Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

HHobo

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Paul lived in a time when slavery was not merely acceptable, it formed the basis of society. The great Empires where built on the backs of slaves. Today we might look in horror at the practice but the fact is that there were forms of slavery that provided people with the means to live. In societies that had no concept of social welfare and scant regard for individual rights certain forms of slavery may have the best option for the disadvantaged and debt-ridden to remain alive.

Ancient people didn't have a consensus view that slavery was the great evil that we think it is today, which is certainly a pity for anyone who found themselves with a cruel master. However, we who are convinced that slavery is a monstrous evil live in a world with an estimated 20+ million people held in some slavery or debt-based servitude and countless others who are powerless against self-interested moneylenders like the World Bank. I'll be generous here when I presume that all the atheists on this thread who are so horrified that Paul didn't condemn slavery are working with laudable passion to end it today.

If people want to read Paul's letters through 21st Century eyes then they missing his purpose in writing them. Paul wasn't making a social commentary on the state of the Empire that happens to chime exactly with the morals of 21st century people. His letters, which were addressed to members of a very small and persecuted community spread thin throughout the land, where intended as ways of instructing, reproving and encouraging his fellow Christians in their faith. This said, I don't think it's a coincidence that the Abolition and the Civil Rights movements grew out of Godly convictions.

Finally, given the centuries that have passed between the ancient pagan and Jewish cultures that permitted slavery and our 21st century western cultures, what exactly do you appeal to when you say that this practice was wrong?

You seem intent on labelling every form of injustice slavery. Why are you doing that. Slavery is the owning of another person. Paul was talking about chattel slavery specifically. We can all understand the world Paul lived in. Paul is telling slaves that serving your master dilligently is seen by God as a good thing.

Ok, so it is really very simlpe in this case. Is Paul's preachment moral or immoral by today's standards. Phil refuses to admit that it would be wrong even today.

Christians often argue that God's morality is absolute and unchanging. So if it is immoral today, it was immoral in Paul's day too. Perhaps Paul is simply lying or mistaken when he claims that God sees slaves serving their masters dilligently as a good they can do. Paul may not have been immoral by the standards of his day, hell he might have been a moral paragon. That doesn't alter the fact that he would be viewed as immoral if he held those views today and he claims to be representing God.

Are you making a moral relativism argument for Pauls position?

Also, God does not have a track record in the bible of bending to the social and economic realities of the day or excusing immorality on the basis of practicality or expedience; a point Phil himself has laboured. Paul was either lying or mistaken. If either are the case, the seminal point that sparks this whole thing remains. If Paul can be wrong about that (for whatever reason) he can wrong about his other preachments. The characters in the bible cannot be taken to be trustworthy emissaries of God either.

HHobo

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Well, what I was trying to explain there was folk could have their liberty restricted in all kinds of ways. But if someone doesn't know that Irish mortgage lenders typically have recourse to the borrower, the point will be lost.This might be why people keep pointing it out to you. It's because you are over-egging the pudding. I don't see anything that particularly suggests he thought slavery was the correct way society should be run. He simply set out a view of how a slave and slaveowner should interact.

I don't recall suggesting there would be no consequences to defaulting. I was suggesting that you still have mobility and choice, and please feel free to generously educate me as you have attemped to do here if I am wrong, that the penalties for defaulting on a mortgage contract are not really the same thing as chattel slavery.
I'd be tempted to even suggest that someone attempting to draw even a similarity in concept, let alone an equivalence is....over-egging the pudding?

Phil has gotten quite upset with people for not reading the relevant passage. Paul is telling slaves that God wants them to obey their masters and that doing so is a good thing. If you were a slave or slave-owner, would you interpret this as supporting the status quo?

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

If he was talking today, he might give advice on what to do if you found yourself in negative equity with a full recourse mortgage. Given his advice on slavery, I think it's unlikely that his advice would be to send jingle mail to your mortgage lender and get the next plane to the UK. I suspect he might say give every spare penny to repaying the loan in full, as if you owed the money to God.

I'm sure you could suppose Paul's position on making a pudding too, but then that has about as close a proximity to chattel slavery as defaulting on a voluntarily entered into legal contract. Paul's arguing that you have duty to live up to you responsibilities would be fine, if he wasn't suggesting that serving a person who kidnapped you and now has unlimited rights over your person. This latter is the immoral part. Ignoring this and drawning analogies to legal contracts is something akin to leaping the Grand Canyon I would say.

