The Only Way God is Real.

originally posted by: NthOther

originally posted by: SpaceGoatFarts

You are so WASP centered you can't even see you are generalizing the whole world based on your idea of an American bible thumper.

FFS enough with the bible argument the bible has nothing to do with belief in a divinity. It's a book. Plus as a reminder there are tons of other faiths and spiritualities.

Can you get this at least once?

No. They don't (or won't) ever get it.

It's because they're not motivated by the search for truth or the development of wisdom, but by fear and spite. They don't comprehend something that gives others meaning in their lives, so they viciously attack it to protect and elevate the ego.

In Western society, the easiest target and most readily available hate fodder is Christianity. So that's all they focus on. If they were truly interested in disproving the existence of God, they would (like any good scientist) recognize the necessity of expanding their inquiry to include other religions.

Bottom line is they just want to piss Christians off. I don't think they care much if it makes any sense.

but..but... chritianity is not logical!!

religion controls the masses!!!

not like science does, tho.

really, i am veddy serious. look to me in my eye!

i love science, do others love religion?
are there not more things under the sun?

originally posted by: SpaceGoatFarts

originally posted by: colbe
Creation is God's doing, I don't care about the time frame. He does not evolve humanity from the animals. Catholicism accepts a certain kind of evolution, I will have to look it up, I forgot the name. The faith does not accept Darwinism.

Catholicism has no problem with microevolution (changes within a "kind" over time), the Catholic Church is opposed to macroevolution (a population belonging to one "kind" changing into a new "kind").

Get it, makes sense. We have an eternal soul.

This is incorrect. Catholicism is against a materialistic interpretation of evolution that would say the soul is purely an epiphenomenom of the body, and that's it. It doesn't reject macro-evolution at all. It only contests it being purely random (I already explained how true randomness doesn't exist anyway and is just another name for our lack of perfect information) and propose it being responding to a divine impulse. I.e. life is not appearing and evolving by chance but by purpose.

It's really impressive how people still believe the Church is retrograde when for centuries it has been looking very closely at the latest scientific discoveries, and reinterpreted sacred texts in their light instead of keeping a literal approach no matter what like some protestants.


More pope quotes showing that the Catholic church considers literal interpretation of genesis as incorrect:

According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the 'Big Bang' and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5–4 billion years ago. 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.

We cannot say: creation or evolution, inasmuch as these two things respond to two different realities. The story of the dust of the earth and the breath of God, which we just heard, does not in fact explain how human persons come to be but rather what they are. It explains their inmost origin and casts light on the project that they are. And, vice versa, the theory of evolution seeks to understand and describe biological developments. But in so doing it cannot explain where the 'project' of human persons comes from, nor their inner origin, nor their particular nature. To that extent we are faced here with two complementary—rather than mutually exclusive—realities.

The clay became man at the moment in which a being for the first time was capable of forming, however dimly, the thought of "God". The first Thou that—however stammeringly—was said by human lips to God marks the moment in which the spirit arose in the world. Here the Rubicon of anthropogenesis was crossed. For it is not the use of weapons or fire, not new methods of cruelty or of useful activity, that constitute man, but rather his ability to be immediately in relation to God. This holds fast to the doctrine of the special creation of man ... herein ... lies the reason why the moment of anthropogenesis cannot possibly be determined by paleontology: anthropogenesis is the rise of the spirit, which cannot be excavated with a shovel. The theory of evolution does not invalidate the faith, nor does it corroborate it. But it does challenge the faith to understand itself more profoundly and thus to help man to understand himself and to become increasingly what he is: the being who is supposed to say Thou to God in eternity.

^^^^^
Clearly shows the pope doesn't believe "adam and eve" were the first biological humans. More like creation is an allegory for the birth of the spiritual human.

Most people on ATS really seem to have no understanding of the Church's position and think all Christians believe like the bible-thumpers. This is ridiculous and almost insulting.


The Church isn't trying to answer questions about biological origins. It's trying to answer two questions science cannot ever answer because they are philosophical in nature:
- Could it be that there is "some form" (please don't make the mistake of seeing it as anthropomorphic) of intelligence in nature and the universe, as it's perfection seems to indicate.
- What is the purpose of all this?


That's the scope of modern religions, while the scope of modern science is to understand and explain the rules by which everything takes place in this universe. It never intended to answer philosophical questions.

Science and religion are not exclusive, actually they are quite complementary and it's healthy to keep a philosophical look at the universe unless you think we are nothing but meat robots programmed to have sex and eat (then I would be sad for you because cynicism never made the world a better place).

