Come Debate with an Ex-catholic / new Atheist

[cam109]

Hello all,

Let me start by saying that I mean no disrespect by coming on this forum to talk about my own godlessness. I have tried to have this conversation about Evolution vs Creationism with many friends and family. Things always seem to turn ugly after I present certain facts. All I am simply trying to do is to open the eyes of those around me.

Some background: 22 year old male. Attended Christian/Catholic school my entire schooling career. Studied religion on a collegiate level at the University of San Diego.

But to the point...

My first question to get this debate started is...

When presented with scientific fact, facts that consist of empirical data (Darwin, Hawkings, etc), why does the Church present no factual evidence (empirical in nature of course) to refute, but instead continually changes its stance to adopt such scientific evidence. All the while they contest that God still "put man on this earth, just after creating it, 10,000 years ago". The earth has been proven to be billions of years old by multiple scientists.

Thoughts?

 

[Gracchus]

First of all: The Roman Catholic church gave itself a big black eye over the Galileo affair. Therefore, they have become very cautious about denying obvious facts. Sometimes they seem nearly close to accepting the teachings of Jesus, which most protestant churches never will.

Jesus didn't save us, but he tried to tell us how to save ourselves. All the Christians, Catholics and Protestants, will all shout in horror at that statement, but that is because they want to be saved without doing any of the work themselves. God forbid that they should be constrain themselve from their lust, greed, gluttony, sloth, wrath, pride and envy. They want to bring all that with them into heaven, thereby turning it into hell. That is how their un-acknowledged master will win. (It's all symbolism and myth but there is truth in it nevertheless.)

If you act like Jesus and tell the truth as he did, the religiously righteous will hate you just as they hated him, and that would usually involve some personal inconvenience. It did for him. And after all, if doing the "right thing" were easy, everyone would do it and then what would become of us?

 

[plindboe]

Hello all,

Let me start by saying that I mean no disrespect by coming on this forum to talk about my own godlessness. I have tried to have this conversation about Evolution vs Creationism with many friends and family. Things always seem to turn ugly after I present certain facts. All I am simply trying to do is to open the eyes of those around me.

Some background: 22 year old male. Attended Christian/Catholic school my entire schooling career. Studied religion on a collegiate level at the University of San Diego.

But to the point...

My first question to get this debate started is...

When presented with scientific fact, facts that consist of empirical data (Darwin, Hawkings, etc), why does the Church present no factual evidence (empirical in nature of course) to refute, but instead continually changes its stance to adopt such scientific evidence. All the while they contest that God still "put man on this earth, just after creating it, 10,000 years ago". The earth has been proven to be billions of years old by multiple scientists.

Thoughts?

Welcome aboard.

When religious people get it in their head that something contradicts their religion, they will become extremely pigheaded and evidence in support will either be ignored or rationalized away. A better approach might be to point out that the evolution isn't against their religion. Point out that science is agnostic, and it doesn't address the supernatural, since its methods can only address the natural. You can point out that Darwin was a Christian when he came up with his theory and mentioned God in "The origin of species".

Considering that they're catholics, it should have an impact if you inform them that the catholic church officially accepts evolution. Show them an article like this-> Pope: Creation vs. evolution an absurdity - World news - Europe - The Vatican - msnbc.com

Peter

 

[Greg1234]

When presented with scientific fact, facts that consist of empirical data (Darwin, Hawkings, etc), why does the Church present no factual evidence (empirical in nature of course) to refute, but instead continually changes its stance to adopt such scientific evidence. All the while they contest that God still "put man on this earth, just after creating it, 10,000 years ago". The earth has been proven to be billions of years old by multiple scientists.

Thoughts?

There are Christians who believed that the earth was old without the help of science. If the big bang is wrong then you're a young universe Darwinist. The goal is not to keep up with the mood swings of the autocracy but to relate what textual and other data show. The more influential sect of science has its assortment of inaccuracies (big-bang, viruses, global warming, evolution, and the list goes on). Anything else?

