I don’t have a problem with atheists — each to his own comfort level — nonetheless, it is ridiculous for one of that inclination to get rattled to the extent that others of belief are denied their comfort. Atheism by definition is free from religion. Theists are free to believe as they see fit; atheists should look upon these " misguided" as pathetic but have the right to the "wrong" path. If, however, atheist take on the passion of "religion" in their belief that there is no God, they in reality are in the business of propagating their non-faith as feverishly as the old Marxist line. In this respect they are as trapped in "belief" as the rest of us pathetic old fools. They should therefore lobby for a limited currency series that states "In "God we do not trust," or a postage stamp that shows a black hole with the inscription "Godless."
The odds of life developing in any one place at any one time is almost 0, sure. But I think you are missing the sense of scale. There could easily be trillions and trillions of planets in a universe that is 13 Billion years old. Each, if the conditions are right, could see life develop if given enough time. Statistically when you have a test case that large, no matter how small your odds are (so long as its not zero), it will happen eventually.
And even if the odds weren't so good on a universal scale, I would still choose to believe in those small odds for one simple reason; we can see and figure out how each work by themselves. Evolution and natural selection are facts, you can see them in action over your own life time with life forms that have very short life spans, hence why we have all of these antibiotic resistant bacteria even though penicillin is only around 70 years old.
With more complex life forms sure it takes a lot longer, but it happens. But the fact is that simple life is perhaps not that hard to create. A few research teams are very close to making a microscopic organism entirely from those raw chemicals you distrust so much. That proves you don't need an all powerful deity to make life; we can do it ourselves. And given most of the chemicals they are using were around in great abundance in the early earth, its not hard to imagine these chemicals getting arranged by chance into the first life form.
To me, the only question that cannot be answered is not where we came from... but its where the universe came from. The big bang is really not an answer to this question, all it says is that at one point the entire universe was squished in a very small point. What might have been before that, if anything, or why it happened, we can never know, as clues that might have existed would have been destroyed by the big bang itself. And even if some clues did still exist, I don't know if we will ever be able to figure out a mystery that is 13 billion years old this far away from a crime zone that we aren't entirely sure where it is. If you want to believe a god made it happen more power to you, I don't have a better answer. But in my opinion its not a question that really needs to be answered to live my life.
But your response doesn't go to the difference between believers like me who would never raise humanity or self to gods and atheists who do.
...
LULA POSTS:
GOAFAN77 POSTS:
No sale. surgeons can't operate and remove chemicals that are love, memory, good and evil. Maybe in Hollywood or in fantasy video games. Atheists denial of God predicated on what is known as the Naturalist worldview is filled with incoherencies and contradictions becasue of their abject inability to account for various immaterial realities was my point and that still stands.
GOAFAN77 POSTS: Not at all. There is no way to test what is good and evil. It is ultimately your own opinion. Even if you believe in god, you have to make up your own mind on what you think he thinks is good and evil. .....
This is an example of an an incoherence at work within Atheistim and Moral Relativism. This is explained by asking a question. What possible meaning can "good" have in a truly Atheist world in which God does not exist? It's meaningless...you've got chaos.
As to your first statement..."Even if you believe in god, you have to make up your own mind on what you think he thinks is good and evil"....
Nope, not even close.
How do we know what God revealed as good and evil...by practicing His religion which is the virtue by which we give to God the honor and service, worship due to Him alone as our Creator, Master and Supreme Lord.
In order to practice this virtue, we must believe all the truths revealed by God. In religion we learn what is right and what is wrong. We learn what God commands us to do.
It is by practicing God's revealed Christian religion that we fulfill the purpose that we were created....to know, love and serve Him. By believing what God has revealed, we know God. By knowing God, we cannot help but love Him. By practicing what we learn and obeying His commands, we serve Him.
God has set His Commandments, His Moral Code before us. God sent Christ and we learn to know, love and serve God from Jesus Christ, Who teaches us through the Church He established upon St.Peter, the Catholic Church.
Christ teaches us how to know (what is good and evil), love and serve Him by establishing His religion, Christianity, the authentic Christian Faith, or Catholicism.
