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."
Challenge me, Go for it. I will win any debate against you because I know where to find the actual facts that contradict the activist propaganda you build your "stories" with. Find the facts and you might get lucky and achieve a tie.
Nothing insults me so go for it. You may not like my sarcastic barbed answers but I guarantee you if you don't present facts be prepared to end up fooling nobody but yourself. Everything seems to be insulting to you so there is nothing I can do about that. Seems to be your problem.
There is no overseas precedent. Stick to the good old USA because we have a unique constitution which does not allow quite a bit of law that has been enacted in other nations. And let me repeat myself HATE SPEECH LAWS ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL IN THE USA. So you better realize that and actually look at the HATE CRIME laws that you have mistakenly interpreted. Bodily injury using firearms, bombs,explosives, and arson are not considered speech in my legal dictionary.
If you have a problem with school district policy join the PTA.
And if you want to complain about prayer, or the pledge of allegiance in schools you better learn to tolerate your fellow Christians because it was different Christian sects that led the charge against each other with those issues.
I tend to dislike the extremist viewpoint of both sides so I know what is propaganda from the left as well as from the right so watch out if you think I am taking sides because I already know when you pick a side in politics you always get it wrong.
There's the problem. I'm just talking...you're debating. To be more accurate: you're usually arguing--which is different than debating.
LULA POSTS:
GOAFAN77 POSTS:
Sorry, I thought that "not all Atheists" was established from the beginning. Note in my 237, I wrote, "For some Atheists...".
Again, concerning the differences between the level of importance of man and the material world, I believe God is infinitely higher than man and man is higher than all other living things as well as the material world.
Atheists put man and the material world in a much higher level of importantce than I do...some put man and/or the material world in God's place. Some make for themselves their own god. The god they worship might be man, self, science, etc.
I agree with that.
As far as your opinion, I'd go one step futher. I maintain that Atheism cannot exist without sin of some kind. Since it rejects or denies the existence of God, Atheism is a sin against the First Commandment.
It could also be said that Atheism is the negation of religion/God. And the negation of God is rather in the heart than in the mind.
I base that on Psalm 13:1.
"The fool hath said in his heart: There is no God."
All this is fine as far as opinions go.
What is fascinating is that sometimes opinions are first steps in finding truth.
SMOOTHSEAS POSTS: ....Religion itself is not a threat. It can be a very good thing in most instances. Seems to me the problem is governments and institutions which manipulate the religious to achieve political goals. Many people blame religion on wars for example, however when you look at things closely more often than not there are political decisions which led to the conflict and religious folk are simply "recruited" to bear the blood.
This is something in which we agree.
Re: the highlighted,
That fits closely to what I pointed out earlier about the Obama administration waging war on religious liberty with his onerous mandate that religious organizations must comply and provide health insurance coverage for birth control drugs, including the abortion pill, and sterilization.
The timing of the HHS announcement must be noted. It was 3 days before pro-lifers march in opposition to the 38th anniversary of Roe v Wade. For Obama it is all about political goals..it's an election year and he and the Dems are in deep with the abortion lobby.
Smoothseas, you are the one who needs to get a grip....that is, get a grip on some unrevised history books and the Humanist Manifesto I and II. Their tenets will reveal that Humanism is in opposition to Christian religious belief.
Militant Atheistic Humanism is hardly the benign tolerant force many think it to be. It is them against us. There has been a continuous philosophical and social struggle going on --- It's called a cultural and social revolution. The ultimate stakes are nothing less than the moral foundation of society.
There is nothing new under the sun. This battle has been going on from Adam, just repackaged and recycled.
There is no such thing as a ‘typical’ atheist any more than a ‘general’ theist … so it would help if we stop using such terms … besides the fact that atheists do not believe god exists as purported by theists and they do … past this point we base our lives on what we think we know … all of us people do regardless of ideology. Because atheists do not believe this, whenever we try to peruse our lives, we are mostly accused of ‘trying to destroy … not theology … just Christianity, and this is just self-inflicted misery none of us need. I do not know an atheist who has any problem accepting that religious folk are entitled to live their own lives in any legal manner they desire, but nothing seems to apply to religion or their organizations??? We are not trying (are we?) to politicize our way into the Christian schools … but it seems ok to come into our schools and do exactly that. We are not trying to infiltrate the Vatican to browbeat them into accepting homosexuals as actual people … but you folks are want to predispose our legal system based on your own prejudices, to segregate different portions of our people, and I for one will not tolerate this. If you choose to make everything into some kind of religious persecutions that is your business; I feel sorry for you but it doesn’t change the facts of life. Look at the mess theology is in today, is there any wonder where it is going to be in the future as the sciences continue to make giant strides while theology just continues to stagnate with their 1st century philosophy. Do the religious communities think this is going to become clearer over time … in their favor?
I think it safe to say that the only religious views being pandered here on JU are Christian, so it should be safe for me to talk back about Christianity (even though it is really theology). Just because Christians are selfish in this manner doesn’t mean atheists are. Muslims are entitled to live and believe what they want to … just as much as you folks and with the same authority you guys profess. Just seems to me that bigotry is what needs to be addressed here is all. I believe I have made a couple of points along this line.
When I walk through a Nature Museum, I am in awe of the displays and the dedication of the people who make the research, finding and the digging all possible. I do not understand what we are supposed to do with ourselves if it is not to try and improve individually to eventually improve the species … evolution the slow and only way. Considering our learning curve over the last 100 years, what do theists envision the sciences are going to do … stop sciencing?
lULA POSTS:
LULA POSTS;
Ah, "NOT YET" says GoaFan77! But notice how matter of fact your 257 comment was!!!!!