 

[freezerman2000]

Cam, the TOE is constantly being updated, so the church updates their stance on TOE so they will not be left in the dust,so to speak..at least that's what my church does...in my local church, we do have some YEC believers, but the majority of us are TEs, who hold with the evidence of the earth being around 4.7 billion years in age, but we all agree that John3:16 trumps the origins arguments, so there is no heated debate about it, just good natured conversations now and then.
Science knows more about the physical sciences than the clergy does.

 

[Greg1234]

Welcome aboard.

When religious people get it in their head that something contradicts their religion, they will become extremely pigheaded and evidence in support will either be ignored or rationalized away.

It was never a viable course of action , for a theist to adopt a materialistic contradictory conjecture out of fear of being ridiculed. If they did, there would be no such thing as theism today.

A better approach might be to point out that the evolution isn't against their religion.

Seduction, perverse cajolery, empty promises, and bestial exaltation. A better approach would be to present evidence for Darwinism and leave the aforementioned stratagems on the drawing board.

Point out that science is agnostic, and it doesn't address the supernatural,

Any part of reality an observation interacts with, science automatically endorses. Needless to say, science is not agnostic. Atheists merely think that they are science.

since its methods can only address the natural. You can point out that Darwin was a Christian when he came up with his theory and mentioned God in "The origin of species".

How is that evidence for Darwinism?

Considering that they're catholics, it should have an impact if you inform them that the catholic church officially accepts evolution. Show them an article like this-> Pope: Creation vs. evolution an absurdity - World news - Europe - The Vatican - msnbc.com

Peter

It's a good thing he didn't talk against Darwinism. Or else he would be a rampant loon with no degree in any of the sciences. Today a head clergy man will be linked by an atheist because the conditions detailing the supremacy of Darwin over all has been met.

 

[plindboe]

It was never a viable course of action , for a theist to adopt a materialistic contradictory conjecture out of fear of being ridiculed. If they did, there would be no such thing as theism today.

The existence of theistic evolutionists proves that theism survive quite easily alongside evolution.

Seduction, perverse cajolery, empty promises, and bestial exaltation.

lulz. No, it's an example of 'Know your audience'. Simply common sense to try to communicate with people in a way they will find meaningful.

A better approach would be to present evidence for Darwinism and leave the aforementioned stratagems on the drawing board.

As I pointed out, scientific evidence won't have an impact when a religious person thinks something contradicts his religion. The religion comes first; everything else is shaped to fit into the religious world view.

Any part of reality an observation interacts with, science automatically endorses. Needless to say, science is not agnostic.

Science wouldn't be agnostic if there were clear manifestations of God to observe. Science can't address a claim about something with no manifestation in the natural world, hence it's agnostic about the question of God. There are countless claimed manifestations though, but none that I'm aware of that hold very well up to scrutiny.

Atheists merely think that they are science.

No. They are generally more in line with science though, since they've no religion to distort their views of reality.

How is that evidence for Darwinism?

I didn't say it was. It's further evidence showing that theism and evolution as proposed by Darwin can go hand in hand.

It's a good thing he didn't talk against Darwinism. Or else he would be a rampant loon with no degree in any of the sciences. Today a head clergy man will be linked by an atheist because the conditions detailing the supremacy of Darwin over all has been met.

I'm not linking to him because I think of him as any kind of authority of science. To catholics he is an authority though, and to them his words might have an impact. Hence my advice to the OP.

That said, I've no idea what you mean when you say "Darwinism". You don't seem to be using the word like anyone else in the world. The Pope is talking about the Theory of Evolution, I'm talking about the Theory of Evolution, everyone (except you) who talk about these issues are talking about the Theory of Evolution.

Peter

 

[Greg1234]

The existence of theistic evolutionists proves that theism survive quite easily alongside evolution.

Like the OP.

lulz. No, it's an example of 'Know your audience'. Simply common sense to try to communicate with people in a way they will find meaningful.

No it's a philosophical intrusion.

As I pointed out, scientific evidence won't have an impact when a religious person thinks something contradicts his religion. The religion comes first; everything else is shaped to fit into the religious world view.

No evidence has ever contradicted Creationism and the data even proceeds to support it.

