Greek philosopher who was claimed to be a miracle worker, but never claimed to be the Only Son of God or Savior of mankind.

Appollonius has long ago faded into obscurity, but Jesus Christ continues to have profound influence in the world, and on the hearts and minds of men, to this day - and even continues to have many enemies insanely obsessed with tearing Him and His Church down.

 

I think that if Jesus were a mere man, and His Church a purely human institution, it would have been relegated to the dustbin of history many, many centuries ago.

 

 

Here's a picture with a bunch of pagan gods that are oddly similar to the Jesus portrayed in the Bible. 

 

horus-attis-mithra-krishna-dionysus.jpg

 

 

 

Cute meme, but, unfortunately for your argument, quite unfactual.

 

The claims that the Gospels were really based in various pagan myths is based on the claims of some 19th century writers whose claims have since been thoroughly rebutted, but remain popular with internet pop-atheists.

 

The allegedly "curious" similarities between pagan myths and the Gospel of Christ crumble pretty quickly when the myths and the Gospels are examined in any detail.  These claims are based on a mix of extremely far-fetched distortions of facts and outright fabrications.

 

Besides, Jesus and His original followers were all devout Jews, who would have been unfamiliar with most of these pagan myths, and would have been adamantly opposed to polytheistic paganism (regarded as the worship of devils).

Unlike polytheistic gentile pagans, who worhipped many gods, and sometimes regarded humans as divine, ancient Judaism believed in only One, infinite and utterly transcendent God, and regarded any human claims of identity or kinship with God as supreme blasphemy.  (Jesus was condemned to death by the Jewish authorities for claiming to be the Son of the Most High God - and this fact is recorded in all four Gospels.)

 

 

Here's a thorough (and lengthy) refutation of claims that the tale of Jesus Christ was based on myths of pagan gods:  

http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/JesusEvidenceCrucifiedSaviors.htm

 

Some shorter articles refuting such arguments:

http://carm.org/was-resurrection-story-borrowed

http://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-myth.html

 

And here's a good three-parter:  "Is Jesus Christ a Myth?"  Part One,  Part Two, & Part Three.

 

(The above articles are not Catholic, but pretty solid.)

 

Here's some relevant Catholic articles:

"Are the Gospels Myth?"

"Did St. Paul Invent Christianity?"

"Is Catholicism Pagan?"  (This one more concerns fundamentalist protestant claims, but still relevant.)

 

Should be enough to keep you reading for a while.

Not as cute or snappy as an internet meme, but  a lot more substantial and factual.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the third time I reply to this post. If the server crashes again, I'll take it as a sign. 

 

I don't deny that Christians contributed a lot to the sciences. This doesn't mean much to me, though. Muslims also contributed a bunch to the sciences. Atheism wasn't really common until recently, so we can't say that the same couldn't have occurred if Christianity never existed. Religion was our first and worst attempt at explaining the world. The more we learned, the more we disassociated revelation from science by adopting a less literal interpretation of scripture. 

 

I never claimed that only Christians can be scientists or make contributions to science, and that was not my point.

I am refuting the atheist claim that Christian Faith and scientific inquiry are enemies and incompatible.

 

Not more irrational, just more recent, than your beliefs. We might as well discuss this. We're already jumping all over the place. 

 

 

Yes, you are.  Feel free to start a separate "Christianity vs. New Age" thread if you want to discuss that more.  Let's keep on topic.

 

 

I believe science can help us understand what type of life is desired and the wrong/right ways to achieve this lifestyle, but only to a certain degree. It's currently limited but I believe there is potential. Currently, science can help us think of current moral concepts differently. I'm sure you already agree with this but I can provide an example if needed. Whether or not science can explain morality is a debated topic, so I don't really mind taking a side and continuing this discussion so I can learn more about it. Here's a 5 minute clip of an argument/rebuttal on this topic:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UuuTOpZxwRk&feature=youtu.be

 

 

For all his rambling, I don't think Dr. Harris (or whoever that was) ever actually answered the question of how science determines morality.  He mentions compassion being "rooted in our genes," but one can just as easily say rape and murder are rooted in our genes.  That doesn't explain why some of these behaviors ought to be engaged in and others avoided.

