[_ Old Earth _] Question for All Atheists.

[freeway]

I don't know the reality of the existence of Satan for a fact, just as you don't, nor did I claim to. I do know that I sincerely do not believe in the existence of such a being, which is the question at hand.

the remarks where not actually directed at you.. but since you answered, yes I can not grab hold of satan and drag him into the room and sit him in a chair.. but if I believe the bible which I do, then he is as real as this computer I'm typing on.. for one to say they don't believe in something does not make it so... I don't believe there's gold on the moon but can not prove it so by that, it does not make it so.. and to be a true atheist that does not believe in some kind of intelligent invisible being well I have never meant one yet... and I've meant a bunch.. not all, but a lot... 8-)

What are you babbling on about? All I got was "I can't prove there is such a thing as Satan." Thanks, that's all I wanted to know.

here let me make it easier for you that have a hard time of keeping up... Yes there is a satan, the bible speaks of him form genesis to revelations. Also there is a Jesus, the bible also talks of Him. Have I shook hands with either no. but in the same light, I have never found gold on the moon, but it could be there....
now come back with your not so famous one liners 8-) 8-) 8-)

 

[VaultZero4Me]

Well if you setup the definition of atheism to mean that you believe that there is a 0% likelihood of a deity than sure. It's an untenable position.

And so is it untenable to believe that there is a 0% likelihood of gold on the moon. Or, for that matter, cheese or Tony Soprano.

It's not possible to have a 100% surety that any one thing does not exist.

But if I asked you if its possible for people to believe that Elvis is not alive, I wonder what you would say?

Do you think it is possible for someone to believe that Julius Caesar is not alive today? Or that Golems under the earth create earthquakes is a false idea?

By redefining atheism to an untenable position, you have to redefine any other non-belief system to a point where your world becomes unnecessarily complicated.

But that is your choice for yourself. I won't hold atheists to a higher standard than other non-belief systems because it is not logical to do so.

 

[jmm9683]

here let me make it easier for you that have a hard time of keeping up... Yes there is a satan, the bible speaks of him form genesis to revelations. Also there is a Jesus, the bible also talks of Him. Have I shook hands with either no. but in the same light, I have never found gold on the moon, but it could be there....
now come back with your not so famous one liners 8-) 8-) 8-)

And you can keep coming back with your fallacious arguments. A person could theoretically go to the moon and test the claim of gold.

What's your test for Satan? What? You don't have one? You just got an old book? Too bad, you were getting my hopes up. I was going to sell my soul for a new car.

 

[freeway]

here let me make it easier for you that have a hard time of keeping up... Yes there is a satan, the bible speaks of him form genesis to revelations. Also there is a Jesus, the bible also talks of Him. Have I shook hands with either no. but in the same light, I have never found gold on the moon, but it could be there....
now come back with your not so famous one liners 8-) 8-) 8-)

And you can keep coming back with your fallacious arguments. A person could theoretically go to the moon and test the claim of gold.

What's your test for Satan? What? You don't have one? You just got an old book? Too bad, you were getting my hopes up. I was going to sell my soul for a new car.

and you keep coming back with allegations that also can not be proved 100%, and that is where faith comes in for both of us.... 8-)

yes a person I guess could go the moon, and a person will find out about satan after death, which I'm not willing to gamble on...
the test for satan... well you could say. all the evil in the world but thats religious talk and your not religious... so my proof is, like I've said before ... the best book every known to man.. the BIBLE.. take it or leave it... sorry... as for just an old book... you are very wrong... sadly..
and to the effect of selling your soul,, sounds like you already have...

 

[Catholic Crusader]

....What's your test for Satan? What? You don't have one? You just got an old book?....

When a person feels the need to be rude to make their point, it is usually an indicator of the weakness of their position

 

[Snidey]

The same can be said of deflecting questions instead of answering them. The fact is that your beliefs rely on a single book written 2000 years ago that is given more credit by you than any peer-reviewed and aggressively researched paper published today.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

The same can be said of deflecting questions instead of answering them. The fact is that your beliefs rely on a single book written 2000 years ago that is given more credit by you than any peer-reviewed and aggressively researched paper published today.