Currently, I see in Germany, but also in the United States, a somewhat fierce debate raging between so-called "creationism" and evolutionism, presented as though they were mutually exclusive alternatives: those who believe in the Creator would not be able to conceive of evolution, and those who instead support evolution would have to exclude God. This antithesis is absurd because, on the one hand, there are so many scientific proofs in favour of evolution which appears to be a reality we can see and which enriches our knowledge of life and being as such. But on the other, the doctrine of evolution does not answer every query, especially the great philosophical question: where does everything come from? And how did everything start which ultimately led to man? I believe this is of the utmost importance.

why ain't you the pope?

or at least the foremost bible denier in the world?

originally posted by: tsingtao

why ain't you the pope?

or at least the foremost bible denier in the world?

The pope is extremely smart and educated and prudent with his claims. I'm too young for that.

And BTW, saying Genesis should be read critically is not denying the bible.

Can you at least try to make arguments that make sense?


Christians have never said the whole Bible is literal history until a few protestants started to say so less than 200 years ago. If you are one of them, you are a minority and do not represent Christian faith as it was for almost 2000 years.



Give me one single reason why the whole Bible is a literal and accurate depiction of history, while the Epic of Gilgamesh, the Ramayana, the Viking Eddas, the Iliad, the Oddissey, the Mahabharata are not.

Why would all cultures have epic literature about their history, and not the Jews?

Why would the Jewish creation myth be more true than the inuit or mayan one?


Sounds like racism to me.

originally posted by: SuperFrog

originally posted by: colbe
One reason to show Darwin's evolution is not true. You would have to believe Mary, Our Lord's mother is descendent from the apes!

Give God credit, He can keep His systems straight, evolution happens only within a system, there is no animal to
human evolution.

Humans have a part of God in them, their eternal soul.

You're really funny....

So evolution is not true because lord's mother can't be descendent from apes? Seriously?

This just not show your ignorance toward science, but also how uneducated you are...

If you knew anything about evolution, you would know that we are not descendants of apes, but apes and we share common ancestor, ape-like creature that evolved into different subgroups... we have many remains of different trenches of our family tree and there is no doubt how close we are related to apes, but again, we are not direct descendants of them.

Please educate yourself before making statements like that...

Even pope said that evolution is not mere hypothesis... and that is not one of living popes, but John Paul II back in 1996.

we are decedents of a furry little ball like animal that crawled along the primeval jungle floor.
ya, ok.

we stole the age of dinosaur!

we are egg snatchers, fascist sun shine children. bunch a diamond thieves!

that is your evolution.

originally posted by: tsingtao
that is your evolution.

Why does that make you mad?

Before being who you are now you were literally a sperm. It's even more degrading than being a little animal and yet you accept that fact. You are not coherent.


I love it that your argument is basically: "I don't like the idea that I descend from other more ancient species".

Guess what, what you like or not isn't an argument!

originally posted by: tsingtao
we are decedents of a furry little ball like animal that crawled along the primeval jungle floor.
ya, ok.

we stole the age of dinosaur!

we are egg snatchers, fascist sun shine children. bunch a diamond thieves!

that is your evolution.

Do I sense a bit of frenzy in your tone???

Please don't go berserk... please take couple of deep breaths...

Take a sugar cube with little of water and listen - yes, our DNA does show we are related to monkeys as well our ancestors used to look more like 'planet of apes', wich earth currently is anyway, with those hairless apes being all around...

Absence of education is really scary...

originally posted by: SuperFrog
Absence of education is really scary...

The US are in big trouble for the future of their children if they don't take actions against this:


"Dinosaurs on the ark"

That guy decides what American kids are learning.

I told you this is an American problem.

originally posted by: GetHyped

originally posted by: [post=17900772]tsingtao

yet these scientisimists will shout that they are pure as the driven snow. then again, they don't have any sins.
i wish i could believe that crap.

they know everything too, btw.

Show me a single scientists who claims to be "pure as the driven snow" or to "know everything". You can't, because you've made this all up. This is nothing more than a reflection of your own bias and ignorant prejudice.

show me a christian that has not sinned, besides Jesus and Mary.

a reply to: tsingtao

What? I'm not the one making the claim here (a claim, I might add, that is entirely fabricated).

tsingtao seems really incoherent and mad at scientists.

I wonder if he would be mad at a Christian scientist, or worse, one who proposed a theory of evolution (Lamarck).

originally posted by: SpaceGoatFarts

originally posted by: tsingtao

why ain't you the pope?

or at least the foremost bible denier in the world?

The pope is extremely smart and educated and prudent with his claims. I'm too young for that.

And BTW, saying Genesis should be read critically is not denying the bible.

