Vatican official: Atheist's theories 'absurd'

MattJ wrote:

<quoted text>
I KNOW you disagree with it. What I don't know is how you can live with this inconsistency, since a LOT of what you claim in these forums is NOT proved by the only "scientific method" you admit exists.
<quoted text>
Yet a shocking number of people really do act as if they did -- for a while.
More important: you cannot disprove solipsism with your "scientific method". You need something more. That something more is supplied by philosophy, which gave perfectly find philosophical proofs that solipsism is wrong long ago.
Pyrrhus just deliberately IGNORED the proofs.
<quoted text>
Not at all: how, for example, do you verify the principle of non-contradiction? What model's prediction can you use to do this?

You've simply been plonked, smack bang in the judaism forum.
Solipsism and Pyrrhus...Simone de Beauvoir.
Or are you leading us in a merry dance here?
Pyrrhus must have been lacking one of thse or if we are talkingf the king than it was do or die, never mind the losses.
Daimonon: the inner voice of divine origin, according to the Apologia of Socrates it warned him not to entertain certain actions.

But do continue, makes an interesting read for a change.

it is naturally no conflict between theory of evolution and faith in God.
God is very complicated eternal Being and He has created very complicated worlds, universes, animate and inanimate matter and everything is logical, complexed dependent on each other
I know what the problem is. Our brain cannot sometimes accept this thought that it can be Being, who is eternal, because our bodies and our universe is dependent strictly on time. But our bodies will die, but souls it means our mind ( this part, which animates body )are eternal too.

Tom wrote:

it is naturally no conflict between theory of evolution and faith in God.
God is very complicated eternal Being and He has created very complicated worlds, universes, animate and inanimate matter and everything is logical, complexed dependent on each other
I know what the problem is. Our brain cannot sometimes accept this thought that it can be Being, who is eternal, because our bodies and our universe is dependent strictly on time. But our bodies will die, but souls it means our mind ( this part, which animates body )are eternal too.

Tom, as an agnostic, I cannot find too much to disagree with on your above post.

IF there is a Supreme Being, I would think -- because of all the evidence pointing me to this conclusion -- that this Deity employed the processes as described by science (Physics, Chemistry, and Biology -- the latter of which includes the Theory of Evolution) as his 'toolbox' to do His bidding.

I have read somewhere that persons who are of a Fundimentalist mindset, have a psychological need to have "Answers". These individuals are uncomfortable with not having concrete, absolute responses to the Big Questions such as: "How did life begin".

They would rather "KNOW" the answer, no matter HOW rediculous the answer is -- such as the story in Genesis. Science, on the other hand does not claim to "KNOW" the answer, but instead has multiple lines of independant inference that suggests that the Genesis story is completely inaccurate.

"If you believe in judgement day I have to seriously question you judgement."

Bill Maher

"The Catholic Church is not a necessary organization.
It is a nonsensical organization, a bunch of fat, lazy, do-nothings who have been living off the public dole for centuries. The fact that they do good is a testament to the fact that there are good people who will do good, but the organization is corrupt, it is poison to its core and it serves no good purpose, no true purpose, it's lie after lie promoting harm to real people. The Catholic Church is not a force for good."

-Matt Dillahunty

I think the Vatican's theories are absolutely ludicrous, totally wrong and purely evil.

Common Sense wrote:

<quoted text>
And what Ive always asked for is proof of his nonexistence.

How can you prove that doesn't exist? That's like saying you want prove of your never existent third eye?

lol wrote:

<quoted text>
How can you prove that doesn't exist? That's like saying you want prove of your never existent third eye?

Aside from not proving a negative,(nor the positive, since that is what believe is about.)
theology (bar judaism) caters in abstractions. It's no use attacking abstractions.
LOVE f.i.
A theoretical phycisist 'proved 'that by certain definitions a god-concept would fall outside the realm of possibilities.
So usually we are left with attacking religion, as a man made institution. And end up getting the wind knocked out by such concepts as 'dogma'and 'doctrine'.
As in we are entirely right to state it is all myth, physically improbable and balderdash, and we acknowledge that, but a believer subcribes to our dogma and doctrines.

The vatican speaks out!(lol)

Vatican officials, History of sex abuse for 17 centuries, and the rest of them lied, deceived and covered up the worst sins of all, and the vatican has the nerve to question others. UNBELIEVABLE!

http://www.richardsipe.com/patrick_wall/execu...

People wonder why 1 in 10 adult americans today are former catholics.

im not an athiest and i wouldnt like to call myself one and i am planning to start my own blog in which i would like to give my real portrayl of who i am!

We live and learn:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephebophilia
I used to term that second phase onset pedophilia.
As in man gradually getting older and since they have no concept of decorum and getting old gracefully, but are in their minds-eye still young and attractive.(So a friendly gesture to the old man is translated by him as being found sexually attractive by the person being friendly)
And since he is getting older but surrounded by younger people, the mis-appropriation only grows.
And given that 8 in 10 men have a negative opinion about women, this must be wide-spread.

Ever since reading about that i keep a wary eye on older man.(Lock them up when they are past forty. grin.)

zubda abbas saeed hakeem wrote:

im not an athiest and i wouldnt like to call myself one and i am planning to start my own blog in which i would like to give my real portrayl of who i am!

And what prompts you to make that announcement in this thread?

According to the vatican you are of course an atheist. (Those that not adhere to their god-idea) Ah it's all an unholy muddle.

“Book Description

Evolving out of Eden Robert M. Price (Author), Edwin Suominen (Author)

Amazon Kindle Edition $9.99 Paperback $17.95 4.2 out of 5 stars (21 customer reviews)

Publication Date: March 19, 2013 Length: 353 pages

It is now beyond any scientific dispute that all life evolved by a natural process of random mutation and DNA crossover, genetic drift, horizontal gene transfer, and natural selection.

We are the highly refined but happenstance products of blind experimentation carried out in a design laboratory that has been running itself for billions of years.

We are first cousins to the chimpanzees, descendants not of any biblical Adam but of lumbering hairy ancestors who were making fires and hand axes in Africa hundreds of thousands of years ago.

Accepting this has been especially difficult for Christianity, because evolution challenges many foundational doctrines.

Concerned believers are walking a troubled middle path between Genesis and genetics, threatened with the loss of a cherished faith on the one hand or their intellectual integrity on the other.

Numerous science-savvy theologians have emerged to help them on their way, a whole cottage industry of guides working to establish their own different trails through the hostile territory outside Eden’s comforting fairyland.

Writing with the combination of high criticism and low humor that fans have come to love from Robert M. Price, he and co-author Edwin A. Suominen survey the apologetic landscape and offer their own frank reckoning of evolution’s significance for Christian belief.”

This is a fine primer for those who still have not acepted the reality of evolution.

Read it, then we can have an intelligent discussion of the facts.