 

Interestingly, he claims some things are objectively wrong, but if materialist atheism is true, I don't see how he can say that objectively.  If human beings are indeed nothing but a randomly evolved clump of atoms with no intrinsic purpose or meaning, then there's no objective reason to declare any motions on the part of these clumps of atoms "right" or "wrong."  It's all based on subjective (and "unscientific") preferences.

 

What kind of life is desired is actually a question that can not be answered by science.  If I want to live one way, and you want to live a contrary way, science cannot determine which of us (if either) is right or wrong.

 

 

Oh, I forgot to add. Even if this is the case, how exactly is religion needed to explain morality? Why does moral philosophy need religion?

 

 

People don't need religion to be moral or have a moral code.  As Catholics, we believe in a natural law written on the hearts of all men, though we also believe men's moral reason can be clouded by sin.  

Moral philosophers can disagree on many things, and one's religious beliefs (or lack thereof) can have much influence on how one approaches moral issues.  For instance, it can make a big difference whether you view human life as sacred, created in the image and likeness of God, or as mere matter, meaningless, randomly evolved protoplasm.

 

Witness all the heated disagreement over the morality abortion (to use just one prominent example).

 

 

You're right. Bad example. 

 

 

 

Wait, so you believe psychology and materialism are incompatible?

 

 

Not necessarily, though whether or not one is materialist will influence psychology.  Psychology is not a "hard science," and involves many very subjective factors.

 If you're a materialist, you must conclude that all human thoughts and feelings are in reality nothing more than the purely physical movements of particles in the brain.  

 

In any case, psychology cannot in itself determine moral principles.

 

 

 

You said it, not me.

 

I sincerely doubt your pillow is immaterial, self-existing, etc.  If we believed God was a pillow (or any other kind of material object), then, yes, belief in God would be absurd.  But as that has nothing to do with theology that anyone actually believes in, your example is a pointless straw-man.

 

 

 

True. I could say the same thing about belief in Santa as well. 

 

 

 

 

“If we wish to draw philosophical conclusions about our own existence, our significance, and the significance of the universe itself, our conclusions should be based on empirical knowledge. A truly open mind means forcing our imaginations to conform to the evidence of reality, and not vice versa, whether or not we like the implications.” Lawrence Krauss

 

http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/nstv/2011/07/how-the-universe-appeared-from-nothing.html

 


 

 

 

 

 

Philosophy should conform with reality and not vice versa. I'm not saying I believe either or, mainly because I don't think we know enough. The problem is, even if scientists good evidence that the universe came from nothing, religious people would simply argue that God was still in the equation somehow. 

 

 

I wholeheartedly agree that philosophy should conform with reality rather than vice-versa.

However, I do not agree that either observable reality or reason supports the absurd philosophical notion that the material universe created itself from absolutely nothing.

 

It also seems to me that no matter how much evidence there is that points to the existence of God, atheists would simply continue to deny God's existence.

 

You're not really bringing any actual arguments to the table here.

 

 

Actually, agnosticism and atheism answer different questions. An agnostic would say that truth regarding God's existence is unknown (and possibly unknowable). An atheist is simply one that does not believe in God. You can be an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist. The term "agnostic" was historically used as a weasel term to avoid discrimination. 

 

 

However you wish to label yourself, simple denial of God's existence is not itself an argument.  I've yet to see a compelling alternative philosophical explanation for the existence of the universe.

 

It's as if I were to adamantly deny the existence of gravity without offering any better explanation for why things fall to earth.

 

(Yes, I'm aware atheists offer alternative hypotheses, but they create more problems than they resolve, and remain unproven beliefs unsupported by actual scientific evidence.  Atheism is certainly no less an unproven belief system than "theism.")

Edited by Socrates
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Faith and logic do not contradict each other.

 

 

 

 

 

What about the trinity? 

 

Faith does not call for everything to be explained.

Just because you do not see nor understand the logic,does not mean it does not exist.

Edited by Didacus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chiquitunga

Hey, CatholicsAreKewl, I wanted to let you know... I intend to take a break from posting soon/won't have as much time online, so I cannot promise anymore that I will be able to read through everything you might write in reply to that video, at least not for the next several weeks. I know it's been a while since we made the deal, but I wanted to let you know this anyway. I still hope you will watch it of course and/or learn more about Eucharistic miracles, but if not, no problem.

 

thank you! and I will remember you in prayer  :nun3:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CatholicsAreKewl

I never claimed that only Christians can be scientists or make contributions to science, and that was not my point.