Can you at least try to make arguments that make sense?


Christians have never said the whole Bible is literal history until a few protestants started to say so less than 200 years ago. If you are one of them, you are a minority and do not represent Christian faith as it was for almost 2000 years.



Give me one single reason why the whole Bible is a literal and accurate depiction of history, while the Epic of Gilgamesh, the Ramayana, the Viking Eddas, the Iliad, the Oddissey, the Mahabharata are not.

Why would all cultures have epic literature about their history, and not the Jews?

Why would the Jewish creation myth be more true than the inuit or mayan one?


Sounds like racism to me.

ya, i'm racist. lol!!!!!!

wtf?

i'm like, an older dude and like, um, a christian, and um, like, not giving a crap about what others believe, like.

why don't you believe gilgamesh?

why bring these things up if you don't believe?

hey, maybe things happened just like it was said!

different strokes and all that...

originally posted by: tsingtao
show me a christian that has not sinned, besides Jesus and Mary.

How about father George Coyne?



What is his sin except will that kids get real education?

originally posted by: SpaceGoatFarts

originally posted by: tsingtao
that is your evolution.

Why does that make you mad?

Before being who you are now you were literally a sperm. It's even more degrading than being a little animal and yet you accept that fact. You are not coherent.


I love it that your argument is basically: "I don't like the idea that I descend from other more ancient species".

Guess what, what you like or not isn't an argument!

about the same as yours, dude.

didn't i say we were egg snatchers?

read much or just read about it?

originally posted by: SuperFrog

originally posted by: tsingtao
we are decedents of a furry little ball like animal that crawled along the primeval jungle floor.
ya, ok.

we stole the age of dinosaur!

we are egg snatchers, fascist sun shine children. bunch a diamond thieves!

that is your evolution.

Do I sense a bit of frenzy in your tone???

Please don't go berserk... please take couple of deep breaths...

Take a sugar cube with little of water and listen - yes, our DNA does show we are related to monkeys as well our ancestors used to look more like 'planet of apes', wich earth currently is anyway, with those hairless apes being all around...

Absence of education is really scary...

seriously?
we are related to banana's too.

wtf?

don't think you're one of the bunch either.

sorry, i was quoting a song from the early 70's.

maybe you people should hijack a starship, carry 7000 people past the sun, oh wait! we don't have one!

your babes could wander naked through the universe. with free bodies, free dope, free music, the day is on it's way.

originally posted by: SpaceGoatFarts
tsingtao seems really incoherent and mad at scientists.

I wonder if he would be mad at a Christian scientist, or worse, one who proposed a theory of evolution (Lamarck).

naw, why would i?

lol!

are you people suggesting i am some ignorant hick fundie?

pretty funny coming from a lifeform that shares 50% of their genes with a banana.

a reply to: ArtemisE
oh so fellow belivers in the the fibonacci sequenceplz google if u dont know about it......starting to relly like this site

originally posted by: tsingtao
seriously?
we are related to banana's too.

wtf?

don't think you're one of the bunch either.

sorry, i was quoting a song from the early 70's.

maybe you people should hijack a starship, carry 7000 people past the sun, oh wait! we don't have one!

your babes could wander naked through the universe. with free bodies, free dope, free music, the day is on it's way.

Yes, we are, as well maple tree and couple other life forms... we share the same DNA probably from cambrian period...

Why is that so hard to grasp?

Ahh, that god image you made from... god that does not have a shape....

Wonder, if we god image, does that induce God has reproductive organs as well?

a reply to: SuperFrog

Dude look at what they believe.... And your wondering why they can't comprehend evolution. Lol. Same people think you can fit 2 of every animal on a boat of the arks dimensions. When they have personally seen more animals then could ever fit. :p

Religion really is a mental disorder. You ignore all facts and logic to hold onto their security blanket.

I don't like fundies, but I have to admit that some atheists calling all people who believe in a deity (more than 85% of the world) suffering from a mental disorder make the same kind of stupid generalizations as fundies.

Check these two for example and tell me who looks the sanest? (and yet I totally understand and accept atheism, having been agnostic for a very long time).


The atheist here looks legit insane and the Christian dude is chill as f**k

a reply to: SpaceGoatFarts

If someone hears voices in any other department of life it's considered a mental disorder.

If someone denies all logic and reason in any other part of life. It's a mental disorder.

If you were to tell everyone you believed in stories as crazy as the biblical tales outside of religion. They would say you were crazy.


I don't think 85% of the world has a mental disorder. I think they are constantly lied to and misinformed.

However I think we give a free pass to religion when it comes to crazy talk. In no other facet of life would you not be thought to have a mental disorder.