[ironknee]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

God, as creator of time, is outside of time. Since therefore He has no beginning in time, He has always existed, so doesn't need a cause. ( the uncaused cause, the unmoved mover, etc)

so god was always there

older than millions of years...older than billions...or trillions of years...always was there

so why did he wait so long to create the earth? (6,000 years ago)

and why would an infinite being care about time?

time is limiting

[Spheric Harlot]

What did S/He do before the Big Bang 14 billion years ago?

Why did S/He even bother?

You never can tell with gods.

5663/width/350/height/700[/IMG]

[Waragainstsleep]

What else was (s)he gonna do?

The Universe is complicated. I suspect there was a lot of planning. The maybe some revising.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by subego 

You don't see an obvious tension between the search for objective truth and faith?

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Aristotle is the worst thing to ever happen to Christianity.

wikipedia summed up Blessed John Paul the Great's encyclical Fides et Ratio (Faith and Reason) this way

The Pope posits that faith and reason are not only compatible, but essential together. Faith without reason, he argues, leads to superstition. Reason without faith, he argues, leads to nihilism and relativism.

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

What else was (s)he gonna do?
The Universe is complicated. I suspect there was a lot of planning. The maybe some revising.

but wait...christians think of god as male....

so my question is what does a god need a penis for?

[subego]

For banging.

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by subego 

For banging.

big banging?

[subego]

The biggest.

You think Obama has a big stick...

[Chongo]

More Jesuit science.
Magis Center for Reason and Faith

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zw2XchNNRVE&hd=1



Al 12 modules are available on YouTube as well

[subego]

Does it have a dick joke? I won't watch if there's no dick joke.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by subego 

Does it have a dick joke? I won't watch if there's no dick joke.

Sorry, Dawkins does not make an appearance.

[subego]

God's wang deserves a better closer.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Reason without faith, he argues, leads to nihilism and relativism.

And he'd be wrong.

[Chongo]

Please, enlighten us.

[ironknee]

reason without faith is like breathing air

[subego]

Guys, it's either more dick jokes or forty years in the desert.

God knows the next act is a chorus line of naked Israelite hotties. All seeing, remember?

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

reason without faith is like breathing air

Unless you're aquatic

[subego]

Not sure the "unless you're trapped underwater" analogy helps your argument.

[Chongo]

The Soviet Union wasn't nihilistic or relativistic? China's one child policy ( and accompanying forced abortions) is good example, as are the "Killing Fields" of Kampuchea.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

The Soviet Union wasn't nihilistic or relativistic? China's one child policy ( and accompanying forced abortions) is good example, as are the "Killing Fields" of Kampuchea.

Perhaps you should stop confusing Marxism with atheism. Can you name any mass murders caused by atheism alone? Of course not.

[Chongo]

"Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people".

Karl Marx

Stalin:atheist
Mao:atheist
Pol Pot....

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Stalin:atheist
Mao:atheist
Pol Pot....

Mussolini: Christian
Richard Nixon: Christian
Franco: Christian
Rodrigo Borgia: Christian. And a murderer, torturer, adulterer, simonizer, dictator. Oh, and the Pope. He had a lot in common with other Popes.

Einstein: atheist
Ernest Hemingway: atheist
Bruce Lee: atheist
George Orwell: atheist
Stanley Kubrick: atheist
Thomas Edison: atheist
Clarence Darrow: atheist

I can do this all day.

Can we get back to the fact that Marxism is a dangerous ideology and atheism is not?

Or that all dictatorships are murderous regimes, whether atheist or Christian?

Or the fact a person would have to be a goddamn idiot to really, actually think atheism turns people into mass murderers. And that the Vatican doesn't say that anyway, and you are shoving your own words into the mouth of the Pope himself?

I mean, the Pope said something about nihilism and relativism, and you turned it into atheist=murdering tyrant.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Mussolini: Christian Atheist
Richard Nixon: Christian
Franco: Christian
Rodrigo Borgia: Christian. And a murderer, torturer, adulterer, simonizer, dictator. Oh, and the Pope. He had a lot in common with other Popes.
Einstein: atheist
Ernest Hemingway: atheist
Bruce Lee: atheist
George Orwell: atheist
Stanley Kubrick: atheist
Thomas Edison: atheist
Clarence Darrow: atheist
I can do this all day.
Can we get back to the fact that Marxism is a dangerous ideology and atheism is not?
Or that all dictatorships are murderous regimes, whether atheist or Christian?
Or the fact a person would have to be a goddamn idiot to really, actually think atheism turns people into mass murderers. And that the Vatican doesn't say that anyway, and you are shoving your own words into the mouth of the Pope himself?
I mean, the Pope said something about nihilism and relativism, and you turned it into atheist=murdering tyrant.

Reason without faith, he argues, leads to nihilism and relativism.