You obviously dont understand the Catholic faith. Our beliefs are based on reason as well as faith. And the Bible came out of the Church, which was established by Christ before there even was a Bible. The blood of the martyrs, witnesses to the faith, was the fuel that grew the Church which was established by the one, true God. The Church teaches:

II. WAYS OF COMING TO KNOW GOD

31 Created in God's image and called to know and love him, the person who seeks God discovers certain ways of coming to know him. These are also called proofs for the existence of God, not in the sense of proofs in the natural sciences, but rather in the sense of "converging and convincing arguments", which allow us to attain certainty about the truth. These "ways" of approaching God from creation have a twofold point of departure: the physical world, and the human person.

32 The world: starting from movement, becoming, contingency, and the world's order and beauty, one can come to a knowledge of God as the origin and the end of the universe.

As St. Paul says of the Gentiles: For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made.
And St. Augustine issues this challenge: Question the beauty of the earth, question the beauty of the sea, question the beauty of the air distending and diffusing itself, question the beauty of the sky. . . question all these realities. All respond: "See, we are beautiful." Their beauty is a profession [confessio]. These beauties are subject to change. Who made them if not the Beautiful One [Pulcher] who is not subject to change?

33 The human person: with his openness to truth and beauty, his sense of moral goodness, his freedom and the voice of his conscience, with his longings for the infinite and for happiness, man questions himself about God's existence. In all this he discerns signs of his spiritual soul. The soul, the "seed of eternity we bear in ourselves, irreducible to the merely material", can have its origin only in God.

34 The world, and man, attest that they contain within themselves neither their first principle nor their final end, but rather that they participate in Being itself, which alone is without origin or end. Thus, in different ways, man can come to know that there exists a reality which is the first cause and final end of all things, a reality "that everyone calls God".

35 Man's faculties make him capable of coming to a knowledge of the existence of a personal God. But for man to be able to enter into real intimacy with him, God willed both to reveal himself to man and to give him the grace of being able to welcome this revelation in faith. The proofs of God's existence, however, can predispose one to faith and help one to see that faith is not opposed to reason.

source:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p1s1c1.htm#II

Its bad enough that your position is so weak. What is worse is that you don't even know why we believe what we believe, nor even what it is we actually believe.

 

[Snidey]

Um, nothing you said contradicts what I said. Alas, you might have a point that holds water if you actually followed some Vatican II teachings like, I dunno, believing in evolution.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

Um, nothing you said contradicts what I said. Alas, you might have a point that holds water if you actually followed some Vatican II teachings like, I dunno, believing in evolution.

The qoute I posted above IS from Vatican II. Please, try to know what you are talking about before you say it. Here is a direct quote fron the Vatican II document "Gaudium et spes" (19 § 1):

The dignity of man rests above all on the fact that he is called to communion with God. This invitation to converse with God is addressed to man as soon as he comes into being. For if man exists it is because God has created him through love, and through love continues to hold him in existence. He cannot live fully according to truth unless he freely acknowledges that love and entrusts himself to his creator.

There is an old saying: It is better to keep quiet and let people wonder if you are ignorant than it is to speak and prove that you are. Try to remember that.

 

[Snidey]

I do know what I'm talking about, which is why I know about the Vatican's shift in stance on evolution. What ignorance of mine are you referring to, specifically? All I claimed was that you put excessive weight behind the Bible, which is not something you've come close to disproving (you'd need a book to do so to begin with). You have yet to actually present any substance that contradicts either claim I made.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

I do know what I'm talking about, which is why I know about the Vatican's shift in stance on evolution. What ignorance of mine are you referring to, specifically? All I claimed was that you put excessive weight behind the Bible, which is not something you've come close to disproving (you'd need a book to do so to begin with). You have yet to actually present any substance that contradicts either claim I made.

I can prove God WITHOUT a Bible. The existence of God can be proven in five ways :

The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.

The third way is taken from possibility and necessity, and runs thus. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which is possible not to be at some time is not. Therefore, if everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence  which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has been already proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God.

The fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in things. Among beings there are some more and some less good, true, noble and the like. But "more" and "less" are predicated of different things, according as they resemble in their different ways something which is the maximum, as a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest; so that there is something which is truest, something best, something noblest and, consequently, something which is uttermost being; for those things that are greatest in truth are greatest in being, as it is written in Metaph. ii. Now the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus; as fire, which is the maximum heat, is the cause of all hot things. Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.

The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.

source:
Thomas Aquinas, "Summa Theologia"

 

[Snidey]

Aquinas, seriously? None of those are actual proofs.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

Aquinas, seriously? None of those are actual proofs.

