Debate: Atheist vs Christian

1. 0

   Rad Manposted 10 years ago

   http://youtu.be/y8hy8NxZvFY
   
   Thoughts

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Disappearingheadposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Very interesting responses from both sides. Neither of them 'won' any points, or persuaded anyone one way or another. However, I was pleased with the Cardinals refreshingly moderate and balanced view of life after death, with respect to the Catholic stance on the fate of athiests. Such a relief from the black and white oppressive evangelical stance that fails to consider the logical , in religious terms, fallacy of their position. For all the faults of Catholicism, it at least is able to provide reasoned answers as to why they believe what they do even if we disagree.
      
      I thought Richard Dawkins presented himself very well and made nurmerous valid aarguments.
      
      Both sides were coming from different realms with very little overlap in the Ven Diagram of positions. Had the show put up some American TV evangelist creationist then Richard Dawkins would have wiped the floor with him.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Rad Manposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         I agree, but the Cardinal/archbishop's (don't remember what he was) response about what happens with the body and soul and the host and wine was interesting as well as his insistence that we evolved from neanderthals. I rather enjoyed the way he attempted to school a professor of evolutionary biology on evolutionary biology.
         
         If you at all have the time I strongly recommend this one.
         http://youtu.be/-AS6rQtiEh8

         replyreport
         1. 60

            Disappearingheadposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            Yes the response about body soul host and wine is the standard Catholic view, but in their reasoning I suppose, short of cutting somebody open we would never know if the sacrament becomes the literal blood and body. That's not to say that every Catholic holds this position, but seeing as he is a Cardinal, he must publicly support this position even if he believes something different in private.
            
            I did smile about the 'descending from Neaderthals', but that was purely out of his ignorance of the details. I think the gist of his view is that man evolving from some non-homosapien ancestor is not incompatible with Christian belief, and if that was what science shows us to be then so be it.

            replyreport
            1. 0

               Rad Manposted 10 years agoin reply to this

               I can't tell you how many times I've heard about the bread turning into the body. I was raised as a Catholic, went to a Catholic school, married a Catholic and raised my kids as Catholics including all the sacraments. But in all that time I've never heard that our bodies go to heaven with us. I have heard in these forms from time to time, but never from the Catholic church. I suppose we should stop cremating.

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  Motown2Chitownposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                  Actually, Rad, for a long time, the RCC did not allow cremation.  It's a fairly recent development that they allow for cremation. 

                  replyreport
2. 0

   Emile Rposted 10 years ago

   I watched it up to the point where Dawkins said the question of why is a silly question.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Rad Manposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      But the why is a silly question. Actually religion's answer to why is even more silly than the question.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Emile Rposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         Man has asked why since he began to document his thoughts. It's OK to think it is a silly question, but I do question why someone who can't fathom the question would not take the time to understand why others don't perceive it as a silly question prior to entering a debate. When he stated that, I lost interest in his point of view on the matter. I already didn't harbor a great deal of interest in what the cardinal was going to say, so I stopped watching. Now, you are probably thinking I should have continued to listen, because I might have learned something. This might be true, but the lack of respect for the collective musings of humanity over the centuries put me off just a bit.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Rad Manposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            Then why are we here?

            replyreport
            1. 0

               Emile Rposted 10 years agoin reply to this

               Who the heck knows? However, we are more unique than you have been willing to concede in previous discussions. The fact that we have a long history of writing about it, discussing it, debating it and pondering it leads me to believe that there is merit to the question; to us as a species.

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  Rad Manposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                  You have no idea how to answer that question, but feel it's a valid question.
                  It's rather like asking why is the sun here.
                  So when Richard was asked why and replied it was a silly question you turned it off because you felt it's a valid question that you yourself have no way of answering.
                  We are at the outer edge of one of billions of galaxies each with billions of stars and planets. Why are we here, what purpose does humanity have to our universe?

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     Emile Rposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                     See, that's the type of attitude I find a turn off. You do realize that we study many, many things which we don't have the answer to. Why do we do it? If we don't know the answer, you say the question is invalid? Seriously?
                     
                     I don't experience 'no way of answering' the question. The point is that no one has a definitive answer to the question. This does not invalidate the question.
                     
                     Perhaps, there is no reason for us, specifically, to be here. Yet we, as all else, are here. That, in and of itself, is fascinating to me. That we are here in the first place. Now, I know people who find it pointless to ponder the unponderable. I say, whatever floats your boat; but, I should be able to float my own with the same amount of consideration I am willing to extend.

                     replyreport
                     1. 0

                        Rad Manposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                        So, stating that a question that no one can possibly have a valid answer to is silly bothers you. Should he have entertained the question?
                        
                        Let's see, I'll give it a go. We are here on the third rock from the sun on the outer edge of one of billions of galaxies to look after this planet that in no way effects anything outside our planet?