Science wouldn't be agnostic if there were clear manifestations of God to observe.

Any part of reality an observation interacts with, science automatically endorses. Needless to say, science is not agnostic. Atheists merely think that they are science.

Science can't address a claim about something with no manifestation in the natural world, hence it's agnostic about the question of God. There are countless claimed manifestations though, but none that I'm aware of that hold very well up to scrutiny.

Theories piled on top of theories. The epitome is the random assembly of robotics. A testament to extremes materialism is willing to take.

No. They are generally more in line with science though, since they've no religion to distort their views of reality.

You should look up materialism and methodological naturalism.

I didn't say it was. It's further evidence showing that theism and evolution as proposed by Darwin can go hand in hand.

Then Darwin should have known better. Either way it doesn't matter now since his theory didn't work out. And no, it doesn't show that theism and evolution go hand in hand. The origin of man is simply the tip of the ice in Darwinism.

I'm not linking to him because I think of him as any kind of authority of science. To catholics he is an authority though, and to them his words might have an impact. Hence my advice to the OP.

It's the same thing. Who he talks to is not a restraining order on materialistic derision. He should not be talking to any audience (especially catholics, one of materialism's biggest target markets), if he talked against Darwinism.

That said, I've no idea what you mean when you say "Darwinism". You don't seem to be using the word like anyone else in the world. The Pope is talking about the Theory of Evolution, I'm talking about the Theory of Evolution, everyone (except you) who talk about these issues are talking about the Theory of Evolution.

Peter

Materialists use the word theory as point attack. It's left out. The plasticity of the word evolution is also abused. That's removed.

 

[LOCO]

Hello all,

Let me start by saying that I mean no disrespect by coming on this forum to talk about my own godlessness. I have tried to have this conversation about Evolution vs Creationism with many friends and family. Things always seem to turn ugly after I present certain facts. All I am simply trying to do is to open the eyes of those around me.

Some background: 22 year old male. Attended Christian/Catholic school my entire schooling career. Studied religion on a collegiate level at the University of San Diego.

But to the point...

My first question to get this debate started is...

When presented with scientific fact, facts that consist of empirical data (Darwin, Hawkings, etc), why does the Church present no factual evidence (empirical in nature of course) to refute, but instead continually changes its stance to adopt such scientific evidence. All the while they contest that God still "put man on this earth, just after creating it, 10,000 years ago". The earth has been proven to be billions of years old by multiple scientists.

Thoughts?

Clarify which Church and which Christians you are referring to.


The CC has NEVER taught the Genesis creation story literally - after all 'what is a day to God?' it could be millions of earth years. Additionally, The Jewish authors of Genesis and modern Rabbis have NEVER interpreted the Genesis story literally.

Literal interpretation of the Genesis creation story is a modern invention.

The Catholic Church has always taught that there are several competing theories of evolution and that Darwins theory at the moment is the best explanation for "HOW" humanity evolved.


Where the CC parts company from Darwin is:

a) He did not attribute any creation to God whereas Catholics believe in a 'theistic evolutionary process' and;


b) The CC insists that our 'souls' are not inherited from our parents like our bodies. They are specially created by God for us.

Science is not static and it shouldn't be. It may very well be in the future that another brilliant Scientist such as Galileo formulates a theory that challenges the widely taught and accepted norm of today.

Looking at history through the lens of today usually clears the fog. That is the advantage of hindsight.


Today, the Church has a clearer separation between itself and Science whereas in history they tended to meld and scientific discovery was tested against Scripture which was wrong as they soon found out with Galileo. At the time ALL centres of knowledge and scientific endeavours was located in religious institutions e.g. Monasteries. The CC started the modern notion of Universities.

Science does not offer any answers to the 'WHY' of our existence. That is what religion and philosophy ponders.

Blessings

 

[Zaius137]

I don’t know where you get the idea that science does not support Christianity. With the imminent fall of the Standard Model and increasing problems with evolution and the Big Bang Christian believers could not be more gratified. Secular fairytales of creation are deteriorating and the Bible seems the only solid ground.