I am refuting the atheist claim that Christian Faith and scientific inquiry are enemies and incompatible.

Ah, this is a bit different than my claim. I'm claiming belief in an entity who is unseen and whose existence cannot be proven = not compatible with science. I'm not saying that means that a higher power does not exist. I'm just saying that faith-based belief is contradictory to science.

 

 

 

 

Yes, you are.  Feel free to start a separate "Christianity vs. New Age" thread if you want to discuss that more.  Let's keep on topic.

We're already jumping around a lot. I was only making a point about faith vs. science. It's kinda went everywhere since then.

 

 

For all his rambling, I don't think Dr. Harris (or whoever that was) ever actually answered the question of how science determines morality.  He mentions compassion being "rooted in our genes," but one can just as easily say rape and murder are rooted in our genes.  That doesn't explain why some of these behaviors ought to be engaged in and others avoided.

 

He takes the position that good = human wellbeing. He says once you accept that point, you can at least point to what decisions are the wrong ones to make in certain situations to achieve this state. The video in my earlier post by him is more detailed. Though there is an argument for some evolutionary reason behind rape, I don't think it's a good comparison to compassion because it's not something that most people are accepting of/partake in. Same thing with murder. Maybe you could come up with a better example?

 

 

 

What kind of life is desired is actually a question that can not be answered by science.  If I want to live one way, and you want to live a contrary way, science cannot determine which of us (if either) is right or wrong.

 

This is true but he argues that morality may one day be as scientific a field as economics. It's hard to determine what is the "right" answer to every economic question but we can at least single out the wrong answers. 

 

 

People don't need religion to be moral or have a moral code.  As Catholics, we believe in a natural law written on the hearts of all men, though we also believe men's moral reason can be clouded by sin.  

Moral philosophers can disagree on many things, and one's religious beliefs (or lack thereof) can have much influence on how one approaches moral issues.  For instance, it can make a big difference whether you view human life as sacred, created in the image and likeness of God, or as mere matter, meaningless, randomly evolved protoplasm.

 

Witness all the heated disagreement over the morality abortion (to use just one prominent example).

 

That's one way of looking at it. There's also the argument that only religion makes good people do bad things. Both of these arguments are true to some degree. While belief in a God can help one respect human life, it can also serve as an excuse to treat others (nonbelievers/sinners) however one wants. In the end, religion can definitely help people but there are positive outlooks on life that can produce similar results. Abortion is a complicated issue. I'm pro-life leaning but I'm still trying to understand both sides of this argument. Christopher Hitchens is another atheist that was pro-life.

 

Btw, I don't think we should go into specific topics. That's not the best way to argue religious morality vs. nonreligious morality. Remember that southern plantation owners used biblical passages as an excuse to treat other humans horribly. Regardless of how these passages are meant to be interpreted, religion did not make a difference for these people. People often mold their own beliefs into their religion and use it as a justification for their actions. Good and bad people exist regardless of their views on the existence of a higher power. 

 

 

 

Not necessarily, though whether or not one is materialist will influence psychology.  Psychology is not a "hard science," and involves many very subjective factors.

 If you're a materialist, you must conclude that all human thoughts and feelings are in reality nothing more than the purely physical movements of particles in the brain.  

 

In any case, psychology cannot in itself determine moral principles.

 

True, psychiatry would be considered more of a hard science. Economics is also a "soft science" but that doesn't mean that it isn't useful. Psychology could work the same way with morality. I'm not saying we could use science to explain everything, but I don't think Harris' ideas are too farfetched. 

 

 

 

I sincerely doubt your pillow is immaterial, self-existing, etc.  If we believed God was a pillow (or any other kind of material object), then, yes, belief in God would be absurd.  But as that has nothing to do with theology that anyone actually believes in, your example is a pointless straw-man.

 

It's a belief that can't be proven or disproven. That's how I'm saying it's similar to belief in a god. 

 

 

 wholeheartedly agree that philosophy should conform with reality rather than vice-versa.

However, I do not agree that either observable reality or reason supports the absurd philosophical notion that the material universe created itself from absolutely nothing.

 

It also seems to me that no matter how much evidence there is that points to the existence of God, atheists would simply continue to deny God's existence.

 

You're not really bringing any actual arguments to the table here.

