Making the case for atheism...can it be done?

800OVER

Milo;370481 wroteCatholic schools in the United States and other countries teach evolution as part of their science curriculum. They teach the fact that evolution occurs and the modern evolutionary synthesis, which is the scientific theory that explains why evolution occurs. This is the same evolution curriculum that secular schools teach.

That is from the second link as well.

In an October 22, 1996, address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, Pope John Paul II updated the Church's position to accept evolution of the human body:
"In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation, provided that we do not lose sight of certain fixed points.... Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than a hypothesis. In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies—which was neither planned nor sought—constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory."[48]

I can pick and choose, too. The position of the Catholic Church is that there is no conflict between Catholic dogma and the Theory of Evolution. does that sound like Intelligent Design support?

God himself could come down to Earth and say, "Hi 800," and you still would refuse to believe. With that in mind, good day.

Do you even understand intelligent design? I'm not being flippant. Why do you think that Intelligent design and evolution is mutually exclusive? Intelligent design simply adds God's touch to evolution. Of course the Church is ok with Evolution. They cannot fight it anymore. Having said that I simply quoted your examples.... and you didn't answer anything. What about the women? what about the gays? Do you believe we evolved a soul?

And the fact that you think that morals are not something that can be decided without religion....pretty weak. Watch this and tell me if you disagree (anyone who is interested in morality should watch it):

https://www.ted.com/talks/sam_harris_science_can_show_what_s_right

Big Mike

800OVER;370514 wroteHow is something created by God a sin by its very existance (gays)?

No Christian church (ok, maybe Westboro Baptist) considers a gay person sinful by their very existence.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

800OVER

Big Mike;370517 wroteNo Christian church (ok, maybe Westboro Baptist) considers a gay person sinful by their very existence.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

False: (in case you haven't been to a Catholic Church lately....sinning by thought is a thing....ever heard of coveting thy neighbours wife?)

New Translation

I confess to almighty God
and to you, my brothers and sisters,
that I have greatly sinned
in my thoughts and in my words,
in what I have done,
and in what I have failed to do;
through my fault, through my fault,
through my most grievous fault;
therefore I ask blessed Mary ever-Virgin,
all the Angels and Saints,
and you, my brothers and sisters,
to pray for me to the Lord our God.

They say they don't...but they don't want them to be Priests*...or anything else. Or take communion or attend there churches or teach there children. But oh no it's not a sin.

*did you see the Catholic church old fogies lose their shit when the Pope said that we shouldn't judge gay Priests?

Big Mike

800OVER;370521 wroteFalse: (in case you haven't been to a Catholic Church lately....sinning by thought is a thing....ever heard of coveting thy neighbours wife?)

Not false. And, yes, I do know sinning in thought is a thing.
Coveting your neighbor's wife is a sin, as would be coveting your neighbor's husband.
But a man feeling attracted to another man is no more sinful than a man feeling attracted to a woman. Note that attraction is not the same as lust, and again, lust is a sin whether gay or not.

They say they don't...but they don't want them to be Priests*...or anything else. Or take communion or attend there churches or teach there children. But oh no it's not a sin.

Well, the Catholics don't want anyone who is not celibate to be a priest, straight or gay, do they? As for the rest, I'm not Catholic; and the Catholic church is not representative of all Christianity.

Big Mike

800OVER;370514 wroteHow is something created by God a sin by its very existance (gays)?

Also, I do need to qualify my statement from earlier.

1. All humans are sinful by their very existence, it is our nature. This is a basic part of christian doctrine.

2. You're no doubt right that a lot people would consider 'being gay' to be a sin in itself, and thus a gay person somehow more sinful than a straight person. But that is not the official position of any church I'm aware of besides the aforementioned Westboro people (few of whom are likely christians, though they no doubt believe they are).

3. I had a third point but I left and came back and I can't remember it. Sorry.

800OVER

Big Mike;370523 wroteAlso, I do need to qualify my statement from earlier.

1. All humans are sinful by their very existence, it is our nature. This is a basic part of christian doctrine.

2. You're no doubt right that a lot people would consider 'being gay' to be a sin in itself, and thus a gay person somehow more sinful than a straight person. But that is not the official position of any church I'm aware of besides the aforementioned Westboro people (few of whom are likely christians, though they no doubt believe they are).

3. I had a third point but I left and came back and I can't remember it. Sorry.

Would you say the "official position" of the church (or any group for that matter) is what is says or what it does? If it's based on actions....the church is anti gay. No if ands or buts. We just happen to live in a Country that doesn't let our Catholic Priests hate as much as other countries. And of course there are exceptions.

oh and if you believe in evolution...you can't believe in original sin....paradox.

Big Mike

800OVER;370524 wroteWould you say the "official position" of the church (or any group for that matter) is what is says or what it does? If it's based on actions....the church is anti gay.

Excellent point. Though 'the church' is not (unless you're referring to Catholics, who again, are not representative of christianity), but many people who attend churches - including entire congregations - are.

Note though that I wasn't ever saying that the church isn't anti-gay, just that they don't consider a gay person extra-sinful because of their very existence (as opposed to specific actions), in response to your earlier question (post #280).

