|
Post by Inedifix on Mar 12, 2010 20:30:54 GMT
Hi Hemingway,
I think you've highlighted a problem with the internet. My local Priest where I lived in Ireland (before I moved to NZ) was a similar kind of guy to yours. I think face to face most people would never say the things they do on the web. I doubt Hibernicus, for example would be trying to paint us both into a corner by applying a label of his, not our choosing. This kind of strawman trick is not so easy to pull off when you're standing in a pub with pints in your hand chatting to people who will laugh at you for trying it on.
Just to point out, Hibernicus didn't actually "project" positivism on to us. He pointedly told us that we are positivists. Though I think it's now clear neither of us is. I think, where matters of evidence are concerned that we are probably both what could be called "relative rigourists". That is, people who insist any evidence presented should meet the most rigourous standard possible, relative to the field in question.
Therefore, while science must meet a certain standard of empiricism to be called science, history must meet a different set of criteria, one established by historians. Likewise theological evidence has only to meet its own standards to be accepted within the field of theology.
This mistake has arisen because Hibernicus has chosen to assume that just because we expect empiricism from scientists, it follows that we would also expect empiricism from a historian, a philosopher or a journalist. Clearly this is not, and cannot be the case.
|
|
|
Post by laffingtiger on Mar 14, 2010 4:23:33 GMT
Getting back to the point.
If God created All. God must have created athiests, atheism, viruses and evil as well as everyting else.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Mar 19, 2010 12:20:44 GMT
A minor point on which I reply to Inedifix: He states that the argument that without God, logic is impossible, collapses because atheists use logic. this doesn't follow. The argument is that logic/ the extent to which the universe is intelligible IMPLIES belief in God, whether or not the person using logic realises this. two examples of people trying to come to gips with this view and making a mess of it are this; (a)deconstructionism and other forms of postmodernism, which in trying to get rid completely of any belief in God/foundationalism wind up by asserting universal unintelligibility (b) Richard Dawkins' concept of ideas as self-replicating memes (equivalent to genes) and the way in which his assertion of an extreme materialist determinism leads him to the brink of denying that he himself (or anyone else) possesses freewill. Apologies for describing you as a former believer. i must have confused you with eccles and Hemingway.
|
|
|
Post by Merlin on May 9, 2010 8:30:59 GMT
Discussions may have different objectives who often preconditions the mindset of the participants. Hibernicus and INEDIFIX go to great length to convince each other of their philosophy. They are moving to the periphery of knowledge to prove their point though will never reach consensus as they speak from different realms.
Moderator Some discussions need a moderator to lead to fruitfulness. Discussions In the realm of reality, the moderator is reality itself. We can have different opinions about the world around us though arguments can be tested and proved by reality. The moderator for discussions about the realm of religion is God though God cannot be observed and never speaks to us in the open. Arguments used by religious leaders cannot be tested or proved.
Improved understanding Discussions in the realm of reality can improve our understanding of the world around us which gives us the option to deal with the world in a more effective way eradicating poverty, injustice, and suffering. Discussions in the realm of religion can improve understanding how to deal with God. However this has no value for the world around us. It may come of value after life on earth under the pretext that there is such a life.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on May 10, 2010 12:28:32 GMT
Merlin I see tips his hand by stating that discussions about God automatically fall outside the realm of reality and that God never speaks to us directly. I would also like to know what is his definition of testing and proof. I would subscribe to Cardinal Newman's discussion of proof as a form of probability analysis; we can have certitude through the combination of many factors even though none of these may be decisive in themselves, partly because it is necessary to act and if we did nothing except on the basis of absolute certitude we would end in universal paralysis.
This by the way is the problem with the "dual magisteria" theory advanced by such commenters as Stephen Jay Gould and Martin Gardner, and taken up by some theologians; it amounts to accepting that God is our own fictional creation and reducing religion to a form of self-induced therapy.