 

Did you not watch the video attached to the link I posted? Virtual particles can pop up from nothing and disappear. My position is that I don't know how the universe began, but I believe we can figure this out. I don't need to believe that God did it if there is no other explanation. That way of thinking has produced erroneous beliefs of how the world works in the past. There isn't evidence that points to God's existence. If there was, I would have shut up by now. There would be no need for faith if this was the case. 

http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/nstv/2011/07/how-the-universe-appeared-from-nothing.html

 

 

However you wish to label yourself, simple denial of God's existence is not itself an argument.  I've yet to see a compelling alternative philosophical explanation for the existence of the universe. 

(Yes, I'm aware atheists offer alternative hypotheses, but they create more problems than they resolve, and remain unproven beliefs unsupported by actual scientific evidence.  Atheism is certainly no less an unproven belief system than "theism.")

That's the first problem. Using only philosophy to comprehend the universe will lead to the same mistakes Aristotle made. Philosophy is a helpful tool but it shouldn't be used to explain the workings of something we don't understand yet. Also, you're mixing up my beliefs again. I'm not denying God's existence, my position is that I don't believe in a god.

 

 You attack atheism as if all atheists deny the existence of a god. I clarified the definitions for you. The burden of proof isn't on the person making the claim. You claim your god exists. I am asking for evidence. I don't need to prove something doesn't exist. It's just as hard to disprove the existence of my divine pillow or Santa. If you encounter an Atheist that says "God doesn't exist," then you can ask him to offer you proof. For every other claim, this sort of reasoning makes sense. If I tell you I saw Big foot, you wouldn't believe me, right? I would need to show you evidence. I wouldn't ask you to offer proof for your disbelief in him. 

 

The theories that scientists bring to the table (atheist and nonatheist) are supported by their current understanding of science. It's not like they just came up with their hypotheses out of nowhere. 

Edited by CatholicsAreKewl
Link to comment
Share on other sites

KnightofChrist

Ah, this is a bit different than my claim. I'm claiming belief in an entity who is unseen and whose existence cannot be proven = not compatible with science. I'm not saying that means that a higher power does not exist. I'm just saying that faith-based belief is contradictory to science.


You can keep this thread going for another couple of weeks, or years for that matter, and you'd still be incorrect. You are effectively arguing that only atheists can be scientist and that is bigoted.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

CatholicsAreKewl

You can keep this thread going for another couple of weeks, or years for that matter, and you'd still be incorrect. You are effectively arguing that only atheists can be scientist and that is bigoted.

 

We already went over this. I never said only atheists could be scientists. If that was the case, Socrates' posts about scientific contributions made by Christians would have been decent rebuttals. Belief in a higher power = / = compatible with science. That doesn't mean you're wrong. I would argue this view even if I was a Christian. 

Edited by CatholicsAreKewl
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, this is a bit different than my claim. I'm claiming belief in an entity who is unseen and whose existence cannot be proven = not compatible with science. I'm not saying that means that a higher power does not exist. I'm just saying that faith-based belief is contradictory to science.

 

God’s existence can be known by reason.  (While there’s not room here to give a full rational proof for the existence of God, I’ve given you some reading materials if you truly want to know more about this.)

Philosophers have concluded that ultimate source of being itself must be unlimited, pure being, and thus be immaterial, and not have dimensions, mass, color, etc.  (Or as Christians say, God is Pure Spirit.)

An immaterial Being thus cannot be measured or studied by science, which has as its object only material (physical) things. 

Denial that immaterial beings can exist (materialism) is itself a philosophical claim, rather than one known by science.

 

Philosophical reason, faith, and the physical sciences are different ways of coming to knowledge, and, as I’ve shown, there are areas of knowledge about us and the universe that simply cannot be known through the scientific method.

 

Your claim that belief in God is incompatible with science is as silly as claiming that higher mathematics is incompatible with geology, and therefore bunk, because advanced mathematical theorems cannot be known or proven by studying rocks.

Outside the scope of science =/= contradictory to science.

 

I doubt I’ll convince you of this, but you might try reading Fr. Jaki or Fr. Spitzer, or other Catholic scientists on the topic, as they are much more knowledgeable of both faith and science than you are.

 

(Fun fact:  The “Big Bang” theory was first developed by a Catholic priest [the scientific theory, not the sit-com].)

 

 

We're already jumping around a lot. I was only making a point about faith vs. science. It's kinda went everywhere since then.

