Descendant Of Charles Darwin Becomes A Catholic Apologist

[CatholicsAreKewl]

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.

 

No, I just don't understand how they do it. It's kinda like how Michele Bachman claims God told her to run for president but she's not insane. I don't know how she's able to think logically about everything else and still say that. It's more of a "I don't get it" type of thing. If she said she believed the Chinese told her to run for president, we would say she's hearing voices. Just because God told her to do something, it's somehow okay. It's just bug nutty to me. 

 

Not to say all of the faithful are like Michele Bachman. But I still see this issue in a similar way. You can't hold belief in an unprovable thing in science. I don't see why god is some sort of exception. It's not bigoted to say your beliefs aren't compatible with science. 

Edited July 31, 2013 by CatholicsAreKewl

[KnightofChrist]

No, I just don't understand how they do it.

Of course you are an atheist, who regrettably holds a rather backward anti-theist position.

It's kinda like how Michelle Bachman claims God told her to run for president but she's not insane. I don't know how she's able to think logically about everything else and still say that. It's more of a "I don't get it" type of thing. If she said she believed the Chinese told her to run for president, we would say she's hearing voices. Just because God told her to do something, it's somehow okay. It's just bug nutty to me.

So now the sanity of scientists who have Faith is being put into question? If that is not the case why does Michelle Bachman or her sanity have anything to do with a man or woman of faith also being a scientist? I suppose if we were discussing scientists who have a faith and believe God relieved some kind of scientific finding to them it would apply, depending on how God "told" them I suppose, but that is not the case. Your point about Michelle Bachman has nothing to do with what was being discussed.
 

Not to say all of the faithful are like this. It just seems like a bit of a contradiction. You can't hold belief in a unprovable thing in science. I don't see why god is some sort of exception. It's not bigoted to say your beliefs are weird to me.

You are the one in contradiction, don't try to turn the table around with something out of far left field that has nothing to do with men and women of faith being scientists.

[KnightofChrist]

revealed* not relieved lol

[CatholicsAreKewl]

Of course you are an atheist, who regrettably holds a rather backward anti-theist position.

 

I don't really see it as anti-theist but you can call it that if you'd like.  I'm genuinely open to being proven wrong. I've admitted throughout my posts whenever I felt I made mistakes. I'm still not convinced on this point, however.

 

 

 

So now the sanity of scientists who have Faith is being put into question? If that is not the case why does Michelle Bachman or her sanity have anything to do with a man or woman of faith also being a scientist? I suppose if we were discussing scientists who have a faith and believe God relieved some kind of scientific finding to them it would apply, depending on how God "told" them I suppose, but that is not the case. Your point about Michelle Bachman has nothing to do with what was being discussed.

 

It does. Let me explain. I would think that her belief that God had told her to run for office would impair her functioning as a politician, but it doesn't. This confuses me but it's the case for a lot of politicians with weird beliefs (Mitt Romney's magic underwear is another that comes to mind).

 

I'm just as confused about religious scientists. They believe in an entity they can't prove, though this way of thinking is contradictory to how they would think about anything else in a laboratory setting. It's almost as if they adopt one mindset when they put on their lab coat and another when they take it off.

 

Bad comparison? Maybe. I've done worse. 

Edited July 31, 2013 by CatholicsAreKewl

[CatholicsAreKewl]

revealed* not relieved lol

 

lol. Don't worry, i make a bunch of spelling mistakes too. 

[KnightofChrist]

I don't really see it as anti-theist but you can call it that if you'd like.  I'm genuinely open to being proven wrong. I've admitted throughout my posts whenever I felt I made mistakes. I'm still not convinced on this point, however.

I think you are over all an ok guy, but lets be real here. Your arguments have been anti-theist, clearly they haven't been pro theist, nor have they been neutral. They have in fact been anti-theistic, because they have gone against Theism, and theists. Some have been slightly more backward and prejudice than others, but still objectively speaking they have been anti-theistic.

It does. Let me explain. I would initially think that her belief that God told her to do something would impair her functioning as a politician. It doesn't. This confuses me but it's the case for a lot of politicians with weird beliefs (Mitt Romney's magic underwear is another that comes to mind). The same is true for Christian scientists who believe in an entity they can't prove, though this way of thinking is contradictory to how they think about anything else in a laboratory setting. It's almost as if they adopt when mindset when they put on their lab coat and another when they take it off. Bad comparison? Maybe. I've done worse.

No it doesn't. Would you mind making clear you are not questioning the sanity of scientists who are also persons of faith?