BTW anyone who looks up the supposed parentage of the original legendary Merlin will see that his new namesake has chosen an appropriate pseudonym.
|
|
|
Post by Merlin on May 10, 2010 20:53:33 GMT
Hibernicus before we divert into the direction of ‘definition of testing and proof’ we maybe can bring the concept of the different realms – or dual magisteria - closer to understanding with the following question
Did Adam ever meet a Dinosaur? God created the world in six days then everything is there Adam and the Dinosaur. However did they ever meet? Did Adam come eye to eye with a dinosaur? Before the Dinosaur got extinct they lived on earth for 160 million years. Adam became 930 years old though did Adam have enough time to meet Dinosaur?
Did the Dinosaur board the Ark? This is an intriguing question as it has implications for the size of the ark and the time Noah spent on building it. It becomes a bit complicated if we consider the estimated 300 different types of Dinosaurs which God created. Taking pairs on the ark will count up to 600 Dinosaurs.
IS the answer It is difficult to use a logical approach to find acceptable answers for these questions. We know God is almighty and has the power to change logic. With God everything is possible which the answer to our questions IS.
The world of science There is a world of science which is bound to natural laws and natural limits. The world we live in is a logical world even as we cannot find the logic behind all phenomenon. If we concentrate on it and do enough research the logic eventually surfaces turning magic into knowledge. It is the answer for unusual bones that were found. With concentration and research we discovered the Dinosaur.
The world of God There is a world of God which has no boundaries or limits. In the world of God everything is possible. Tom and Jerry the unlucky cat who always gets beaten-up by the clever mouse is from the world where everything is possible. Many novels, films and TV series are from the world where everything is possible. We can enjoy a love story, a hero film, Tom and Jerry on a DVD though we never can enter this world in reality. We can meet an actor, shake hands with a person dressed-up as Mickey Mouse though in reality cannot meet a character of the world where everything is possible.
Duality Although the two worlds seem to intertwine they never meet each other. Adam never met Dinosaur. Adam, from the world of God where everything is possible and the Dinosaur from the logical world limited by natural laws never met. We can pray, sing hymns, think or even dream about God though we will never come eye to eye with each other.
God bounded to his own creation Although God is almighty and can do the impossible, he is bounded to his own world. God cannot enter the world of science and change natural laws. God created his world in 6 days though it is most unlikely He created the world of science. The world of science took billions of years bounded by its natural laws. Dinosaur took billions of years to develop bounded by the natural law of evolution.
The word of God God knows about Adam though has the word of God ever informed us of Dinosaur? The word of God applies to the world of God. The word of God cannot help us to deal with the world of science we live in. Irrigating the land, growing food to feed the billions of the real world, developing life saving medicines, sending a space shuttle into orbit needs knowledge we accumulate through research and hard work.
Two different realms During life-time we are bounded by the world of science and knowledge of this world can help us to reduce poverty and suffering in this world. Knowledge of the world of God seems to be of irrelevant value for improving the quality of our life during this time.
Challenge The challenge which confront us is not the ‘existence’ of God though the relevance of a God in the realm of our existence on earth.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on May 11, 2010 10:06:17 GMT
Merlin has clearly not read this board as he seems to think the Catholics on it are Biblical literalists and young-earth creationists who think that God created the earth in six days of twenty-four hours each. We don't believe that any more than we believe that God the Father literally has a face and hands because the Bible refers to His face and hands; both are shorthand/symbolic means of describing something much more complicated. Perhaps he should go away and argue with Redmond, who got kicked off this board for advocating a position very similar to the one he falsely ascribes to us. Similarly he does not seem to be aware that the official philosophy of the Catholic Church is called Thomism and maintains precisely that God makes Himself known through reason. Furthermore, why does he refer to "laws" of science? They are so called because modern science is founded on the assumption that the universe is intelligible because it is the work of a single Creator and lawgiver who made it accessible to reason, even though this assumption is so ingrained that many scientists deny it without realising they are cutting off the branch on which they are sitting.