 

[Gracchus]

I don’t know where you get the idea that science does not support Christianity.

Possibly from the realization that science has nothing to say about miracles and imperceptibles.

With the imminent fall of the Standard Model...

Citations?

... and increasing problems with evolution...

Such as...?

Look here, we can read such assertions dating from the publication of "The Origin of Species" and the theory of evolution is better supported and more understood than ever.

... and the Big Bang Christian believers could not be more gratified.

Were that true, and it is not, why should they be gratified? These matters have nothing to do with how we treat our fellow creatures, which it seems to me, is the matter with which Jesus was most concerned.

Oh! Wait! I forgot! What Jesus tried to teach is an embarassment to most Christians. What is important to the Christian is not how we should behave toward others but what irrational inexplicable nonsense we must profess to believe.

Secular fairytales of creation are deteriorating and the Bible seems the only solid ground.

You tell us of talking snakes, magic trees, world-wide floods, pregnant virgins, invisible sky magicians and you dare to bring up "secular" fairy tales?! The Bible is solid, in the sense it is unchanging. It is unchanging, in the sense it is not alive. It is a graven image in black and white, of something alive and ever changing, and it is incomplete, lacking the essence of reality, as a written score lacks the essence of the music, or the written choreography lacks the essence of the dance.

The word of God is written in the stars and stones and the shifting, kaleidoscopic, multi-colored, multi-faceted patterns of life. The Bible is only the efforts of primitive and ignorant men to explain the world without recourse to reason or correction. It tells us not about God, but about what some men in ancient times saw fit and profitable to say about God.

 

[steve_bakr]

Possibly from the realization that science has nothing to say about miracles and imperceptibles.Citations?Such as...?

Look here, we can read such assertions dating from the publication of "The Origin of Species" and the theory of evolution is better supported and more understood than ever.Were that true, and it is not, why should they be gratified? These matters have nothing to do with how we treat our fellow creatures, which it seems to me, is the matter with which Jesus was most concerned.

Oh! Wait! I forgot! What Jesus tried to teach is an embarassment to most Christians. What is important to the Christian is not how we should behave toward others but what irrational inexplicable nonsense we must profess to believe.You tell us of talking snakes, magic trees, world-wide floods, pregnant virgins, invisible sky magicians and you dare to bring up "secular" fairy tales?! The Bible is solid, in the sense it is unchanging. It is unchanging, in the sense it is not alive. It is a graven image in black and white, of something alive and ever changing, and it is incomplete, lacking the essence of reality, as a written score lacks the essence of the music, or the written choreography lacks the essence of the dance.

The word of God is written in the stars and stones and the shifting, kaleidoscopic, multi-colored, multi-faceted patterns of life. The Bible is only the efforts of primitive and ignorant men to explain the world without recourse to reason or correction. It tells us not about God, but about what some men in ancient times saw fit and profitable to say about God.

The Bible is a testimony of man's ongoing experience of God. Jesus Christ is the manifestation of God on earth. The creation story is an allegory. The early Church Father's treated it as such. Once you process your newly acquired knowledge, perhaps you will return to the Catholic Church.

Peace

 

[Zaius137]

then we can get to the Bible:

Well to start with there is a big problem with the Standard Model which builds into the Big Bang. Namely the Higgs Boson has apparently turned up missing. The mechanism (scalar field) of the Higgs is the missing link (God) particle that imparts mass and energy to matter in the Standard Model. If the Higgs is missing then the Standard Model is all but waist. Also it is the mechanism in the Bang that precipitates mass from the Energy extruded from that mystical singularity. If the Higgs is a mirage (just Google that) then the creation story from current science is a myth…

 

[Incariol]

then we can get to the Bible:

Well to start with there is a big problem with the Standard Model which builds into the Big Bang. Namely the Higgs Boson has apparently turned up missing. The mechanism (scalar field) of the Higgs is the missing link (God) particle that imparts mass and energy to matter in the Standard Model. If the Higgs is missing then the Standard Model is all but waist. Also it is the mechanism in the Bang that precipitates mass from the Energy extruded from that mystical singularity. If the Higgs is a mirage (just Google that) then the creation story from current science is a myth…

Um, no, it just means either:

a.) we don't have the technological capacity to detect it yet or are doing it wrong.
and/or
b.) There is another mechanism responsible.