[CatholicsAreKewl]

I think you are over all an ok guy, but lets be real here. Your arguments have been anti-theist, clearly they haven't been pro theist, nor have they been neutral. They have in fact been anti-theistic, because they have gone against Theism, and theists. Some have been slightly more backward and prejudice than others, but still objectively speaking they have been anti-theistic.

 

I still don't see them as such, unless we have different definitions of "anti-theist". I don't have a mission to end all religions. I don't hate religion. Like I said earlier, if I was still a Christian, I would have been arguing this viewpoint. I believe faith in a higher power is not compatible with science. That doesn't make one wrong for believing in a higher power. That doesn't mean that people can't be great scientists and have faith.

 

 

 

No it doesn't. Would you mind making clear you are not questioning the sanity of scientists who are also persons of faith?

 

I can see how you might be confused. Like I said, my example may have been a poor one. With these politicians, one might imagine that they are insane, but they're not. They're clearly not. Their beliefs are outlandish, even to mainstream Christians, but don't seem to affect their ability to think rationally about other topics and perform their jobs well. 

 

Now, on to the scientists. One might also think that a religious scientist would be prone to accept scientific claims without empirical evidence to support them. This isn't the case.  I'm not questioning their sanity. I'm questioning how they can adopt two incompatible ways of thinking. 

[KnightofChrist]

I still don't see them as such, unless we have different definitions of "anti-theist". I don't have a mission to end all religions. I don't hate religion. Like I said earlier, if I was still a Christian, I would have been arguing this viewpoint. I believe faith in a higher power is not compatible with science. That doesn't make one wrong for believing in a higher power. That doesn't mean that people can't be great scientists and have faith.

Well that's what it is, I'm sorry you can't see it. It is not pro-theist, it is not neutral to theism, it is anti-theism, not militant mind you, but clearly anti, against, opposed, counter, etc.
 

Now, on to the scientists. One might also think that a religious scientist would be prone to accept scientific claims without empirical evidence to support them. This isn't the case.  I'm not questioning their sanity. I'm questioning how they can adopt two incompatible ways of thinking.

They are not incompatible ways of thinking, they are only incompatible ways of thinking in your own bias mind, not in reality. I don't accept your premise and I don't believe you prove it.

 

“Will we turn our backs on science because it is perceived as a threat to God, abandoning all the promise of advancing our understanding of nature and applying that to the alleviation of suffering and the betterment of humankind? Alternatively, will we turn our backs on faith, concluding that science has rendered the spiritual life no longer necessary, and that traditional religious symbols can now be replaced by engravings of the double helix on our alters?

Both of these choices are profoundly dangerous. Both deny truth. Both will diminish the nobility of humankind. Both will be devastating to our future. And both are unnecessary. The God of the Bible is also the God of the genome. He can be worshipped in the cathedral or in the laboratory. His creation is majestic, awesome, intricate and beautiful - and it cannot be at war with itself. Only we imperfect humans can start such battles. And only we can end them.”
― Francis S. Collins, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief
 

 

[CrossCuT]

Now, on to the scientists. One might also think that a religious scientist would be prone to accept scientific claims without empirical evidence to support them. This isn't the case.  I'm not questioning their sanity. I'm questioning how they can adopt two incompatible ways of thinking. 

Do you feel that I can not do my job as effectively as an atheist scientist? JW

And also, no, one would NOT expect a theistic scientists to accept things without empirical evidence.

As scientists, we are NOT testing any aspects of our faith so we do NOT need to rely on faith to provide us with answers.

 

I still dont understand why you dont see the difference between testing the physical and testing the spiritual. It is not the same and you seem to be bunching them in the same category. As if we treat them similarly!  :pinch:

 

We also adapt our way of thinking like anything else adapts its thinking.

 

It seems so clear to me, but maybe thats cause Im not an atheist?

Like I really am at a loss as to how to explain this in the simplest terms.

[CatholicsAreKewl]

Do you feel that I can not do my job as effectively as an atheist scientist? JW

And also, no, one would NOT expect a theistic scientists to accept things without empirical evidence.

As scientists, we are NOT testing any aspects of our faith so we do NOT need to rely on faith to provide us with answers.

 

Of course not. Aren't like 40% of scientists in America religious? Let me reiterate:

 

My position is that science and faith are conflicting because it's unscientific to accept the existence of a being on faith. This is why I claim both science and faith are incompatible. It's somewhat confusing because religious scientists don't seem to allow the thinking process that leads them to believe in the existence of a god (without empirical evidence) to tie into how they accept proof as a scientist (using empirical evidence). Every theory in science is open to question. There are scientists who are arguing against our concept of gravity. God's existence isn't something anyone can ever argue against.