As to the second statement..."The Catholic church certainly doesn't agree on every single moral issue, millions of its followers clearly do not think it morally wrong to use birth control or even abortion"..
God's infallible truths are set down in the infallible Bible and in matters of faith and morals are themselves infallible doctrines held by Christ's Church. The Church infallibly teaches the Ten Commandments. She tells us infallibly what the Law means. That her members don't follow her teachings on every moral issue is not because the Church doesn't teach them, but because they for what ever reason don't want to hear the Church and obey God's laws.
But it is not Divine Law that is being imposed in places in the Middle East; it's evil.
And yes, I am fortunate in many, many ways and I thank God every day for His blessings of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Because there is no difference. There are both theists and atheists on both sides of that fence.
Oh but it certainly is. It may not be what you believe divine law to be but it is what they believe divine law to be. And since it is their land what they believe is what matters and what you believe means nothing.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h109-2662 proposed by democratic senator John Conyers and in committee. Versions of this same bill (drafted by the Anti Defamation League) are already on the books with some arrests and convictions in Australia, New Zealand, Canada, England, Ireland, Sweden, France, Italy and under Pennsylvania's ADL hate law statute in Philadelphia.
Enforcement overseas has resulted in multiple arrests of Christian pastors who were charge with being "verbally violent" towards Muslims and homosexuals and in a few cases members of the public and people visiting abortion centers. France has been particularly litigious in this regard and Canada in recent years seems to be following suit. Sweden has had several arrests.
The law was written to provide a means to prevent physical threat and violence against specific groups--not to outlaw speech but in each country where it's been enacted it has been broadened to cover "verbal violence" and resulted in arrests accordingly--in some cases simply for bible passages being read aloud in a public square.
Radio stations deemed to be in violation--which can and often has been quite subjective--can face fines, revocation of their licenses and imprisonment.
In the lat 1990's the Hobbs Act and RICO statutes were applied to large, organized antiabortion groups because one such group in particular was very militant and threatening in it's actions.; The result is that several large organizations with no real, direct ties were charged along with the other organization. it was not until after the mid 2000's that the last of these cases was overturned by the Supreme Court--after millions of dollars of damages to the organizations that had to defend themselves against laws written to enable the federal government to move quickly against mafia groups.
California and several cities within my own state of Michigan not long past have presented bills that were extremely vaguely worded and included speech as part of violence but so far these have met strong challenges and been toned down--though the intent of their sponsor's is clear in their original presentation.
You can do your own searching for more info in these areas--France in particular has been "progressive" in their enforcement--probably more so than most Western countries.
That bastion of free-thought, Russia has quite prohibitive laws on public preaching.
In regards to parental rights, you have to do a lot more research. A sample case is Mozert v. Hawkin's County Public Schools. Where parents and the children objected to certain literature reading assignments and courses. In defense, supporters of the bill argued for the reasons why the state had a compelling interest to usurp parental rights and even stated wishes of the children.
Mormons and particularly Jehovah's Witnesses have face state intervention in several parental authority areas over the past decade.
I'm actually all for state examination and investigation regarding child welfare (when parents are harmful or dangerously negligent in their actions) but it is something that requires really careful consideration/
By pushing religious and anti-religious groups and persons to extremes, there is a much greater chance of person's with agendas bending laws--as in prohibiting speech to protect physical safety. Neither religious nor non-religious persons or groups are adequately qualified to "decide" for parents in other belief systems what is goodthink and badthink--thought crimes. Hate laws were designed to provide a swift and severe remedy to those using violence and physical abuse and intimidation--more and more, they are being stretched to include far more than that.
It would take a book to cover all this but there are plenty of both right and wrong examples out there in this issue already. A little lean or bias can easily move us towards children reporting their parents for wrong ideas and actions.
I'm saying not all atheists do "raise" humanity/self. And I gave an example of what one such atheist may think. I don't understand what else you are wanting.
Not yet, but it has been proven that the brain creates chemicals to make you feel love, and likewise memories. Your feeling can clearly be somewhat manipulate with drugs. Its only another step to be able to create feelings and memories from scratch.