Odd;y enpugh, he is right on the last point. The central question is not whether God exists but whether He loves and cares for us - and He does, for He suffered and died for us in a scrubby little corner of the real world, a real man with a real body and real blood, and by His Resurrection He shows that death is not the end and that we can triumph over suffering and pain. MEdicla knowledge derives from the divinely-given intellect, but those who are cured once will nonetheless age and die; but those who trust in Him will triumph over death.
|
|
|
Post by Askel McThurkill on May 11, 2010 11:32:37 GMT
Merlin also hasn't bothered to sign up.
It's ok, Merlin, we don't kick atheists off the board for the crack.
|
|
|
Post by Merlin on May 11, 2010 15:41:06 GMT
Where can we find the love and care of God inside Hibernicus as he already turns his back to Merlin addressing him as an object accusing him of falsification and threatening him (indirectly) to get kicked off this board? If streaks of God cannot be found in Hibernicus then, where can God observed? Is there relevance of God in the realm of the world in which this discussion evolves? Maybe Hibernicus is justified to state: “Oddly enough, he (Merlin sic) is right on the last point. “The central question is not whether God exists but whether He loves and cares for us” although it is questionable if this is what Merlin wrote and meant. Apparently Adam and the Dinosaur did not move us closer to understanding the concept of the two realms. Maybe another more neutral parable allows us to remove obstacles and mantras away from the doorstep to our mind and let some reality pass through. Mickey Mouse World wide Celebrity In the year 1928 Mickey Mouse came to our world as a design by Walt Disney and Ub Iwerks. Now at the age of 82 it has become a well known symbol in our world. There are many cartoons, books, films and prints of Mickey Mouse spread all over the world. Is he Real? Most people know Mickey Mouse though the intriguing question is: does Mickey Mouse exists? It is well known that Mickey Mouse is a character created by Walt Disney though is this proof of existence? When you ask someone "do you know Mickey Mouse", most likely you receive an affirmative answer. People can tell you how he looks, what he does and sometimes even mimic the way he speaks. Nowhere-land It becomes a bit confusing when you ask ''where does he lives?''. Mickey Mouse seems not to live anywhere. Mickey Mouse is from Nowhere-land a place where other characters reside like Santa Claus, Spider man, Pinocchio. You can talk about Mickey Mouse, laugh or cry about him, build an amusement park, have a T-shirt with a picture of him, though we all are aware that in reality he does not exists. A whole amusement industry is build around the symbol of Mickey Mouse creating employment for many people. Touching our world Although Mickey Mouse does not exist, the concept of Mickey Mouse has considerable influence on our world. Essence and Existence The intriguing question about his existence brings us back to the traditional medieval distinction between a thing's essence and its existence. According to this tradition, one can determine what something is (i.e. its essence), independently of knowing whether it exists. Rene Descartes It was Descartes who brought this distinction back when he sought proof of God's existence. After proving that he himself existed "I think, therefore I exist" Descartes wanted to prove the existence of God. Does God exist? We can talk about God, laugh or cry, build places of worship, read and write about, pray to Him, though not many are aware that His existence in realm of reality is questionable. We are aware that it is not possible to take the bus or train to the place where He lives. God seems to live in heaven a place like Nowhere-land. The concept of God has considerable influence on our world. A whole religious industry is build around the concept of God creating employment for many. These people have great influence on our world. They speak in name of God though where is the influence of God himself on our world? The Hand of God Is it in wonders that we see the hand of God as having direct influence on our world although there is little scientific proof for this? Knowledge Science has discovered the logic and natural laws behind many phenomenon that where attributed to the direct influence of God however God's hand is changing into knowledge. We know how rain is formed, how HIV is transmitted, we can read the blueprint of DNA which construct living forms, how the stars tell us the history of All, the inevitability of evolution of the species. How things work together - and the laws behind it - has turned into knowledge and we are reaching the starting point how the Universe was formed. The retracting Hand of God The hand of God is retracting from the world. We hardly can find anymore phenomenon which could be contributed to the hand of God. The concept of God is changing. It is still a well known symbol for the religious industry build around it although the simplistic vision of an almighty Father, who will do something for you in the real world, is diminishing. God is almost equal to the other inhabitants of Nowhere-land like Mickey Mouse who brings us lots of amusement and pleasure while we are aware that Mickey Mouse does not exist. House of God Every Sunday Merlin with many others attends mass in his local Catholic church. There is song, dance, reading from the bible, prayers, a sermon, rites, and feeling of togetherness. It is all produced by people belonging to the realm of reality. And although the name of God is frequently pronounced, nowhere can the relevance of God be observed. Challenge There seems to be no access to Nowhere-land (the realm of God) which leads to the challenge: Can we entertain the goodness of God while we are aware that God is irrelevant for the realm of reality?