 

 

He takes the position that good = human wellbeing. He says once you accept that point, you can at least point to what decisions are the wrong ones to make in certain situations to achieve this state. The video in my earlier post by him is more detailed. Though there is an argument for some evolutionary reason behind rape, I don't think it's a good comparison to compassion because it's not something that most people are accepting of/partake in. Same thing with murder. Maybe you could come up with a better example?

 

 

Most people would agree that human well-being is a good, and moral behavior advances human well-being. 

However, when it comes down to specifics, we find there is disagreement as to what exactly constitutes “human well-being” – and human well-being is not itself something that can be “scientifically” measured.

Some utilitarian philosophers have attempted to create a “scientific” method of measuring the greatest good by (crassly) assigning everything a monetary value.

 

The problems of utilitarian theories become obvious quickly.

 

Is it moral (as some utilitarians claim) to kill innocent persons in order for other people to enjoy greater happiness or wellbeing?

 

How much money (or how many cool sports cars) is the life of a child worth?

 

 

As to my rape example, I’m simply pointing out that a behavior being “rooted in our genes” in itself tells us nothing about whether it is right or wrong.  While obviously, not everyone commits them, rape and murder are common enough throughout history and across different cultures (as well as being found in animal species similar to humans) to not disregard them as completely alien to human nature.

Many more people partake in lesser evils such as stealing, cheating, lying, bullying, verbal abuse, malicious gossip, etc., etc.  No one’s without sin, as we Christians say.

I think most people what agree that human beings have both good and bad tendencies.

 

While I believe most people have some instinctive sense of right and wrong (the natural law), this knowledge does not come from science.

 

How common or uncommon a behavior is, or whether it has genetic roots, in itself does not tell whether or not it is moral.

 

 

This is true but he argues that morality may one day be as scientific a field as economics. It's hard to determine what is the "right" answer to every economic question but we can at least single out the wrong answers. 

 

 

That’s dubious.  And I’m not sure economics is a great example, as economists of different schools disagree over the most basic fundamentals (eg. Keynesians vs. Austrians).

 

 

That's one way of looking at it. There's also the argument that only religion makes good people do bad things. Both of these arguments are true to some degree. While belief in a God can help one respect human life, it can also serve as an excuse to treat others (nonbelievers/sinners) however one wants. In the end, religion can definitely help people but there are positive outlooks on life that can produce similar results. Abortion is a complicated issue. I'm pro-life leaning but I'm still trying to understand both sides of this argument. Christopher Hitchens is another atheist that was pro-life.

 

 

People (religious and non-religious) can make all sorts of excuses for themselves, but if one actually follows the moral teachings of Christ, he will treat his neighbor with compassion and respect, rather than abusively.

 

I’m aware that there are pro-life atheists (though they appear today to be a small minority).

Science can be helpful to the pro-life cause, as it is a scientific fact that an unborn human is a human being, and life begins at conception.

 

However, the moral principle that human life is sacred and that it is always wrong to deliberately take innocent human life is blatantly rejected by some atheists, such as Peter Singer (who argues for infanticide and killing of severely disabled persons), who say the idea of human life being inherently sacred is religious superstition.  They say that whether or not a baby should be killed should be based on other factors, such as consciousness, and the desires or happiness of other human beings.

 

Whether or not it is ever right to kill an innocent human being cannot be settled by science – as science cannot give moral principles.  That is just one example of many.

 

 

Btw, I don't think we should go into specific topics. That's not the best way to argue religious morality vs. nonreligious morality. Remember that southern plantation owners used biblical passages as an excuse to treat other humans horribly. Regardless of how these passages are meant to be interpreted, religion did not make a difference for these people. People often mold their own beliefs into their religion and use it as a justification for their actions. Good and bad people exist regardless of their views on the existence of a higher power. 

 

 

I think you don’t like specific examples, because they show flaws in your sweeping statements.

 

This is veering off-topic, but people also used “science” to justify slavery by claiming blacks to be evolutionarily inferior.  It was also used to support eugenics and the campaigns against the breeding of “inferior” races, and even genocide.

It should also be noted that slavery existed for many millennia prior to Christianity, but it was Christians who finally abolished it.

 

Again, my point is not that atheists cannot act morally or have moral principles, but that science in itself is not and cannot be the source of moral principles.