 

 

I still dont understand why you dont see the difference between testing the physical and testing the spiritual. It is not the same and you seem to be bunching them in the same category. As if we treat them similarly!   :pinch:

 

We also adapt our way of thinking like anything else adapts its thinking.

 

It seems so clear to me, but maybe thats cause Im not an atheist?

Like I really am at a loss as to how to explain this in the simplest terms.

 

I'm opposed to the idea of arguing to win a case. I use it as an excuse to force myself to learn more about certain topics I might not delve into otherwise. I think you've helped me realize why your position makes sense to you. I hope I can help you understand why mine makes sense to me. 

 

I don't believe in an invisible spiritual world. If that was the case, it would make sense that there would be a different way to approach such a question. I think of the existence of a god the same way I think of the existence of anything else. The problem is that one cannot claim something doesn't exist. We can't prove negatives. So whenever I think of a god, i compare it to the belief in the existence of thor or the belief in icelandic trolls and elves:

http://jdombstravels.com/tales-iceland-elves-and-trolls/

 

As an atheist, without an understanding of an unseen world, it's difficult to not see the existence of god as another superstition. We would both agree that it would be weird for a scientist to believe in the evil eye, mainly because we normally relate science with skepticism. This is how I view belief in a deity. For this reason, the idea of a religious scientist confuses me. 

Edited August 1, 2013 by CatholicsAreKewl

[CatholicsAreKewl]

Well that's what it is, I'm sorry you can't see it. It is not pro-theist, it is not neutral to theism, it is anti-theism, not militant mind you, but clearly anti, against, opposed, counter, etc.

I still don't see it that way. I can understand why you do. I dislike the term "anti-theist" because it's a term the new atheists use to describe a more negative view towards religion. I don't fit in that category.

 

 

 

They are not incompatible ways of thinking, they are only incompatible ways of thinking in your own bias mind, not in reality. I don't accept your premise and I don't believe you prove it.

 

I think I could say the same thing to you. This is only because we have different views. 

 

 

 

“Will we turn our backs on science because it is perceived as a threat to God, abandoning all the promise of advancing our understanding of nature and applying that to the alleviation of suffering and the betterment of humankind? Alternatively, will we turn our backs on faith, concluding that science has rendered the spiritual life no longer necessary, and that traditional religious symbols can now be replaced by engravings of the double helix on our alters?

 

Both of these choices are profoundly dangerous. Both deny truth. Both will diminish the nobility of humankind. Both will be devastating to our future. And both are unnecessary. The God of the Bible is also the God of the genome. He can be worshipped in the cathedral or in the laboratory. His creation is majestic, amesome, intricate and beautiful - and it cannot be at war with itself. Only we imperfect humans can start such battles. And only we can end them.”
― Francis S. Collins, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief

 

 

lol, this view is more anti-atheist than my view is anti-theist. Collins is implying that a lack of faith is dangerous. I don't believe faith in and of itself is dangerous. 

[CrossCuT]

Understanding why an atheist doesn't believe in God is not a difficult thing to wrap your mind around.

They are limited to only what they can see, feel, taste, smell, and hear.

 

So yes, I do understand your view point.

[Ice_nine]

Interesting. How would you go about proving that Jesus is the son of God? 

 

 

I wouldn't. Faith is a gift and a mystery. I'm aware of the problems this presents the objective/rational mind, but I no longer really care to be honest.

 

 

I hope that doesn't sound rude. Despite myself I have interests in these questions but internet debates don't really do it for me anymore. Life is short and my reserves are limited. Either we'll find out in the end or we won't

[Guest]

I think there's a chanch God exist and has nothing to do with religion....As in there is no correct religion and all that matters is that we love people and treat them well...Although at the end of the day this is the message of Jesus so ya....Catholicism is where I'm at and where I will stay until its my time to find out if God exist or not...From my life experiences it just seems like the answer is yes God exist...This seems more likely to me then God not existing....Not even because I want there to be life after death but just because it seems as if there is something more...Stuff like ghost, people who are in tune with their 6th sense and lead police to where dead bodies are, all the nde's, people who have spirtual experiences, ect ect ect....All this leads me to believe there is something more....Mabey its just some aspect of the brain science will be able to explain one day....But until they do it seems as if there is more to life then the phsyical here and now....Ok I'm done felt like rambling...