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on May 11, 2010 16:52:33 GMT
I did not address Mnerlin as an object - I spoke about him in the third person in line with debating convention. Merlin, I notice, speaks of himself in the third person - like Julius Caesar. Merlin will not be kicked off this board if he behaves himself. This involves being polite to his opponents and not insulting their intelligence by calling them young-earth creationists and comparing them to people who think Mickey Mouse is a real person. If Merlin behaves as an obnoxious prat, then he will be expelled in line with the divine virtue of justice and he will be responsible for his own expulsion. Merlin maintains that because various phenomena which were erroneously attributed to supernatural intervention have been shown to have natural causes, all supernatural phenomena will be found to have natural causes. The proposition does not entail the conclusion. Perhaps Merlin has never seen logic, and has therefore concluded it does not exist?
|
|
|
Post by Merlin on May 13, 2010 7:29:41 GMT
How many people will think Mickey Mouse is a real person?
Probably a few people carry this notion. If he is not a person, then as what could he be defined? What are the qualities of Mickey Mouse? Is he intelligent, witty, eloquent, handy, strong, and compassionate? Does he have magic, maybe divine powers? He is undeniable a phenomenon in the realm of the world we live in though neither a person nor a physical object. However he touches us and has relevance for the world, offering amusement and pleasure.
Service product In business terminology he maybe defined as ‘a service product’, something intangible what people do for us that cannot exist on its own. Without the people behind Mickey Mouse he is just a symbol, a picture on the wall. Mickey Mouse becomes relevant in the realm of our world when his creators get into action giving him the qualities and powers they consider will make him a service product that people will buy.
The Organisation It is not the symbol though the organisation that is of relevance in the realm of our world. Behind Mickey Mouse stands the Walt Disney Company, a large organisation of people with brilliant ideas, well organised and managed, excelling in marketing their service product, offering amusement and pleasure to the world.
Understanding If we like to understand what Mickey Mouse means and does to the world, we have to look to the organisation behind him for answers. Realising that every word he says, every statement, gesture and movement he makes originate and is in ownership of the Organisation.
Realness Watching Mickey Mouse in action gives the perception of looking at something real. Reinforcing the perception of realness contribute to the success of the service product. Strong reinforcement could be obtained when also employees in the lower rank of the organisation perceive Mickey Mouse as real and radiate this to the customer base. However, for higher management it is crucial to be fully aware that Mickey Mouse is their creation. Maintaining or improving their service product requires action from the organisation and it is their strategic decisions that will lead to failure or success.
Career path Somewhere in the organisational hierarchy there is a change in job requirements from perception of realness of the symbol to awareness of own creation. Becoming aware and knowing where in the hierarchy this happens, can be a success factor for employees who are focused on their career path.
Challenge Where and in what can the difference defined between the Catholic Church and the Walt Disney organisation?
|
|
|
Post by stephentlig on May 14, 2010 15:42:28 GMT
1) Atheists cannot prove that God does not exist, which is why their belief is one based on faith.