 

 

True, psychiatry would be considered more of a hard science. Economics is also a "soft science" but that doesn't mean that it isn't useful. Psychology could work the same way with morality. I'm not saying we could use science to explain everything, but I don't think Harris' ideas are too farfetched. 

 

 

I’m not saying psychology is useless, but neither psychology nor psychiatry actually give us moral principles.

 

 

It's a belief that can't be proven or disproven. That's how I'm saying it's similar to belief in a god. 

 

 

Did you not watch the video attached to the link I posted? Virtual particles can pop up from nothing and disappear. My position is that I don't know how the universe began, but I believe we can figure this out. I don't need to believe that God did it if there is no other explanation. That way of thinking has produced erroneous beliefs of how the world works in the past. There isn't evidence that points to God's existence. If there was, I would have shut up by now. There would be no need for faith if this was the case. 

http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/nstv/2011/07/how-the-universe-appeared-from-nothing.html

 

 

 

That video actually does nothing to explain how the universe came into existence from nothing.  And its thesis revolves on a “clever” redefinition of the word “nothing.”  I use the word to mean absolute non-being – literally nothing.  If “nothing” can cause things to come into existence, or become “something,” it is by definition not actually nothing, but something.  (Even if it is very different from things we experience.)

The vid concludes with the absurd statement, “Nothing and something may well be the same thing.,” which is not an explanation of the universe’s existence, but an absurdity.

 

The more evidence that shows the universe began from nothing we have, the more evidence we have for an immaterial Creator God.

 

Literal nothing cannot bring anything into existence (or do anything else for that matter.)

A God who is pure eternal Being can.

 

 

If a two-headed dragon (or anything else you can think up) suddenly materialized in your room, you’d probably wonder where it came from, and how it got in your room.  I doubt you’d be satisfied with the answer that “things just pop into being from nothing all the time.”

 

It’s not unreasonable to have the similar questions about the existence of the universe itself.

 

That's the first problem. Using only philosophy to comprehend the universe will lead to the same mistakes Aristotle made. Philosophy is a helpful tool but it shouldn't be used to explain the workings of something we don't understand yet. Also, you're mixing up my beliefs again. I'm not denying God's existence, my position is that I don't believe in a god.

 

 You attack atheism as if all atheists deny the existence of a god. I clarified the definitions for you. The burden of proof isn't on the person making the claim. You claim your god exists. I am asking for evidence. I don't need to prove something doesn't exist. It's just as hard to disprove the existence of my divine pillow or Santa. If you encounter an Atheist that says "God doesn't exist," then you can ask him to offer you proof. For every other claim, this sort of reasoning makes sense. If I tell you I saw Big foot, you wouldn't believe me, right? I would need to show you evidence. I wouldn't ask you to offer proof for your disbelief in him. 

 

 

The theories that scientists bring to the table (atheist and nonatheist) are supported by their current understanding of science. It's not like they just came up with their hypotheses out of nowhere. 

 

Okay, so you’re not sure whether God exists or not.

 

If that’s your definition of an atheist, it seems atheists sure waste a lot of time and effort attacking, deriding, and belittling an idea they do not know is false.

 

I say the existence of the universe itself is evidence of the existence of a Creator God, as have many men much wiser than myself through history.

 

If you don’t accept that is evidence, I can’t force you to think otherwise, but reason and evidence are on the side of God.  The alternative ideas that the universe brought itself into being from nothing or that pure nothingness created the universe are absurd and unreasonable.

 

Materialism and atheism are themselves philosophical presuppositions, not science.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CatholicsAreKewl

That's, like, your opinion, man.

 

As valid of an opinion as yours.

 

 

 


Perhaps then you can tell what you think is the case.  You only find the claim unreasonable because of your a priori prejudice against the existence of God.  


If you accept that God exists (something that can be known through reason), it is perfectly reasonable to believe that He can become incarnate as Man for the purpose of saving and setting an example for the human race.

 

And yes, the story of Jesus Christ is indeed amazing and remarkable, but if I thought that Jesus Christ was just a regular dude, and that the events of His life were ordinary, normal, and unremarkable, I would have no reason to be Christian.