You don't have to believe me, I'm not trying to convert you. But I'm going to trust the neuroscientists more than a random guy on the internet.
It is chaotic in a sense. But chaos does not necessarily need to be bad. If you need order in both your life and your beliefs, than Catholicism is probably a good choice for you. But not everyone is like you. Just leave those who can handle a life with ambiguity, moral complexity, and make sense of "chaos" alone.
If your "goal" in this thread is to persuade atheists, such arguments will get you no where. Teaching and dogmas we do not believe in will not persuade us because they hold no weight with us, just as you choose to reject science.
Precisely, because for whatever reason, they decided that the church's teachings are wrong. You can claim church infallibility all you want, but clearly many Catholics think the church can be incorrect. My point is that even the faithful have to decide whether to believe the church on everything, and on which issues they choose to disagree with it. Thus they are making up their own mind.
Exactly the kind of crap I wanted you to post. The bill never became law and for good reason. Because Hate Speech Laws are unconstitutional in the US and have been deemed so with precedence all the way to the Supreme Court.That is why the bill didn't pass and if it did sneak by it would have been taken off the books as soon as it started making its way through the courts.
Why even bother posting what happens in other countries? Our constitution regarding freedom of speech is different from every other nation and does not allow for pure hate speech laws.
There is very specific precedent which only allows for laws regarding hate speech when they are specifically tied to acts of violence and inciting violence which in court has the litmus test of "must be proven to be imminent" .
On February 28, 2006, the Supreme Court of the United States decided Scheidler v. National Organization for Women. The Court's unanimous opinion held that physical violence unrelated to robbery or extortion falls outside the scope of the Hobbs Act
Sorry Charlie... Poorly argued court case....court got it right and now there is precedent. What don't you understand about how the system works?
Like I said earlier....sometimes certain things slip through the cracks however that is why we have a judicial branch. There are just as many badly crafted laws being proposed right now from the extreme right as there are from the extreme left. It is sad but when you don't look for the truth behind the issue then you become an extremist yourself and do nothing except cause yourself grief and anxiety issues while you continue the frenzy that is causing much of the anger in society today.
The first law is being presented again and is still in committee.
Read my original post Hulda, I'm talking future possibility here. Thse things just come back around and around until someone naively legislates them and there are many people clammoring for their approval.
The mention of the foreign actions is that it is the same source legislation pending here.
And are you just being stupid or did you read my explaining the Hobbs and RICO enforcement was ruled unconstitutional?
You kids.
They sure do. Things never change. That is how Politics works. They take social issues and run them round and round accomplishing nothing in the end. In the meantime while you are so consumed by the social issues, they legislate fiscal policy which strips you of your tax dollars, putting them in the pockets of their cronies.
They were not ruled unconstitutional. The cases were poorly prosecuted and the courts got things right in the end. Big difference. This type of thing happens everyday in this country. Not really a reason to get yourself in any tizzy.
Ok, right THERE is my problem. Science simply falls back on one variable, and one variable alone.... TIME.
And more evidence is gathering that points to the universe as not being very old. Time seems to be the catch all for unexplained science formula.
Well, the problem with this is that it is not evolution but natural selection. And it is heavily influenced by us humans. If only .1% of the bacteria in the colony survive, then that leaves more food for them. Their genetic resistance gets passed to each replication, and you get a full colony of resistant bacteria. It isn't evolution, is simple natural selection, brought about by vaccines... humans.
The problem with chance is chaos. The universe is chaos. All things tend towards destruction, not creation. And I have yet to see a species on this planet that is currently in transition to another species. If it is as you say... there should be at least one creature that is evolving into something else...
And sure scientists can create life... but there is a little joke with that.
"Man challenges God to a building contest, a life building contest using only dirt, to disprove humans need for Him. God agrees, and the scientists fire up their equipment and grab a handfull of dirt. God interjects and says - Hey, make your own dirt!"
This illustrates the other objection I have.... where did mass/atoms/molecules come from? How can life come from nothing? And you realize this here...