So it remains, afterall, that the chemicals in the brain don't account for the immaterial reality of love, memory, etc. This incoherency is a difficult problem for Atheistic Naturalism.
But it's not a problem for Christians like me because Christianity is not a reductionist worldview. The Christian worldview can easily account for the harmony of humanity, the material world, non-material spiritual beings( God, human souls, angels), as well as immaterial realities (love, memory, goodness, evil, etc.) as well as abstract realities (mathematics, and Natural or Moral laws).
Atheism cannot.
I and many people who spend their lives examining such things believe they are chemicals. We know they exist, we simply do not yet have technology precise enough to manipulate them. I never claimed that we could manipulate them. Deny my facts if you wish, that is your choice, but do not say that is an inconsistency in my view.
http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2010/07/29/Scientists-find-chemical-memory-molecule/UPI-13211280451790/
Not so much of a problem for the Atheistic Naturalistic Scientists in Israel I guess.
Ah, but are chemicals the reason, or the reaction? That adds a wrinkle to the science...
goafan77 posts
lula posts:
GoaFan77,
You got this particular answer because you asked for it...when you included, "on what you think He thinks".
And where have you once seen that I choose to reject science? I admit I reject pseudo science of Darwinism (macro-evolution), but true science is great by me. Love true science.
Your statement about the CC is incorrect. There is a distinction that must be made between the Church and her fallible members.
To understand that the CC certainly does agree on every single moral issue, we must go back to infallibility,
Christ taught the truth on faith and morals and promised to safeguard it until the end of time. He chose to do so by means of His infallible Church which He established appointing St.Peter as His first earthly head. To understand, contrast Christ with some merely human philosopher like Aristotle. When Aristotle was dead, his teachings, so coherent, intellectual and positive were dragged down and degraded into rank materialism.Now, Christ knowing what was in man, and possessing means not possessed by Aristotle, took precautions against such distortion and destruction of His teachings.
He organized and guaranteed His Church from doctrinal error in matters of faith and morals. He is the Light. When He departed He left His Church to be the light of mankind, to shine, not with a light of its own but with His Light, as infallibly reliable as Himself.
When Catholics fail to live up to Christ's teachings on morals, it has everything to do with them and nothing to do with the CC.
So here you go from saying the CC doesn't agree on every single moral issue to saying her members decide that her moral teachings are wrong and incorrect.
Again, it's not that the CC's moral teachings are wrong or incorrect, but rather these Catholics prefer to be unfaithful to them.
Take away or change the level of certain chemicals and the answer becomes more obvious doesn't it? Some chemicals and combinations of chemicals cause certain things and others chemicals are the result. A basic chemistry course is all that is needed to understand such concepts.
Chemicals ... that just bespeaks of the 1960's, hahaha … all those mind altering drugs.
It was a problem for those 2 who commented a year ago...
Martyn comments:
It seems Martyn would agree.
Sure.
True science is truth whether it manifests in theology, which deals with God and the laws of God, or experimental science which deals with nature and the laws of nature.
Jumping to a conclusion rather quickly don't you think? I think Martyn (whoever that may be) is simply referring to a single amino acid and not the entire realm of chemical compounds that exist.
Well those chemicals don't spontaneously appear from no where, your cells make them. And if you're arguing that these things don't have a material presence, then why would your "soul" or what have you produce physical results? It is because its all in your mind somewhere
But I don't care about the CC, my point was about the Catholics themselves. They have to decide to follow the CC or not, and in which way they do so. That is their independent decision. That means people ultimately decide what they think god is. Many may accept the Catholic version in some form or another, but they still had to make the decision.
You're free to reject what you will. Just as your infallibility of a church run by men is utterly incomprehensible to me. But I accept that for whatever reason you have faith in it.
Certainly added spirituality to many who have visited the desert or the cow pasture.
“One must state it plainly. Religion comes from the period of human prehistory where nobody-not even the mighty Democritus who concluded that all matter was made from atoms-had the smallest idea what was going on. It comes from the bawling and fearful infancy of our species, and is a babyish attempt to meet our inescapable demand for knowledge (as well as for comfort, reassurance and other infantile needs). Today the least educated of my children knows much more about the natural order than any of the founders of religion, and one would like to think-though the connection is not a fully demonstrable one-that this is why they seem so uninterested in sending fellow humans to hell.” ― Christopher Hitchens, God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything
Fine, but don't make incorrect statements about the CC.
.............................
I believe Love, memory, good and evil are immaterial realities.
Yep, I'm arguing they don't have a material presence. Can surgeons operate and remove chemicals that are love, memory, good and evil? No, they can't. Nor can Surgeons operate and inject chemicals that are love, memory, good or evil.
However, you are consistent in adhering to your strict naturalist worldview ...reducing immaterial realities to matter hasn't been demonstrated but assumed to be true!
.............
I believe you are the only one who thinks I made any statements about the Church. Just Catholics and my opinions.
My world view is consistent, I think it has been sufficiently proven. It is not my fault that you choose to reject my evidence. I think that any open minded individual who takes a real look at the evidence would agree. But I am not here to convert you, so I don't care what you do with it. But likewise, don't make incorrect statements about my worldview.
I've already answered this exact same talking point. We do not have the technology yet for manipulating something so small, complicated, and in a very sensitive area. You clearly overestimate surgeons if you use them as the basis for all of your "proof".
There are many proofs of the existence of Almighty God but before I get to them, please tell us....
If there is no God, where this universe we live in came from...where did the lands, the oceans, the orderly planetary system come from? Did the vegetable, mineral, and animal creation and man, come from nobody, from nowhere?
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