 

You make it seem like there is so much evidence for your God's existence that my disbelief is a claim. You have the burden of proof, my friend. There's nothing about your case that makes any sense to me by itself. You have just been indoctrinated by your belief system long enough for it to make sense to you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNGqrzkFp_4
^ Look at how confidently this Muslim argues against your religion. He thinks what he's saying is common sense. It's not. No Christian in his right mind would take him seriously. This is exactly how you sound to me when you claim it's perfectly reasonable to believe a god would become incarnate as man to save the world and set an example for the human race. If you want to seriously proselytize to an Atheist in the future, this is something to keep in mind.

 

 

Appollonius of Tyana was a pagan Greek philosopher who was claimed to be a miracle worker, but never claimed to be the Only Son of God or Savior of mankind.

Appollonius has long ago faded into obscurity, but Jesus Christ continues to have profound influence in the world, and on the hearts and minds of men, to this day - and even continues to have many enemies insanely obsessed with tearing Him and His Church down.

 

I think that if Jesus were a mere man, and His Church a purely human institution, it would have been relegated to the dustbin of history many, many centuries ago.

 

This isn't a good argument. Appollonius of Tyana wasn't just some schmuck. The idea that Jesus' miracles were unique is what I was debating. It shows that miracles weren't an uncommon thing back in the day. Jesus' claims to be the son of God aren't valid merely because he happened to be a miracle worker, nor are they valid because a larger group of people happened to follow him. Muhammad had a large following too and you consider him a false prophet. Some Muslim arguments are similar. Islam must be right, look at how quickly it's growing! Islam is more true than Christianity because the Qur'an remained unchanged over the years, unlike the Bible. Though these arguments are faulty, they make about as much sense as your argument. 

 

 

Cute meme, but, unfortunately for your argument, quite unfactual.

 

The claims that the Gospels were really based in various pagan myths is based on the claims of some 19th century writers whose claims have since been thoroughly rebutted, but remain popular with internet pop-atheists.

 

The allegedly "curious" similarities between pagan myths and the Gospel of Christ crumble pretty quickly when the myths and the Gospels are examined in any detail.  These claims are based on a mix of extremely far-fetched distortions of facts and outright fabrications.

 

Besides, Jesus and His original followers were all devout Jews, who would have been unfamiliar with most of these pagan myths, and would have been adamantly opposed to polytheistic paganism (regarded as the worship of devils).

Unlike polytheistic gentile pagans, who worhipped many gods, and sometimes regarded humans as divine, ancient Judaism believed in only One, infinite and utterly transcendent God, and regarded any human claims of identity or kinship with God as supreme blasphemy.  (Jesus was condemned to death by the Jewish authorities for claiming to be the Son of the Most High God - and this fact is recorded in all four Gospels.)

 

 

Here's a thorough (and lengthy) refutation of claims that the tale of Jesus Christ was based on myths of pagan gods:  

http://www.philvaz.c...fiedSaviors.htm

 

Some shorter articles refuting such arguments:

http://carm.org/was-...-story-borrowed

http://www.gotquesti...Jesus-myth.html

 

And here's a good three-parter:  "Is Jesus Christ a Myth?"  Part One,  Part Two, & Part Three.

 

(The above articles are not Catholic, but pretty solid.)

 

Here's some relevant Catholic articles:

"Are the Gospels Myth?"

"Did St. Paul Invent Christianity?"

"Is Catholicism Pagan?"  (This one more concerns fundamentalist protestant claims, but still relevant.)

 

Should be enough to keep you reading for a while.

Not as cute or snappy as an internet meme, but  a lot more substantial and factual.

 

 

Since I haven't slept at all last night, I'll keep this part for later. I will admit that I posted that meme before doing a fact-check. There's some truth to the claims but you're right. They're not as clearcut as the picture makes it seem. However, some of these claims aren't necessarily debunked. There's still debate about some of the similar themes within the stories. I'll do a more thorough reading of all of your links tomorrow (lol wait, it's already tomorrow). Maybe Thursday?

Edited by CatholicsAreKewl
Link to comment
Share on other sites

KnightofChrist

We already went over this. I never said only atheists could be scientists. If that was the case, Socrates' posts about scientific contributions made by Christians would have been decent rebuttals. Belief in a higher power = / = compatible with science. That doesn't mean you're wrong. I would argue this view even if I was a Christian. 

 

Yes I know, but I've since thought about it more. Your position is a pretty big contradiction. If Faith is not compatible with Science how can one have faith and be a scientist? They cannot be if faith is not compatible with science, they cannot be if belief in a higher power is not compatible with science. That atheists can only be scientists is the end result of your position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...