2) Most atheists say that we cannot prove that the spagetti monster exists but does that mean he exists? but the number of people who believe in the spagetti monster is negligable compared to those who Believe in God. also, how many people over the thousands of years did the spagetti monster heal from diseases? None. which gives us no reason to believe in the spagetti monster and every reason to accept Jesus Christ as Lord and saviour.
|
|
|
Post by Merlin on May 15, 2010 15:44:48 GMT
1 The Boot-Elephant I open the boot of my car which seems to be empty. There is no Elephant in the boot of my car. I can prove this without faith as the characteristics of Elephants are well defined - not many animals have a trunk and weight over a ton. There is nothing in the boot of my car which resembles the characteristics of an elephant.
I open the boot of my car which seems to be empty. There is no God in the boot of my car. I cannot prove this – with or without faith - as the characteristics of God are not defined. However it is irrelevant to prove that God is, or is not in the boot of my car. I still can put my briefcase and shopping in the boot and the car is not lighter or heavier with or without God. It does not use more or less fuel and it does not go slower or faster. 2 Atheists Ltd. The Walt Disney Company has a vision and mission statement and many publications which can play a role as discussion mediator. The Catholic Church has many statements, publications and the Bible – though over the years some pages are torn out – which can function as mediator. Atheists are just individuals. There is no Atheists Ltd. with vision and mission statements. It is therefore very feeble to state ‘Most atheists say that we cannot prove that the spaghetti monster exists’. Challenges Why is there no Atheists Ltd.? What are the characteristics of Jesus Christ as Lord and saviour?
|
|
|
Post by Hemingway on May 18, 2010 12:39:22 GMT
Hi stephentlig. Welcome to the site. I would just like to respond to your two points. Please do not take offence as I realise these are arguments that you may have picked up somewhere else and have never been exposed to their common rebuttals. Once again there is nothing Ad Hominem (Personal Attack) in my responses, rather an attack on the points themselves as I see them as being very weak. Hopefully you will understand this when you read my post. 1) Atheists cannot prove that God does not exist, which is why their belief is one based on faith. How do you suggest an individual proves the non-existence of something? If I challenge you to prove to me that pink unicorns do not exist, how would you attempt to prove this to me? What you are doing here is a fundamental illogical action. You are attempting to shift the burden of proof from the person making a claim to the person who does not accept the claim in the first place. Catholics make a claim for a god. Therefore it is up to them to provide evidence as to why they believe there is one. What if I said to you I believe in the existence of blue monkey men who live on Mars that eat cornflakes only on Tuesdays at 2 O clock? Then I say to you "prove to me that this is not the case". When you cannot disprove this claim, does this mean I am right and you are wrong? The blue monkey men from Mars do actually exist? Clearly not. I am the one making the outrageous claim, therefore it is up to me to provide you with my evidence for my claim. Otherwise you have every right to ignore my claim. Therefore your quote above is illogical and (with all due respect) quite ill informed. It strikes me as a statement from an individual who has not researched the arguments against his/her position. The second part of your quote is also incorrect. Atheists do not have a belief system akin to theists. The only thing that binds Atheists together is a non-acceptance of the existence of gods due to a lack of scientific or physical evidence. Other than that, they are free to believe what they want. Your attempt to elevate Atheism to having a status similar to religions (faith based) is so wide of the mark its quite embarrassing. Most of the mainstream Religions adhere to a strict set of guidelines and hold up as a central tenet of their faith a "Holy Book" written in the Iron Age. Atheists do not have anything like this at all in their way of life. Therefore, your assertion is totally incorrect. 2) Most atheists say that we cannot prove that the spagetti monster exists but does that mean he exists? but the number of people who believe in the spagetti monster is negligable compared to those who Believe in God. also, how many people over the thousands of years did the spagetti monster heal from diseases? None. which gives us no reason to believe in the spagetti monster and every reason to accept Jesus Christ as Lord and saviour. Ah the numbers game. Well I'm afraid this too is a very poor line of argument and one that holds no ground. If I may quote Anatole France here "If 50 Million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."Manchester United are quite possibly the best supported Football Team on the planet and their supporters believe that they are the greatest football team in the