Doc Farrell

A video of Fr Barron's comments on scientism and God's existence. About 8 minutes long.

http://www.wordonfire.org/WOF-TV/Commentaries-New/Fr--Barron-comments-on-Scientism-and-God-s-Existen.aspx

Morbert

Doc Farrell wrote: »

A video of Fr Barron's comments on scientism and God's existence. About 8 minutes long.

http://www.wordonfire.org/WOF-TV/Commentaries-New/Fr--Barron-comments-on-Scientism-and-God-s-Existen.aspx

Those type of videos really annoy me. Yes, there is something to be said about the 'limits' of science insofar as a scientific theory will always be empirical. But the caricature of New Atheism having a 'scientistic' understanding of truth, beauty, art, etc. is way off.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

HHobo wrote: »

I don't recall suggesting there would be no consequences to defaulting.

I do, when you said

HHobo wrote: »

They can allow the bank to take back what it essentially owns anyway and go on their way.

Usually, Irish mortgages are issued on a recourse basis. That means, if you default and the sale value of the house is less than the value of the mortgage (i.e. if you are in negative equity), your lender can pursue you for the balance owing. The practical impact of this is that lenders can prevent you from selling the property, if you are not in a position to clear the full balance owing.

HHobo wrote: »

I'd be tempted to even suggest that someone attempting to draw even a similarity in concept, let alone an equivalence is....over-egging the pudding?

I'm making a very low cholesterol point. I'm simply saying

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Didn't the Ottoman Turks have a class of administrators who were notionally slaves, but who were personally wealthy and free in all but name? On the other hand, someone living in a house in negative equity is notionally free, but actually can't sell up and move on.

There's nothing magic in the word "slavery".

HHobo wrote: »

Paul is telling slaves that God wants them to obey their masters and that doing so is a good thing. If you were a slave or slave-owner, would you interpret this as supporting the status quo?

I've no idea how I'd feel, but the consideration isn't as relevant as you think. To recap

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

It's absolutely not a political agenda for social change. Paul isn't saying that slaves should unite in revolt, and put their former masters on trial for crimes against humanity. But neither is it particularly a defence of slavery, per se.

Is it possible, given the amount of reptition of points already made, that the point on which disagreement pivots hasn't actually been identified yet?

HHobo wrote: »

Paul's arguing that you have duty to live up to you responsibilities would be fine, if he wasn't suggesting that serving a person who kidnapped you and now has unlimited rights over your person. This latter is the immoral part. Ignoring this and drawning analogies to legal contracts is something akin to leaping the Grand Canyon I would say.

Well, no, becuase the whole point about legal obligations is that they limit liberty. The only difference is around to what degree. And the point in play is more how you behave when you have legal power over another. That's why I say

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

People in all societies experience power relationships. You could see Paul's view as suggesting that enforcing whatever legal rights you have in a situation is not enough; you have to behave decently to others, whatever their formal status.

HHobo

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Usually, Irish mortgages are issued on a recourse basis. That means, if you default and the sale value of the house is less than the value of the mortgage (i.e. if you are in negative equity), your lender can pursue you for the balance owing. The practical impact of this is that lenders can prevent you from selling the property, if you are not in a position to clear the full balance owing

I'm going to suppress my inner pedant on the morgage thing. It is besides the point.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

.I'm making a very low cholesterol point.

low cholesterol point Thanks, I got a chuckle out of that.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I'm simply sayingThere's nothing magic in the word "slavery"

Agreed, there is nothing magic about the word. That doesn't mean there isn't a universe of diffence between a contractual obligation and being a piece of someone else property.
While slavery isn't a magic word, it is a word, a word with a specific meaning. When we start calling or equating situations like negative equity "slavery" we are simply misusing and devaluing the word. The two scenarios are nothing at all alike.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Well, no, becuase the whole point about legal obligations is that they limit liberty. The only difference is around to what degree. And the point in play is more how you behave when you have legal power over another. That's why I say

You are arguing that even legal contracts are a form of coersion, slavery is just an extreme form. There is an argument to be made for that but I could argue that murder is a form of violence, so is gently slapping a misbehaving child. They are at opposite ends of a violence spectrum. They are violence to different degrees. I'm sure you'll agree that we don't get anywhere by calling a gentle admonishing slap on a childs hand to a form of murder. The two examples are simply too far a part to be usefully related.
If Paul had been arguing that murdering people is ok, as long as you hug them and offer them a fond farewell and make sure it is painless, and I were to suggest that spanking an unruly child was sort of the same in principle and Paul was really only saying when you have a physical advantage over people you should be considerate, I'm certain you'd call bulls - hit on it.