[Socrates]

As valid of an opinion as yours.

 

 

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. 

 

I don't think you have to look very far at all for evidence of God's existence.  You can start with the fact of your own existence (and the fundamental, undeniable reality of existence itself), as well as the existence of this entire amazing universe we inhabit.  (And the universe is amazing, even if we tend to take it for granted because it's where we've spent our entire lives.  If any of countless variables were even slightly different, intelligent living beings like ourselves would not be able to exist.)

 

While there's simple not room to go into all the evidence and philosophical arguments for God (though I have given you reading recommendations), I'll give an analogy, which, though imperfect, should give you an idea of how I view things.

 

Imagine you came across an amazing spaceship that had landed, far beyond any technology we knew existed, though the crew appeared to be missing.

While until the ship's creators revealed themselves, you could speculate and argue about who designed and built the ship (aliens? humans?  God Himself?), but it would be apparent to most that the ship must have a creator.  If someone were to argue that in fact nobody built the ship, but that the spaceship just randomly pooped itself into existence from nothing, you'd likely regard such an opinion as neither rational nor scientific, but idiotic.

 

I say the whole idea that universe just randomly pooped itself into existence out of nothing with no cause is irrational and absurd, and if anything, the burden of proof ought to be on those who would make such a ridiculous claim.

 

And I would regard even a single rock or simple particle pooping itself into existence from absolute nothing to be logically absurd.

 

Imo, it's atheism that doesn't make any sense.

 

 

 

You have just been indoctrinated by your belief system long enough for it to make sense to you.

 

That's no argument.  I could just as easily dismiss your atheism as being the result of indoctrination.  (Even if your indoctrination is primarily from bad YouTube videos and internet memes.)  Your atheistic ideas hardly strike me as being your own original invention.

 

And while I may be a "cradle Catholic" there are plenty of other Catholics/Christians who willingly chose to convert from all kinds of other beliefs (including atheism), many of whom are strong defenders of the Faith, so making a blanket dismissal of Christian belief, or belief in God, as simply the result of mindless indoctrination simply doesn't work.

 

(Besides, one need not be Christian, or belong to any particular religion, to believe in a Creator God.) 

 

 

 

^ 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.

 

 

Yes, I am well aware of the beliefs of Islam, but they're rather irrelevant to this particular debate.  You're arguing for atheism, not Islam, so let's keep on topic.  I'd be happy to discuss Christianity vs. Islam if you wish to start another thread on that particular topic.

 

 

And I never said the claims of Christ are in themselves self-evident, or simple common sense.

My point was simply that if one accepts the reality of an all-powerful God Who created the universe, it is not irrational to believe that He could become incarnate as a Man.

 

However, the claims of Christ are in fact quite radical, amazing, and extraordinary.  They are, as St. Paul put it, "a stumbling block to the Jews and foolishness to the Greeks."

 

Christ's claims seemed unbelievable, outrageous, and outright blasphemous two thousand years ago in Israel -  so much that Jesus Christ and most of His apostles were put to death by the Jewish authorities because of them.

As the claims of Jesus would seem to a first century Jew extreme and outrageous, it is unlikely people at that time would believe in them, much less risk and give up everything - including their very lives - for them, unless they had very good reason and evidence to believe them.

 

While not "proof" in the strict scientific lab sense, this is, I think, worth considering.

Given the facts and history of the claims the Christian Faith, we must conclude that either 

a) They are true, or

b) Christianity is the biggest and most outrageous lie, fraud, and swindle perpetuated in the history of mankind - one that needlessly caused the suffering and deaths of millions (including, bizarrely, its own perpetuatrors).

 

There's no logically consistent middle ground.  If Christianity is false, then Catholics are not "kewl" - we're stupid dupes of a massive fraud, or as St. Paul put it, "among men most to be pitied."

 

 

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. 

 

 

If Appollonius had any claim to be the Only Son of the Most High God, and if all his followers gave their lives rather renounce that claim, and if love for Appolonius continued to profoundly influence the lives of many millions of persons around the world to this very day, then I might start taking him seriously as a rival to Jesus Christ.

 

I know it's not scientific lab proof, but let's just say I don't think it mere coincidence that Jesus Christ continues to be a profound and powerful influence in the world and in he lives of countless men and women through history to this very day, while Appolonius of Tyana is now a footnote in the history books.

 

 

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?

 

 

Or in other words, that "meme" was full of it.  Generally, internet memes are a poor source of facts.  

 

Take your time reading those articles - there's good stuff in there.