You mentioned mass murder.

Can you divorce Marxism from atheism? Did Mao and Stalin value human life?

BTW, You forgot the Crusades and the Inquisition.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

You mentioned mass murder.

No, I asked for you to name any mass murders caused by atheism alone, and you could not provide any.

Can you divorce Marxism from atheism?

No. (Or maybe, if you consider Liberation Theology, which was a mostly Catholic movement.) But you can divorce atheism from Marxism; it's a poodles-to-dogs kind of thing. Marxism is a dead ideology, but atheism is the fastest growing perspective in the West.

Did Mao and Stalin value human life?

No. Did their lack of regard for life come from their lust for power, or their atheism? If you were honest, you would admit that atheism was not the cause.

BTW, You forgot the Crusades and the Inquisition.

No one forgets them. Everyone knows what happens when any religion becomes a political power, and any society lacks freedom of religion.

EDIT: after a little Googling, I can see why I thought Mussollini was a genuine Catholic: he pretended to be Catholic a lot, and spent a lot of time sucking up to the Vatican. And he had his children baptized and he was given a Catholic funeral.

In this matter, I suspect Mussolini and Paul Ryan have a lot in common. One day, Ryan will come out of the atheism closet.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

No, I asked for you to name any mass murders caused by atheism alone, and you could not provide any.

The Cristero war that resulted from President Calles of Mexico's attempt to eliminate the Catholic church in the 1920's

"¡Viva Cristo Rey!

[subego]

Calles was a Marxist.

[Chongo]

It was his atheism that led him to persecute the Church.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3TXpKfqeho

[subego]

And it was his Marxism which led him to believe brutal purges were acceptable.

[Waragainstsleep]

Some religious murderers commit murders which have nothing to do with their religion. Some of them kill because of their religion. Some atheists commit murders which have nothing to do with their atheism. Thats about it.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Some religious murderers commit murders which have nothing to do with their religion. Some of them kill because of their religion. Some atheists commit murders which have nothing to do with their atheism. Thats about it.

In the Cristero War, Calles atheism did.

[Waragainstsleep]

Atheism ≠ Hating theism.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

It was his atheism that led him to persecute the Church.

That's a laughable, moronic assertion, and you should be ashamed of yourself.

Christians and atheists who don't believe in freedom of religion are dangerous ideologues who must be shunned and shamed. Without freedom of religion, we are all in danger.

Calles was a tyrant and a murderer because he didn't believe in freedom of religion, not because he was an atheist. Only a moron would think otherwise.

I don't think the many murderous, tyrannical Christian depots in world history were murderous, tyrannical depots because they were Christian, but because they didn't believe in freedom of religion.

Pull your head out of your ass. Your hysterical hatred of atheists is immature and morally obscene.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3TXpKfqeho[VIDEO]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3TXpKfqeho[/VIDEO]

Please don't link to 11+ minute videos of Mexican history when only 30 secs is relevant to your point. Or rather, irrelevant to your point, since it doesn't prove your point anyway.

[Chongo]

In Calles case it did, Catholicism in particular.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

In Calles case it did, Catholicism in particular.

Wrong, that's objectively, demonstratively false.

Simple question: If atheism can cause someone like Calles to murder, did Christianity cause anyone to murder? Do you have any examples?

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Wrong, that's objectively, demonstratively false.
Simple question: If atheism can cause someone like Calles to murder, did Christianity cause anyone to murder? Do you have any examples?

Tell that to Padre Vera. His crime: celebrating Mass

[lpkmckenna]

Keep ducking my question. Here it is again:

If atheism can cause someone like Calles to murder, did Christianity cause anyone to murder? Do you have any examples?

[Chongo]

It sounds like you do.


BTW, You never enlightened us as to why reason without faith, does not leads to nihilism and relativism.

[Chongo]

When interviewing Dawkins recently, Bill O'Reilly gave these as reason why it allowed Calles and Stalin to order the murder of their own people.

lack of recognition of an ultimate judge of moral actions and a judge who sets injustice aright in a last judgement, and thus do not recognize the immorality of murder.
lack of seeing the importance of human beings as images of God and so easily discarding them as merely material things, products of mere chance.
lack of acknowledging an external standard of moral perfection, thus ending up with self-created standards which can include killing for political survival.
absence of guidance by divine revelation of the moral law, such as "Thou shalt not kill".

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

It sounds like you do.
BTW, You never enlightened us as to why reason without faith, does not leads to nihilism and relativism.

Why should I do that? You're the one making the positive claim. How about you enlighten us about how it does?