world. Does this make it so? Clearly not. But by your line of argument it does. Its a very poor line of argument. You have made another fundamental error by making a logical fallacy of "Appeal to Popularity".www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/appeals/appeal-to-popularity/Example (1) Most people believe in a god or ‘higher power’. Therefore: (2) God, or at least a higher power, must exist. I don’t want to be too unkind here so I wont be. However, can you name your sources and reference material to show cases where your god helped "heal from diseases" many individuals? What would you present as proof that god healed these people and not medical science? The gospels? Later stories of acts carried out by saints? As you know (or probably don’t know), the gospel stories were written many years after Jesus died (at the very earliest the first one was 40 years after the event) and some stories that are in one gospel are not in the other. The story starts very basic (Marks gospel) and then becomes more embellished as the following gospels are written and by the last gospel (John) we have many additions that are not seen in earlier texts. This bares all the hallmarks of people beefing up the story to elevate Jesus to a higher status. Also, the earliest Christian writings we have (Paul's letters - written approximately 25 years after Jesus death) don’t mention ANY of Jesus miracles save the resurrection. It would appear that Paul is totally unaware that Jesus carried out any of the miracles attributed to him by later writers. He doesnt mention any! And these are the writings we posses that are closest to the event. As these appear to be the best reference material Christians have supporting their evidence that miracles were carried out by Jesus (this harps back to your point about healing thousands of people), you can understand why many rational thinkers and humanist people are sceptical of claims to Jesus miracles. If you wish to refer as evidence of later miracles by saints to support your case, we will need to deal with these on a case by case basis rather than lumping them all into one basket. Your point about the spaghetti monster is a non-starter. You totally miss the irony and tongue-in-cheek message the spaghetti monster lobby conveys. Atheists are of the opinion that the spaghetti monster is also fictional character and do not really claim it exists. The only reason the concept is out there is to show how ridiculous it is to make a claim that such a thing exists. Its really just poking fun at people who believe in supernatural things without a single shred of physical and/or scientific evidence. By the way.... where is your proof that the spaghetti minster has not healed anyone? If you cannot prove its non-existence, am I then in a position to claim that he exists? Clearly not! This just illustrate how ridiculous you first point is and you have unwittingly aided my line of argument in this instance. Once again, I welcome you to the site, but both the points you have made have been refuted with ease many times on this site. Perhaps a little reading of older threads will bring you up to speed on many arguments put forward for the existence of supernatural beings by people of faith and also the rebuttals presented by Atheists.
|
|
|
Post by Askel McThurkill on May 18, 2010 15:17:31 GMT
Hi stephentlig. Welcome to the site. I would just like to respond to your two points. Please do not take offence as I realise these are arguments that you may have picked up somewhere else and have never been exposed to their common rebuttals. Once again there is nothing Ad Hominem (Personal Attack) in my responses, rather an attack on the points themselves as I see them as being very weak. Hopefully you will understand this when you read my post. That is well taken, both that Stephentlig's points are weak and that your response is not personal. 1) Atheists cannot prove that God does not exist, which is why their belief is one based on faith. Does it make any difference, though, whether pink unicorns exist or not? Probably not. The debate over whether a Supreme Being exists or not, and if so, what His/Her/Its role is relative to the world as we experience it very much is. I am presenting this is monotheistic or deistic terms. Polytheism suggests many superior beings and one asks if anyone of them is pre-eminent to a degree to warrant the designation Supreme Being. However, polytheism has not featured terribly strongly in the debate in the west in recent centuries. That may well be the case. However, have you ever considered a statement that you are not obliged to prove a negative might be a cop out? Believe me, I am not suggesting that no believer is guilty of a similar type of cop out, often for illogical reasons. However, I have noticed a marked tendency among atheists lately to assert immunity from offering proof on the basis that no one is obliged to prove a negative. If I say this is laziness, it is not because I suggest this laziness is unique to atheists, I only say that it is laziness. Forgive my edit: we are on a Catholic site, so you might acknowledge this. Other than that, you are correct. I would even go