There is more proof there than there is in the average courtroom, where men and women are found guilty or innocent of crimes everyday.

 

[Snidey]

No, there's not. In fact, that's an entirely asinine statement, and if a judge made the kind of logical leaps Aquinas did he or she would likely be impeached.

 

[Barbarian]

Since evolution is a scientific theory, the Vatican does not consider it to be part of the magesterium of the Church. You don't have to accept evolution to be a Christian. The Church does point out that there is no contradiction between evolution and Christianity, however.

And it also teaches that any theory of evolution which denies divine providence is not acceptable to the Church. Such a theory would, of course, not be science, which is unable to address the supernatural.

Here's the summary from Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI:

Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution.
Written as chairman of the International Theological Commission

Of course he wasn't Pope at the time, and even if he was, this was not in any way an ex cathedra statement of church doctrine. It was just his personal understanding as a scholar.

One is still free to reject science and still be a Christian.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

No, there's not. In fact, that's an entirely asinine statement, and if a judge made the kind of logical leaps Aquinas did he or she would likely be impeached.

You mean like, "If the glove don't fit, you must acquit?" There's some lawyerly wisdom, and at a murder trial no less.

But in the average backwater courtroom for a mediocre case there is no more evidence than what I have submitted.

And with that I withdraw from this thread. Enjoy yourselves

 

[turnorburn]

No, there's not. In fact, that's an entirely asinine statement, and if a judge made the kind of logical leaps Aquinas did he or she would likely be impeached.

You mean like, "If the glove don't fit, you must acquit?" There's some lawyerly wisdom, and at a murder trial no less.

But in the average backwater courtroom for a mediocre case there is no more evidence than what I have submitted.

And with that I withdraw from this thread. Enjoy yourselves

Say TC not so fast your not a quitter, look what I found :

Atheist Paranoia

Joshua S. Black, when addressing an atheist said, "For people who don't believe in God, you guys sure are paranoid about something!!" How true that is. I have known many atheists, and I have found them to be totally committed to their negative cause. They are zealots, fanatics--who are serious, angry, hateful, and blasphemous towards something they don't believe in. And what's more, they spend their time gathering fuel for the fire of their hatred for God and those that love Him. They gather what they think is legitimate fuel, whether it is atrocities committed by hypocritical religions of history, or the horrors of the Inquisition (the Catholic church torturing Christians for their faith in Jesus). They even gather unintelligent and unscientific material. It qualifies for use because it fits their presuppositions. Any fuel will do, as long at it puts smoke between them and the God they hate "without cause." It was Jonathon Miller who said, "In some awful, strange, paradoxical way, atheists tend to take religion more seriously than the practitioners." So, what is this "something" about which they are so paranoid? It is the same "something" that makes criminals paranoid, and it is that paranoia that fuels criminals to have a deep-rooted hatred for the police. It's not the individual officer they hate; it's what he stands for--civil law. And that's the root of the hatred that the atheist has for God and for those that represent Him. Once again, the Bible has said this all along. It hits the nail on its big and hard head: Romans 8:7: ". . because the mind of the flesh [with its carnal thoughts and purposes] is hostile to God, for it does not submit itself to God's Law; indeed it cannot" (Amplified Bible). They hate the morality that God's Law demands. That's the fuel for their hostility.

Like the welcome sign "yes"

 

[Deep Thought]

Atheists hate God in same way you hate Leprechauns. How can you hate something you don't believe in?

It's the same tired old argument that Atheism is a religion. Atheism is to religion what a-unicornism is to Unicornists.

 

[turnorburn]

The bible says all men are liars, how am I supposed to know what your saying is true? you make the statement all atheists make, you don't believe in God, I'm saying you do, of course you won't admit it because if you did you would have to obey him. :

 

[VaultZero4Me]

No, there's not. In fact, that's an entirely asinine statement, and if a judge made the kind of logical leaps Aquinas did he or she would likely be impeached.

You mean like, "If the glove don't fit, you must acquit?" There's some lawyerly wisdom, and at a murder trial no less.

But in the average backwater courtroom for a mediocre case there is no more evidence than what I have submitted.

And with that I withdraw from this thread. Enjoy yourselves

There may be cases won with poor evidence, but that has no bearing on that logical proof.

If you are going to stay on this thread we can go through each point each show the fallacies, if not than we'll leave it be.