Milo

800OVER;370516 wrote
And the fact that you think that morals are not something that can be decided without religion....pretty weak. Watch this and tell me if you disagree (anyone who is interested in morality should watch it):

https://www.ted.com/talks/sam_harris_science_can_show_what_s_right

Did not say that morals cannot be decided without religion. What I said was that the Catholic Church position re: gays, abortion, etc. is a morality based stance rather than a science based one. That is all.

As for being anti-woman, yeah . . . when the third most revered personage in Catholic doctrine is a woman, I think I am going to have to disagree there. Not wanting women as priests does not make you "anti" woman. You might be better arguing from the standpoint of abortion, but you would be wrong there too.

We are not going to convince each other to change . . . so I am going to let you have the field. Feel free to keep going . . .

Big Mike

Milo;370528 wrote
As for being anti-woman, yeah . . . when the third most revered personage in Catholic doctrine is a woman . . .

I'm confused, who is #2? I'm having trouble figuring out how Mary is 3rd.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

trigs

Milo;370528 wroteYou might be better arguing from the standpoint of abortion, but you would be wrong there too.

i'd be interested in hearing this defense. obviously the church feels that merely just the potential of any human life trumps the rights, life, and freedoms of the pregnant mother. obviously, men don't have to deal with this issue so it is exclusive to women.

i really think that it'd be difficult to argue a pro-life position and at the same time be completely, 100% not "anti-woman". at least, i couldn't formulate an argument that fits that criteria i don't think.

Big Mike

trigs;370533 wrote i really think that it'd be difficult to argue a pro-life position and at the same time be completely, 100% not "anti-woman". at least, i couldn't formulate an argument that fits that criteria i don't think.

It would be difficult, but mainly because 'anti-woman' is pretty subjective

For example, if Milo was going to murder someone, and I was able to stop him from doing so, I would consider that a pro-Milo position. I would consider that true even if murder was for some reason completely legal. But Milo might not (or won't until later on).

trigs

Big Mike;370551 wroteIt would be difficult, but mainly because 'anti-woman' is pretty subjective

For example, if Milo was going to murder someone, and I was able to stop him from doing so, I would consider that a pro-Milo position. I would consider that true even if murder was for some reason completely legal. But Milo might not (or won't until later on).

yeah, there would be definition issues. i agree.

Milo

Big Mike;370529 wroteI'm confused, who is #2? I'm having trouble figuring out how Mary is 3rd.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Okay, second . . . trying to play it safe, y'know?

Milo

trigs;370533 wrotei'd be interested in hearing this defense. obviously the church feels that merely just the potential of any human life trumps the rights, life, and freedoms of the pregnant mother. obviously, men don't have to deal with this issue so it is exclusive to women.

i really think that it'd be difficult to argue a pro-life position and at the same time be completely, 100% not "anti-woman". at least, i couldn't formulate an argument that fits that criteria i don't think.

What I was saying is that an argument that the Church is "anti-woman" due to it's stance on abortion would have a better chance of winning a debate than the fact woman are barred from the priesthood.

But you could make an equally good argument that abortion itself is "anti-woman" owing to the disproportionate number of female babies that are terminated as opposed to male babies.

The Catholic Church is at least consistent when it says that life begins at conception and continues through to a natural death, and that all life is sacred.

Those who shout down the Church as being anti-woman with respect to abortion are strangely silent over the issue of sex-selective abortions. Even the medical community is starting to raise flags over the issue.

Milo

All this being said, we are starting to stray from our discussion of atheism.

800OVER

Milo;370528 wroteDid not say that morals cannot be decided without religion. What I said was that the Catholic Church position re: gays, abortion, etc. is a morality based stance rather than a science based one. That is all.

As for being anti-woman, yeah . . . when the third most revered personage in Catholic doctrine is a woman, I think I am going to have to disagree there. Not wanting women as priests does not make you "anti" woman. You might be better arguing from the standpoint of abortion, but you would be wrong there too.

We are not going to convince each other to change . . . so I am going to let you have the field. Feel free to keep going . . .

Morals can be determined by science (did you watch the video?)...not a book written 1500 years ago by a bunch of men....give me the MORAL reasons for the church's anti gay anti women stance. Quoting the Bible gets you zero credit.

As for Mary....she had to be a Virgin as women who are not are unclean according to the Church. Ever heard of Esther? Where is that part of the bible? Is there a book of the bible that was cleansed from our Bible because it is a book about the exploits of a woman?

Ever read what the bible says about women?

Please don't make me bring up the quotes from Popes past....

800OVER

As regards the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active power of the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex; while the production of a woman comes from defect in the active power..
Aquinas, Thomas. 13th Century.

Sorry forgot to mention that he's a Saint.

800OVER

1 Timothy 2:11-15 ESV / 461 helpful votes

Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.

New Testament and everything! or is this out of context?

800OVER

Judges 19:24 ESV / 4 helpful votes

Behold, here are my virgin daughter and his concubine. Let me bring them out now. Violate them and do with them what seems good to you, but against this man do not do this outrageous thing.

Milo

Wow . . . you really took the whole "carry on" thing to heart, didn't you?

« Previous Page Next Page »