Originally Posted by Chongo 

When interviewing Dawkins recently, Bill O'Reilly gave these as reason why it was "no biggie" for Calles and Stalin to order the murder of their own people.

lack of recognition of an ultimate judge of moral actions and a judge who sets injustice aright in a last judgement, and thus do not recognize the immorality of murder.
lack of seeing the importance of human beings as images of God and so easily discarding them as merely material things, products of mere chance.
lack of acknowledging an external standard of moral perfection, thus ending up with self-created standards which can include killing for political survival.
absence of guidance by divine revelation of the moral law, such as "Thou shalt not kill".

Do you happen to recall what Dawkins said in response, or do you only remember the stuff said by people you agree with?

Anyways, here's what I think...

lack of recognition of an ultimate judge of moral actions and a judge who sets injustice aright in a last judgement, and thus do not recognize the immorality of murder.
False. You do not need God as the ultimate moral arbiter for morality to exist. Good doesn't need God to be real.

lack of seeing the importance of human beings as images of God and so easily discarding them as merely material things, products of mere chance.
False. I do not need to see humans as images of God to see them as having value. I see them as humans, not "merely material things, products of mere chance." These are false alternatives. I value humans as humans, my cats as cats, my friends as friends, etc. No one needs God to see value in things as they really are. In fact, seeing humans as "images of God" is seeing humans as something they really aren't.

lack of acknowledging an external standard of moral perfection, thus ending up with self-created standards which can include killing for political survival.
There are at least four problems with this perspective.

One, the God of the Bible cannot be seen as "an external standard of moral perfection" because he is a moral monster who kills innocents for frivolous reasons. If there really is a God, I sure as hell hope the Bible isn't an accurate depiction of him.

Two, we don't need God as a standard of moral principles for the same reason we don't need God as a standard for scientific principles or political principles. We base these things on observation and rationality.

Three, all standards, including moral, scientific, and political are self-created and self-discovered. That's not bad, that's good!

Four, even if religion was an acceptable source of morality, it's clearly an inadequate one, given how morally debased many religions and their followers have behaved. It's pretty clear given Church history that they 1) didn't know right from wrong on issues like torture, freedom of expression, forced conversion, and 2) even if they did know, they didn't bother doing the right thing anyways, like in child molestation and the slavery of women in Magdalene laundries.

absence of guidance by divine revelation of the moral law, such as "Thou shalt not kill".
This is just restating the same thing as statement three. Besides, that's a faulty translation; the correct translation is "Do not murder." And killing is not always wrong, it is sometimes morally right, such as killing in a a just war, or killing in self-defence.

This is especially problematic since the Bible demands killing for ridiculous reasons like adultery, apostasy, and dishonoring your parents. If that's "divine revelation of the moral law," I want no fncking part of it!!

Every single one of O'Reilly's assertions is a laughable argument.

You know, there are many credible, thoughtful Catholics out there. Perhaps you should stop looking to a self-aggrandizing twerp like O'Reilly for a good Catholic example.

[subego]

That first one could have come right out of the 10th century.

O'Reilly just got medieval on our asses.

[Waragainstsleep]

Not killing people because of divine mandate isn't morality, its just obedience. That obedience is really just because you want something at the end of it so then it simply becomes bargaining.

Humans can be a product of chance and still have value, these things are not mutually exclusive. In fact, those who appreciate the scale of that chance will add value for that reason alone.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Not killing people because of divine mandate isn't morality, its just obedience. That obedience is really just because you want something at the end of it so then it simply becomes bargaining.

I'm obedient to family member requests because I love them, they unconditionally give me love and I want nothing from them.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I'm obedient to family member requests because I love them, they unconditionally give me love and I want nothing from them.

Sure you do: want their presence, their support, their guidance, and so on. Love is a mutual relationship. Even why the beloved can seem to give very little (babies, dying relatives), we still want and get much from them.

And given the context of the conversation, were you making some sort of analogy to our relationship with God? If so, I can't see it. God's love for us seems pretty damn conditional, if the Bible is anything to go by.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Sure you do: want their presence, their support, their guidance, and so on. Love is a mutual relationship. Even why the beloved can seem to give very little (babies, dying relatives), we still want and get much from them.

You can speak for yourself, but that's not how I feel.

And given the context of the conversation, were you making some sort of analogy to our relationship with God? If so, I can't see it. God's love for us seems pretty damn conditional, if the Bible is anything to go by.

I haven't talked with God before, so I have no reference for that. Some do feel like they have an unconditional love for, and with, God. That's completely up to them, though. In the ultimate sense of what God means to me, "I Am" is unknowable.

[Waragainstsleep]

I never meant to claim that all obedience is observed only for reward, but this certainly seems to be the case when it comes to god(s).

One can usually look upon obedience this way if one tries as IPM has done but in obeying your loved ones there are some layers of complexity to it. They ask; you give; they get happy; that makes you happy. Its easy to show it as self-serving but the god -> believer dynamic is mostly just Follow rules, get eternal paradise; don't follow rules, get eternal damnation. Its much simpler economics.