Also, this is random, and in the wrong forum.

 

[Gracchus]

The Bible is a testimony of man's ongoing experience of God.

It ceased to be "ongoing" when they closed the Canon.

Jesus Christ is the manifestation of God on earth.

As every bodhisatva is a manifestation of the Buddha.

The creation story is an allegory.

Yes.

The early Church Father's treated it as such.

Some did.

Once you process your newly acquired knowledge, perhaps you will return to the Catholic Church.

Which knowledge do you think I have "newly acquired"? I have processed a lot of knowledge in nearly seventy years.

I cannot profess the Nicene Creed, nor the Apostle's Creed. Jesus was a rabbi, a teacher, possibly a God-realized man, but certainly not the last or the only one. Proclaiming his "uniqueness", his singularity in that respect is just a way to keep the sheep providing the shepherds with wool, meat and lambs.

 

[steve_bakr]

It ceased to be "ongoing" when they closed the Canon.As every bodhisatva is a manifestation of the Buddha. Yes.Some did.Which knowledge do you think I have "newly acquired"? I have processed a lot of knowledge in nearly seventy years.

I cannot profess the Nicene Creed, nor the Apostle's Creed. Jesus was a rabbi, a teacher, possibly a God-realized man, but certainly not the last or the only one. Proclaiming his "uniqueness", his singularity in that respect is just a way to keep the sheep providing the shepherds with wool, meat and lambs.

Sorry for some reason I thought that you were fresh out of college. If you're nearly in your seventies, you best make peace with God now instead of waiting for the last moment. What profit do you receive by coming on a Christian forum as an atheist to debate? I do profess the.Nicene Creed as an act.of faith and I am better for it. I too am old,.have processed a lot of knowledge, but I choose to remain Christian. As a matter of fact, I am converting to Catholicism in my old age. I guess you and I are gambling on opposite sides of the table.

Peace

 

[radennis0]

I have always thought that Elohim is the ultimate scientist (among other things that He is). He invented/created atoms, quarks and so on, along with the natural rules that govern their existence and movement. There seems to be a perception among non-religious people that Christians think everything works by some type of divine magic.

Concerning creation and evolution specifically, I cannot say that one excludes the other. Both may be true. My best way to explain this is to consider Newtonian physics and Quantum physics. Each model works very well at explaining and predicting movement of particles, etc. However as particles get smaller than atoms Newtonian physics stops working. Quantum physics works well at explaining sub-atomic particles, but fails as the particles get as big as an atom or larger. Yet, both are seemingly true and correct. Science has been looking for a single theory that works at both levels. Because they have not yet found a unifying theory does not mean that they will not. It does not mean that the unifying rules do not exist. They do exist. We just do not have that level of understanding yet.

I feel the same way concerning God and science. Just because we cannot yet explain how God and science properly match does not mean that they do not. I personally am not overly concerned about the debate. Knowing the answer will not get me into or keep me out of heaven. Only Yeshua Messiah can do that.

 

[Gracchus]

Sorry for some reason I thought that you were fresh out of college.

Possibly, that's because I never stopped studying.

If you're nearly in your seventies, you best make peace with God now instead of waiting for the last moment.

I am at peace. God, if there be such, is going to do whatever he wants to with me. I don't think he would be impressed if I started pretending to believe now. If he were impressed by hypocrisy or flattery, he would not be worthy of respect.

What profit do you receive by coming on a Christian forum as an atheist to debate?

Argument sharpens the wit. And I do learn things. I am specifically studying that form of delusion generally referred to as "religion".

Moreover, I am among those Richard Dawkins called "sexed up atheists", which is to say I am a pantheist. (Actually, a panentheist.) It does not require me to believe anything contrary to reason.

I do profess the.Nicene Creed as an act.of faith and I am better for it.

I am sure you like to think so.