True, none of these answers need to be figured out to survive. But the very fact that we ask them shows something more....
I just don't want to survive. I want to live. And to live is to find purpose. Purpose can only be understood, if you understand your background. That is why I question what I do... to find purpose.
Indeed, but when isn't time a major factor? Almost every measurement out there is x over time. And while our estimates could be quite wrong, the combination of Cosmic Microwave Background, the life span of stars, which we occasionally see going super nova, and the fact that we can see galaxys millions or billions of light years tells me the universe is more than old enough for life to develop on its own. To disprove that you basically have to prove that astronomers have gotten their distance calculations wrong on everything, which is basically done by the very down to Earth math of trigonometry.
I should point out that the only thing that is ever claimed to be independent of time seems to be God. Forgive me if I happen to think there is a reason he's the odd one out.
Natural selection is the mechanic of evolution. It simply requires two more things, more time and usually isolation. In a sense, the principle of evolution can also be observed in languages. Take two groups of English speaking people, send one to the moon with no way of them communicating, and eventually they will "evolve" into different languages, as over time more words are added to one and not the other, etc. Just substitute the random changes and additions of language with mutation/natural selection, and its basically the same thing.
But destruction is sometimes creation no? As Capitalism puts it "creative destruction". If everything stays the same, nothing can be created. The old must first be destroyed, so its building blocks can be used to build something new.
Evolution is probably going on before your very eyes. The problem is if you want to see it in your life time, the things you need to watch are microscopic. Bigger organisms do evolve, but a mere century is only going to let you see a few generations.
But I AM living. I do not need to know where the atoms that make up my being originally came from to be able to enjoy life, to find purpose in this world of ours. I think we should be thrilled that our limited means and intellect has enabled us to be reasonably certain of what has happened in the last few million years on this Earth. That is more than enough background for me.
Of course, it may not be for you. I think this very nicely shows the core differences we have. Again ideology does not matter. Far more important are just how you accept three things; Time, Chance/Chaos, and Ambiguity (the problem you seem to have with purpose). I can (mostly) imagine the enormity of time, accept the influence of chaos, and remain flexible enough to deal with the ambiguity inherent in almost everything. For whatever reason it seems you do not. And really, if we do not reach agreement on these essentially simple concepts, obviously our world views will be radically different.
Maybe I was on to something here Sinperium...
It is obvious that you have not actually "read" (or maybe simply do not comprehend)the legislation so let me provide a link to what is the actual pending legislation which I assure you is only pending because politicians are doing what they do best....playing politics....during election season.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-1913
Now when you realize that what some have called "special interests groups" also includes "people of all religious faiths".......
Then you will realize that this bill also helps protect people who wish to do this:
From people who wish to do things like this:
Scene of Christmas Day car-bomb explosion at St. Theresa Catholic Church
I'm actually aware of the contents of the legislation and in a truly altruistic world would be fine and unconcerned with it.
You mentioned the "election season" and alluded to the political games that come with it and that's exactly my concern. The winds change all the time in society and a law that in one age would be perfectly benign suddenly becomes a concern.
A good example is when it was decided in the 90's to go ahead and bend the RICO statutes and Hobbs Act to apply to abortion protesters.
The judicial system stepped in (taking nearly a decade to finalize it) and corrected it but it was that same judicial system that allowed it in the first place.
We're currently shuffling dozens of laws regarding privacy and information for individuals because of concerns over terrorism--and I fully am appreciative of the effort. At the same time, I am not comfortable with these laws lingering after their purposes are served or becoming too status quo. It's a dangerous area. I don't mean this as a Christian I mean this as an American.
People can quickly be whipped into a fervor by politics and change and one day's inconceivable scenario is the next one's breakfast news.
No groups should be subject to violence, no religion, group or movement can claim immunity from prosecution for using it. but we have laws for people who commit acts of violence. When we start crafting conceptual laws that try to pre-qualify intents and motives for crimes that haven't yet occurred a lot of care and safeguards should be there.