                        replyreport
                        1. 0

                           Emile Rposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                           Well, if all things are connected (and I believe one atheist poster in another forum says that is a scientific fact) I would think our 'stewardship' (if we really are stewards. But, I think we give ourselves way too much credit on that count) does matter to some degree.

                           replyreport
                     2. 95

                        wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                        We study things that we don't have an answer to, yes.
                        
                        We do NOT "study" things that we cannot provide an answer to.  At most, we discuss them in the philosophical sense, a sense which precludes there being an answer that correlates with reality.  Any answer available will only be a philosophical one, unreal outside the mind of man.
                        
                        Perhaps there is a reason, perhaps not.  Either way WE cannot produce that reason.  Only the intelligence that made the reason - if you want and answer to the "why we are here" you will have to ask the god that made the "why", not man and not the universe we occupy.

                        replyreport
                        1. 0

                           Emile Rposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                           The god that made the why? Maybe, we are just coming into the conversation from different angles. Why we are here is simply how the devil did it all happen. How did point A come to be and how have we arrived here. At point B. Those questions can be answered, and will be answered at some point in time. You can respond with evolution. I say, that isn't a complete answer to the question. Not at our current level of understanding. Someone else can say we were created. Not a complete answer to the question. Not with our current level of understanding.
                           
                           Ex nihilo is an acceptable explanation for a theist, as to where God came from. It appears to be an acceptable explanation to some others, as to how the universe came to be. It doesn't really cut it, for me. We will continue to search, discover and put the pieces of the puzzle together so that at some point, in the future, we will know the hows and whys. This doesn't imply that we will find a purpose, or even a happy place. It simply means we will have more information about the universe, which we are a product of.

                           replyreport
                           1. 0

                              Rad Manposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                              Okay, I get it know.
                              You didn't understand or misunderstood the question. Why we are here has nothing to do with how we got here, why we are here is asking what our purpose on earth is.
                              
                              That is how the question was asked of him and why he said it was a silly question. If the question was HOW it would not have been silly.

                              replyreport
                              1. 0

                                 Emile Rposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                                 So, let me get this straight. You have no problem considering the musings of humanity over the course of human history as silly. Since you don't agree with them, they are silly?

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 0

                                    Rad Manposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                                    It's silly to ask someone a question that there is no answer to. I'm not sure why that offends you?

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 0

                                       Emile Rposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                                       Because, it isn't a silly question. Not to 99.9% of all people you ask. Simply because it has no known answer does not mean that there is no answer, or that the question lacks merit; as is implied when you call the question silly.

                                       report
                                       1. 0

                                          Rad Manposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                                          It's just as silly as asking why are ants here.

                                          report
                                          1. 0

                                             Emile Rposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                                             Now you are insulting the philosophical musings of the ants. Have you no shame?

                                             report
                                             1. 86

                                                Zelkiiroposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                                                Ants have no philosophy. Ants have no soul. Ants have no hearts. Ants have no mercy. Ants have no weakness. Ants have no reason to let you live.
                                                
                                                Ants are Legion, for they are many.

                                                report
                                                1. 54

                                                   EncephaloiDeadposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                                                   Amazing Ant Facts
                                                   
                                                   http://www.antark.net/ant-facts/#.UshtO_vWviI

                                                   report
                                                   1. 86

                                                      Zelkiiroposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                                                      "Ant fact 24. Ants worst enemies are not us, but other ants."
                                                      
                                                      Which is the only reason we still live...!

                                                      report
                                                   2. 0

                                                      Rad Manposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                                                      They seem rather human with wars and slavery and all.

                                                      report
                                                2. 0

                                                   Emile Rposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                                                   But, some do have a spare stomach to store food for others. That's pretty nice of them so they couldn't be totally heartless.

                                                   report
                                                   1. 0

                                                      Rad Manposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                                                      I'm still going to squish the little buggers when I find them inside my house.

                                                      report
                                                   2. 95

                                                      wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                                                      Tsk, tsk.  Such faulty logic. 
                                                      
                                                      Having double stomachs, after all, means there is no room left for a heart (especially in an an'ts body); they MUST be heartless!

                                                      report
                     3. 54

                        EncephaloiDeadposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                        If we base the answer on what science understands about the world, then the answer would be, "We are just here", which is the point as to why the question is not really valid.

                        replyreport
                        1. 0

                           Emile Rposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                           I don't usually let a current level of knowledge prohibit the assumption that there is more to learn. I am in no way stating that I think we are somehow special, above any other life form, ultimately destined for some cosmic greatness or anything in particular. I am simply saying that life is more than we currently understand and questions are valid, until they are proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be invalid.