I too am old,.have processed a lot of knowledge, but I choose to remain Christian.

You're old? I am not. I saw that Christianity was nonsense when I was seven. Original sin and vicarious atonement make no sense and serve no form of justice. I knew I had to be quiet about my apostasy, though, because Christians can be quite vicious when you challenge their mythology. When they gain power, they invariably begin to persecute dissent.

As a matter of fact, I am converting to Catholicism in my old age.

Do you suppose you are becoming afraid, or could it be senile dementia?

I guess you and I are gambling on opposite sides of the table.

I don't gamble. I have enough for my needs and more. I don't need any more, so there is no reason to risk what I have. I'll lose it all soon enough. I go where the evidence and the logic takes me.

 

[Greg1234]

Possibly from the realization that science has nothing to say about miracles and imperceptibles.

Methodological naturalism doesn't. Science as defined as the repeated observation of phenomena does.

Citations?Such as...?

This could take a while.

Look here, we can read such assertions dating from the publication of "The Origin of Species" and the theory of evolution is better supported and more understood than ever.Were that true, and it is not, why should they be gratified? These matters have nothing to do with how we treat our fellow creatures, which it seems to me, is the matter with which Jesus was most concerned.

We'll multi-task. We'll stave off materialism and honor Jesus at the same time. Stow your concern.

Oh! Wait! I forgot! What Jesus tried to teach is an embarassment to most Christians. What is important to the Christian is not how we should behave toward others but what irrational inexplicable nonsense we must profess to believe.

Most of those Christians who arbor the teachings are usually at your doorstep because of some misconstrued savior complex they've been bamboozled into bestowing on materialists.

You tell us of talking snakes, magic trees, world-wide floods, pregnant virgins, invisible sky magicians

I'm flattered that you would try to be just like us but unfortunately that's not the case. There is more truth in a single molecule of that flood than there is in Darwin's entire bacteria man escapade. By the way, talking boxes, magic boxes with heat, talking communicators, invisible creepy crawly things, because I'm a visiblist. World-wide fires just because.

and you dare to bring up "secular" fairy tales?!

He didn't stutter. Save your bacteria-men for someone else.

The Bible is solid, in the sense it is unchanging. It is unchanging, in the sense it is not alive.The book is not alive. The words become living truths. Get that one.It is a graven image in black and white, of something alive and ever changing, and it is incomplete, lacking the essence of reality, as a written score lacks the essence of the music, or the written choreography lacks the essence of the dance.

It is solid as in man was created as man. Nothing to do with whether its dead or alive.

The word of God is written in the stars and stones and the shifting, kaleidoscopic, multi-colored, multi-faceted patterns of life.

It is a living truth in the world around, written in texts.

The Bible is only the efforts of primitive and ignorant men to explain the world without recourse to reason or correction.

In Darwinism and the minds of Darwinists.

It tells us not about God, but about what some men in ancient times saw fit and profitable to say about God.

In Darwinism and the minds of Darwinists.

 

[steve_bakr]

Possibly, that's because I never stopped studying.I am at peace. God, if there be such, is going to do whatever he wants to with me. I don't think he would be impressed if I started pretending to believe now. If he were impressed by hypocrisy or flattery, he would not be worthy of respect.Argument sharpens the wit. And I do learn things. I am specifically studying that form of delusion generally referred to as "religion".

Moreover, I am among those Richard Dawkins called "sexed up atheists", which is to say I am a pantheist. (Actually, a panentheist.) It does not require me to believe anything contrary to reason.I am sure you like to think so.You're old? I am not. I saw that Christianity was nonsense when I was seven. Original sin and vicarious atonement make no sense and serve no form of justice. I knew I had to be quiet about my apostasy, though, because Christians can be quite vicious when you challenge their mythology. When they gain power, they invariably begin to persecute dissent.Do you suppose you are becoming afraid, or could it be senile dementia?I don't gamble. I have enough for my needs and more. I don't need any more, so there is no reason to risk what I have. I'll lose it all soon enough. I go where the evidence and the logic takes me.

There you go. I wonder, then, why you feel the need to come into a Christian forum.