I'm not a "liberal activist" but water boarding as an example is abhorrent to me. By approving it, we've given tacit permission for any other government we've had a conflict with to use it against us in the same manner. Something like water boarding being proposed before 9-11 would have caused an uproar from every segment of society--now we just shrug.
I don't advocate the release of the really malevolent Al Qaeda prisoners at Guantanamo and elsewhere but I absolutely cringe at the idea of "indefinite detainment".
So I think it's better in all cases to look ahead at these things.
I gave European examples because overall, the "big" European countries have really embraced the idea of a universal human rights along with the concept that they should be less dependent on national entites to police and rather more dependent on international ones. The ADL law actually was applied to two Christian pastors in Australia--not because Australians demanded it but because the international human rights treaties they are signatories to seemed to require it.
As I said earlier, I grew up during the Cold War. Because I was a Christian I was very aware of some of the imprisonments and tortures used by the state against Christians. The other group that was just as targeted were the intellectuals--a fair number of whom were atheists or agnostics.
Laws eaily become abused Philadelphia arrested 11 Christians under their ADL statute back in 2005. The reason they had the law on the books was to show support for international law regarding human rights. To keep in stride with that, arresting Christian protesters was necessary.
To much change is happening globally now to simply say, "It will all be fine, the government checks are absolute safeguards". I think that become less true every day now.
These types of crimes have happened in this country already. For many decades. It's getting worse.
Actually now that I think of it I think Jesus fell victim to this sort of crime centuries ago.
Not really sure though ..its old news so it might just be some sort of propaganda
Much more than that.
The charges were criminal conspiracy, possession of instruments of crime, reckless endangerment of another person, riot, failure to disperse, disorderly conduct and obstructing highways.
The Westboro Baptist Church still very openly,freely and frequently exercises its freedom of speech so I don't know why some are so panicked. Must be all the propaganda they expose themselves to.
Most of the "Christian" groups that propelled efforts in these areas by their behavior quite frankly deserved it--as individual groups. The concern comes when a group calling itself "Christian" gets legislation targeted at "All Christians" (or whatever group).
Yes--it has been getting worse. We no longer have leaders in government anymore--just professional political bureaucrats --who legislate for personal/party advantage and we have an increasingly ignorant populace that supports them.
I'm no fan in anyway of the Westboro cult of personality.
Its actually "targeted" to protect all religious institutions. You still haven't read the bill?
"Theory" and "Practice" are what's at issue here.
Amazing how this:
Ends up at this:
How about we don't go back to trolling?
Its not trolling. When someone claims that laws are affecting the education of children. Then incidents that happen at parades, and laws that protect everyone against violence are somehow presented to back that up then there is obviously good reason to pull out the truth-o-meter. You may not like it but if you can't back up what you claim you will be called out for it.
How you respond has a lot to do with it.
I didn't address education as there are plenty of readily identifiable things there. One that comes to mind is a case where an atheist teacher spent some time in class explaining to her grade school students that "Christianity was a myth". You can find cases where it has gone the other way as well. School policies that have forbid children from bringing a bible to class, or from using the bible as a book report subject or disallowing moments of silence where prayer might occur are all educational factors by the mere message they send to a young student.
There is precedent with these same laws overseas in multiple nations to cause concern for people practicing religion. How it relates to here is that when groups of society start publicly spewing hostile rhetoric at other groups of society to discredit and whip up sentiment that will further their agenda it's easy to next push for restrictions on the vilified side.
To wit, you and the conversation in this thread have been a microcosm of this very thing.
Let's take turns--you bring up something to make a simple point and then I'll line by line challenge you on each sentence and item demanding documentation--growing more insulting as I go?
It's juvenile and annoying.
I don't really see how the core of your argument has anything to do with atheism. I mean do you really think people should be able to go up to other people and shriek in their face that they're evil? You don't need a new law to get arrested for that, its called disturbing the peace, and while there is a very fine line surely you don't think that such behavior should be protected. There is a big difference between coordinated antiabortion rallies (should be constitutionally protected) and random radicals pestering people at abortion centers (should not be).
Threatening and violent people should be locked up. It's only the extremes on both sides that are a concern here and they should be able to be regulated by already existing laws.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