                           replyreport
                           1. 54

                              EncephaloiDeadposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                              True, but not many things ever get proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. It is entirely impractical to prove something beyond a shadow of a doubt when it can observed to work or not work consistently. Science itself has that built in 'falsifiability' factor for just such a purpose. The theory of gravity is as solid as it is accurate, but perhaps someone will come along and falsify it someday. But, we will still continue to use the theory because it continues to work consistently. The same goes for things that are pretty much invalid, they are not used because they aren't consistent, but perhaps some day someone will come along and make it valid.
                              
                              With VSL Cosmology, that hasn't happened, it continues to remain crackpottery.
                              
                              The same goes for asking the question, "Why", it is a rather pointless question in light of what we know and continue to discover, becoming more irrelevant a question with the more we learn.

                              replyreport
                              1. 0

                                 Emile Rposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                                 Crackpottery? Is that even a word?  I don't know, but here are some, what appear to be, non crackpot links.
                                 
                                 http://faculty.washington.edu/devasia/P … mology.pdf  which is a University of Washington website
                                 
                                 I found information on VSL that did not appear to consider it crackpottery on a Cornell University website. http://arxiv.org/abs/0812.4738
                                 
                                 There appears to be no mention of crackpottery when mentioning VSL at http://www.science20.com/quantum_gravit … ture_proof
                                 
                                 None crackpottery appears to have impelled the following to be stated on a none crackpottery website Physics About.com  'One of the major traits of Einstein's theory of relativity is that the speed of light in a vacuum is always a constant rate, c. However, the cosmological problems that led to the theoretical introduction of dark matter and dark energy into modern cosmology has motivated some physicists to look for solutions in other directions.'
                                 
                                 One of the first to suggest variable speed of light was Andreas J. Albrecht who happens to be a theoretical physicist cosmologist involved in research and teaching at the University of California.
                                 
                                 Are you claiming that theoretical physicists are crackpots, or just one in particular? Or, are theoretical physicists associated with certain universities the only crackpots?
                                 
                                 
                                 
                                 Unfortunately, your opinion of the work of respected scientists leads me to believe that you are prone to dismiss anything that doesn't fit neatly into your belief structure.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 54

                                    EncephaloiDeadposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                                    Ritz's c+v variable speed of hypothesis is not the same as the Variable Speed of Light (VSL) ideas of João Magueijo. In Ritz's theory, the speed of light "c" is a constant with respect to emission sources, but the source velocities are vectorially additive with it; i.e., c' = c+v.
                                    
                                    
                                    
                                    Uh, did you even read those articles? I didn't think so.
                                    
                                    
                                    
                                    Once again, you use your own words to create an argument that you then attack, which is based on your words. Try reading posts as to how they are written as opposed to what you want to see there.

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 0

                                       Emile Rposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                                       The point is that you have labeled it crackpottery. Your words. Not mine. Which implies pseudoscience. Which, it is not.

                                       report
                                       1. 54

                                          EncephaloiDeadposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                                          So far, it has not been shown to be anything but pseudoscience, that is entirely the point. Those papers talk about creating a model to explain anomalies in other cosmological models, but the problem with VSL is that while it attempts to explain those anomalies, it doesn't pass the major hurtles of what we already know about electromagnetic radiation, tested over and over an over with consistent results. There are other alternatives to explaining those cosmological anomalies, but creating a model that makes the speed of light variable isn't one of them, it fails from the get go, it has no hard evidence showing light to be invariable, it's just a theoretical model, and a very bad one at that.

                                          report
            2. 60

               Disappearingheadposted 10 years agoin reply to this

               - The question is, do *you* know why you are here?
               - We are looking for the Keymaker.
               - Oh, yes. It is true. The Keymaker. Of course. But this is not a reason. This is not a "why". The Keymaker himself - his very nature is a means. It is not an end. And so to look for him is to be looking for a means to do... what? You see there is only one constant. One universal. It is the only real truth. Causality. Action, reaction. Cause and effect.
               
               - What is the reason? Soon the why and the reason are gone and all that matters is the feeling. This is the nature of the universe. We struggle against it, we fight to deny it; but it is of course a lie. Beneath our poised appearance we are completely out of control.
               - Where are you going?
               - Please, ma cherie. I have told you. We are all victims of causality. I drank too much wine, I must take a piss. Cause and effect.

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  Rad Manposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                  Right, what are individual purposes are is a valid question, what the purpose for humanity is not.

                  replyreport
                  1. 60

                     Disappearingheadposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                     I heard Christians state time and time again that the primary purpose of mankind was to worship God, but I never once found this claim in the bible. Mankind just is, and it is in mankind's nature to ask why. As to just why it is in our nature to ask why, who knows, it is just is.

                     replyreport
                     1. 0

                        Rad Manposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                        We can ask ourselves why are we here, but asking another in a public and expecting an answer is something entirely different and rather silly.

                        replyreport