Without this devoling into some kind of Libertarian debate, you simply can't equate legal anything with slavery. Slaves by definition have no legal recourse. Slaves don't sign contracts. Slave owners don't have legal power over slaves, they have life or death power over them which can be excised without rule, law or restriction.

but this is all beside the point.

I am perfectly happy to accept that Paul was urging those with power over others to be decent and Christian in their treatment of them. He was also very clearly telling slaves that God wants them to be good slaves and serve dilligently. This was a good that the slave could do in God's eyes. I think this is a support of the institution of slavery.

To take Zom's early analogy, were I to say that kidnapped brides, should not resist or be hateful to their new husbands/kidnappers, that they should instead treat them with respect and try to please them as best they can. They should try to love them, would you not say I was offering some support of the practice? If I were a politican in a nation where this was happening, would you think I was just trying to urge these newly weds to treat each other well if I admonished these bridegroom to not threaten their new wives/rape victims but to be nice to them? This really wouldn't seem like support to you?

We might have some room to let Paul off the hook a little here as he was born to a differnt age and different morality. Nobody form the present day has such an excuse.

Paul himself is really not the issue. He is supposed to relaying God's will. God with the unchanging morality. God who is morally perfect and can't by definition do any wrong. The whole point is that either Paul is lying when he claims to know God's will. God is a-ok with they old slavaroonies or my personal favourite, its all just a pile of invented myth.

Zombrex

Doc Farrell wrote: »

A video of Fr Barron's comments on scientism and God's existence. About 8 minutes long.

http://www.wordonfire.org/WOF-TV/Commentaries-New/Fr--Barron-comments-on-Scientism-and-God-s-Existen.aspx

Very poor arguments against Carroll's paper, arguments that Fr Barron doesn't even seem to apply to his own beliefs, which I find seems to be a staple of these sorts of discussions.

Firstly his point about science and beauty is false. Science does explore issues of beauty, and morality, but does so as part of the study of humans. After all "What is beauty?" can just as easily be rephrased as "What do humans find beautiful and why?", a question that biology has tons to say on. I suspect Fr. Barron would find this unsatisfactory, but that is more to do with his initial assumptions that beauty and morality must transcend human experience, than any legitimate objections to science.

Secondly he goes through the entire video with the question why is there something rather than nothing, why is the universe one way rather than another, as if this is some sort of gotcha question for science, rather than the question science itself is attempting to answer where as theology is happy to just make up an answer.

I kept waiting, assuming, at some point he must actually realise the he has to deal with the follow on of this question, which is why God? Why is there a God rather than not a God. Why is God one way and not another way. If any non-God explanation must be explained with an explanation that details why it is X and not Y, then surely God requires such an explanation as well.

Nope. If Fr. Barron has an answer to that conundrum he didn't present it. He just went on to misrepresent Carroll by claiming that science cannot disprove the existence of God, which is correct but then Carroll explicately states that his argument is not a disproof of God.

Doc Farrell

Considering the content of your final paragraph it is only fair that I agree with your first sentence. The charter isn't that complicated to abide by. I suggest you rewrite whatever it is you want to share minus the teenage tantrum.

philologos

I think the question that should be discussed is whether or not Christianity is fundamentally incompatible with modern science, or are science and Christianity mutually exclusive, namely the question is can one be a Christian and hold science in high regard.

The answer despite the new-atheist mythology is very obviously yes. So, what's left to discuss on that unless you want to present how they are in conflict?

Zombrex

Doc Farrell wrote: »

Considering the content of your final paragraph it is only fair that I agree with your first sentence. The charter isn't that complicated to abide by. I suggest you rewrite whatever it is you want to share minus the teenage tantrum.