further - Catholics are obliged to prove why they think Christ is part of the Godhead, that He founded a Church, that the Church He founded is the Catholic Church and everything else that follows from that. Atheists have something much neater to prove: that there is no God. But you use the term 'evidence'. This is not as neutral as it looks. If you mean evidence in the sense of physical evidence, we will be talking til the cows come home, because I see the very existence of the universe as evidence of the existence of a Supreme Being (though not of the other things Catholics believe) and you don't. That there are such creatures is not necessarily outrageous (even though you mean it to be here) and the prospect of life on other planets is an issue for believers. But the sort of life form you suggest (very much a case of 'not as we know it') is a matter of indifference - it does not fundamentally effect how we live our lives or how we look at the world or not. The matter of a Supreme Being is altogether different. This is better, because you have asserted reasons for objecting to the concept of a Supreme Being, even though I don't agree with them. It is correct to say there is a latitude as to what atheists or agnostics believe. Theists and deists believe in a wide number of things too. However, the lack of a common belief system does in itself means that atheists have no faith. It is true that atheists have no religion. There are people who believe in God who have no religion. Faith is different. I presume you have reasons to disbelieve in God and if you suggest there is no scientific or physical evidence, that suggests you either examined the evidence physically yourself, in which case you have strong faith in your own capability to review this or you have accepted the conclusions of other scientists - in which case your faith rests in their word. Stephentlig's expression may have been awkward, but I don't believe this was his point, so his degree of incorrectitude may not be so total. Not all religion have what you call a Holy Book. And some areligious people (not necessarily atheists) have - like Das Kapital or the Little Red Book or Mein Kampf (some believers failing to see the incompatability of some of these with their own scripture). The strictness of the set of guidelines which adherents to religions live by are quite broad. To be honest, you probably keep most of the tenents of the common morality which came into shape in the period you refer or even before. I doubt if you ever infringed 'Thou shalt not kill' and should you have infringed 'Thou shalt not steal', it was in a very minor manner. You probably also indirectly accept principles first consciously enunciated by Socrates, Plato and Aristotle also in the Iron Age. I also doubt you would follow the French Revolutionaries in replacing the seven day week with a ten day week. Most people may not believe in six-day creation (I don't for the record), but practically everyone accepts the seven-day week which, for example, was unknown in classical Greece and Rome. Anyway, my point is that faith and religion are not interchangable terms; and that because atheists are not people of religion, it doesn't mean they are not people of faith. Absolutly correct. Correct again. I am a Man U fan myself and I believe Man U is the greatest football team in the world (curse Chelsea! - even if you are a Chelsea fan, you will appreciate why say this. But anyway, I agree with your point - whoever you support, or even if you don't support anyone. Again, I agree. Again I edit. A lot of this surfaced on the 'truth or superstition' threads, but without going the complete way Stephentlig has gone, there have been mysterious cures. Many may be found to have a natural explanation in the future. But there is an amount of material current medical and psychiatric science cannot explain. Hemmingway, this is based on Scripture scholarship of a previous generation and it is not necessarily universally accepted now given studies of other manuscripts. I have heard a strong case made for Matthew pre-dating Mark and another for Mark being much earlier that hitherto believed. Now I am not saying what you have said is wrong - you may well be right. But only that you are citing theory rather than estabished fact. Dated scholarship, but the resurrection is a more outrageous claim than any of the other miracles. Paul formulated a specific theology and the resurrection was the cornerstone. The other miracles were irrelevant to this. But if one goes outside religious sources, some classical authors cites that Jesus performed healings. There are commentators who reject the resurrection, but believe in the healing miracles. There are many believers who are not Christian who are skeptical, but evidence garnered from scholarly sources involves accepting some things on faith. I agree and I am skeptical of many myself. I agree. If the idea entertains some people, let them be entertained, but it is not serious. Stephentlig might have a point about the attitude implicit in the idea of the flying spaghetti monster. Where I agree with Hemmingway is that a simple two points cannot settle the argument either way.
|
|