jump to last post 1-2 of 2 discussions (41 posts)

Debate: Atheist vs Christian

  1. profile image0
    Rad Manposted 3 years ago
    1. Disappearinghead profile image84
      Disappearingheadposted 3 years ago in 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.

      1. profile image0
        Rad Manposted 3 years ago in 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

        1. Disappearinghead profile image84
          Disappearingheadposted 3 years ago in 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.

          1. profile image0
            Rad Manposted 3 years ago in 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.

            1. profile image0
              Motown2Chitownposted 3 years ago in 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.  smile

  2. profile image0
    Emile Rposted 3 years ago

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

    1. profile image0
      Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

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

      1. profile image0
        Emile Rposted 3 years ago in 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.

        1. profile image0
          Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Then why are we here?

          1. profile image0
            Emile Rposted 3 years ago in 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.

            1. profile image0
              Rad Manposted 3 years ago in 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?

              1. profile image0
                Emile Rposted 3 years ago in 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.

                1. profile image0
                  Rad Manposted 3 years ago in 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?

                  1. profile image0
                    Emile Rposted 3 years ago in 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.

                2. wilderness profile image95
                  wildernessposted 3 years ago in 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.

                  1. profile image0
                    Emile Rposted 3 years ago in 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.

                3. EncephaloiDead profile image61
                  EncephaloiDeadposted 3 years ago in 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.

                  1. profile image0
                    Emile Rposted 3 years ago in 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.

          2. Disappearinghead profile image84
            Disappearingheadposted 3 years ago in 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.

            1. profile image0
              Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

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

              1. Disappearinghead profile image84
                Disappearingheadposted 3 years ago in 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.

                1. profile image0
                  Rad Manposted 3 years ago in 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.

 
working