There's the problem. I'm just talking...you're debating. To be more accurate: you're usually arguing--which is different than debating.

There is no such thing as a ‘typical’ atheist any more than a ‘general’ theist … so it would help if we stop using such terms … besides the fact that atheists do not believe god exists as purported by theists and they do … past this point we base our lives on what we think we know … all of us people do regardless of ideology. Because atheists do not believe this, whenever we try to peruse our lives, we are mostly accused of ‘trying to destroy … not theology … just Christianity, and this is just self-inflicted misery none of us need. I do not know an atheist who has any problem accepting that religious folk are entitled to live their own lives in any legal manner they desire, but nothing seems to apply to religion or their organizations??? We are not trying (are we?) to politicize our way into the Christian schools … but it seems ok to come into our schools and do exactly that. We are not trying to infiltrate the Vatican to browbeat them into accepting homosexuals as actual people … but you folks are want to predispose our legal system based on your own prejudices, to segregate different portions of our people, and I for one will not tolerate this. If you choose to make everything into some kind of religious persecutions that is your business; I feel sorry for you but it doesn’t change the facts of life. Look at the mess theology is in today, is there any wonder where it is going to be in the future as the sciences continue to make giant strides while theology just continues to stagnate with their 1st century philosophy. Do the religious communities think this is going to become clearer over time … in their favor?

I think it safe to say that the only religious views being pandered here on JU are Christian, so it should be  safe for me to talk back about Christianity (even though it is really theology). Just because Christians are selfish in this manner doesn’t mean atheists are. Muslims are entitled to live and believe what they want to … just as much as you folks and with the same authority you guys profess. Just seems to me that bigotry is what needs to be addressed here is all. I believe I have made a couple of points along this line.

When I walk through a Nature Museum, I am in awe of the displays and the dedication of the people who make the research, finding and the digging all possible. I do not understand what we are supposed to do with ourselves if it is not to try and improve individually to eventually improve the species … evolution the slow and only way. Considering our learning curve over the last 100 years, what do theists envision the sciences are going to do … stop sciencing?

GOAFAN77 POSTS:

lULA POSTS:

GOAFAN77 POSTS:

LULA POSTS;

Ah,  "NOT YET" says GoaFan77! But notice how matter of fact your 257 comment was!!!!!

So it remains, afterall, that the chemicals in the brain don't account for the immaterial reality of love, memory, etc. This incoherency is a difficult problem for Atheistic Naturalism. 

But it's not a problem for Christians like me because Christianity is not a reductionist worldview. The Christian worldview can easily account  for the harmony of humanity, the material world, non-material spiritual beings( God, human souls, angels), as well as immaterial realities (love, memory, goodness, evil, etc.) as well as abstract realities (mathematics, and Natural or Moral laws).

Atheism cannot.

http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2010/07/29/Scientists-find-chemical-memory-molecule/UPI-13211280451790/

Not so much of a problem for the Atheistic Naturalistic Scientists in Israel I guess.

goafan77 posts

lula posts:

GoaFan77,

You got this particular answer because you asked for it...when you included, "on what you think He thinks".

And where have you once seen that I choose to reject science? I admit I reject pseudo science of Darwinism (macro-evolution), but true science is great by me. Love true science. 

Your statement about the CC is incorrect. There is a distinction that must be made between the Church and her fallible members. 

To understand that the CC certainly does agree on every single moral issue, we must go back to infallibility,

Christ taught the truth on faith and morals and promised to safeguard it until the end of time. He chose to do so by means of His infallible Church which He established appointing St.Peter as His first earthly head.  To understand, contrast Christ with some merely human philosopher like Aristotle. When Aristotle was dead, his teachings, so coherent, intellectual and positive were dragged down and degraded into rank materialism.Now, Christ knowing what was in man, and possessing means not possessed by Aristotle, took precautions against such distortion and destruction of His teachings.

He organized and guaranteed His Church from doctrinal error in matters of faith and morals. He is the Light. When He departed He left His Church to be the light of mankind, to shine, not with a light of its own but with His Light, as infallibly reliable as Himself.

When Catholics fail to live up to Christ's teachings on morals, it has everything to do with them and nothing to do with the CC.

So here you go from saying the CC doesn't agree on every single moral issue to saying her members decide that her moral teachings are wrong and incorrect. 

Again, it's not that the CC's moral teachings are wrong or incorrect, but rather these Catholics prefer to be unfaithful to them.

Chemicals ... that just bespeaks of the 1960's, hahaha … all those mind altering drugs.

Sure.

True science is truth whether it manifests in theology, which deals with God and the laws of God, or experimental science which deals with nature and the laws of nature.

Well those chemicals don't spontaneously appear from no where, your cells make them. And if you're arguing that these things don't have a material presence, then why would your "soul" or what have you produce physical results? It is because its all in your mind somewhere

But I don't care about the CC, my point was about the Catholics themselves. They have to decide to follow the CC or not, and in which way they do so. That is their independent decision. That means people ultimately decide what they think god is. Many may accept the Catholic version in some form or another, but they still had to make the decision.

You're free to reject what you will. Just as your infallibility of a church run by men is utterly incomprehensible to me. But I accept that for whatever reason you have faith in it.

“One must state it plainly. Religion comes from the period of human prehistory where nobody-not even the mighty Democritus who concluded that all matter was made from atoms-had the smallest idea what was going on. It comes from the bawling and fearful infancy of our species, and is a babyish attempt to meet our inescapable demand for knowledge (as well as for comfort, reassurance and other infantile needs). Today the least educated of my children knows much more about the natural order than any of the founders of religion, and one would like to think-though the connection is not a fully demonstrable one-that this is why they seem so uninterested in sending fellow humans to hell.”
― Christopher Hitchens, God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything

I believe you are the only one who thinks I made any statements about the Church. Just Catholics and my opinions.

My world view is consistent, I think it has been sufficiently proven. It is not my fault that you choose to reject my evidence. I think that any open minded individual who takes a real look at the evidence would agree. But I am not here to convert you, so I don't care what you do with it. But likewise, don't make incorrect statements about my worldview.

I've already answered this exact same talking point. We do not have the technology yet for manipulating something so small, complicated, and in a very sensitive area. You clearly overestimate surgeons if you use them as the basis for all of your "proof".