Yes apologies, posting while drunk is not a good idea (or in my case posting while high*), as I've often pointed out to other posters. Dose of my own medication as it where. Edited to remove the aggressive ramblings.

*legally on pain meds

GCU Flexible Demeanour

HHobo wrote: »

I am perfectly happy to accept that Paul was urging those with power over others to be decent and Christian in their treatment of them. He was also very clearly telling slaves that God wants them to be good slaves and serve dilligently. This was a good that the slave could do in God's eyes. I think this is a support of the institution of slavery.

I think this the key point of the divide; I'd read the comment as to what someone should do when finding themselves in a social situation over which they've little or no choice. I'm not especially supporting Paul's view. But I would see the "offer it up" idea that he's expressing as having parallels in other areas. For instance, the Bhagavad Gita starts with a description of Arjuna's despair as he sees families divided between two armies in a civil war, and Krishna's advice that people have to accept whatever destiny gives them - which means if Arjuna is a soldier in a battle, best to fulfil that role and fight.

There was even a somewhat similar (but not identical) debate amount early socialists in late 1800s, when they started winning seats in parliaments. Some argued they should use whatever political power they had to win whatever benefits they might get for workers within the Capitalist state framework. Others argued that any form of co-operation with Capitalism only served to prolong the fundamental oppression of wage slavery.

Now, the socialist discussion clearly about politics - and I suppose my point is that Paul's and the Bhagavad Gita's aren't, but express ethics that are independent of any particular political structure.

Which, I suppose, if I was to summarise my long and wandering post, it would only be support for the institution of slavery if a political argument was being made.

HHobo wrote: »

Paul himself is really not the issue. He is supposed to relaying God's will. God with the unchanging morality. God who is morally perfect and can't by definition do any wrong. The whole point is that either Paul is lying when he claims to know God's will. God is a-ok with they old slavaroonies or my personal favourite, its all just a pile of invented myth.

These are certainly issues to be explored, but I think they just take us into that discussion (which another poster mentioned in recent days) of how evil came to be in the world if God is good, etc. If we assume, for a moment, that wrong stuff exists, and that people are called upon to dealt with that wrong stuff, views like Paul's aren't necessarily out of place.

HHobo

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I think this the key point of the divide; I'd read the comment as to what someone should do when finding themselves in a social situation over which they've little or no choice. I'm not especially supporting Paul's view. But I would see the "offer it up" idea that he's expressing as having parallels in other areas. For instance, the Bhagavad Gita starts with a description of Arjuna's despair as he sees families divided between two armies in a civil war, and Krishna's advice that people have to accept whatever destiny gives them - which means if Arjuna is a soldier in a battle, best to fulfil that role and fight.

There was even a somewhat similar (but not identical) debate amount early socialists in late 1800s, when they started winning seats in parliaments. Some argued they should use whatever political power they had to win whatever benefits they might get for workers within the Capitalist state framework. Others argued that any form of co-operation with Capitalism only served to prolong the fundamental oppression of wage slavery.

Now, the socialist discussion clearly about politics - and I suppose my
point is that Paul's and the Bhagavad Gita's aren't, but express ethics that are independent of any particular political structure.

As you say in your last paragraph above, the previous points could certainly be brought to bear if the dicussion were about politics. Harsh realities and all of that. You are right that this discussion, Paul, Paul as emissary of God and Paul as teacher of morals is not one of politics but of morality. It is in this light that his pronouncements are being judged. As Zom has pointed out, and I have asked may times myself, what does Paul's preaching (lets be explicit here, not that slaves should just put up with slavery, but that it is positively good that slaves should serve to the best of their abilities) mean with regard to Paul's reliability in decerning God's wants, or if Paul is a realiable source, what does it say about God's morality. If Paul is deemed to be preaching an immoral position here, why should he be trusted on anything else? Why should, especially as people have been arging that Paul was a man of his time, should we be listening to him at all today?

These questions have been roundly ignored.

We are trying to establish, what should be an uncontroversial common ground, that slavery is immoral. We could have investigated how it is treated by the Bible and God after that and I'm sure all manner of disagreement and varying interpretation would have ensued. We were quite surprised to find that there are actually people willing to defend slavery. The question was not and is not about the economics of the 1st century. It is about the moral view of people in the 21st century on the practice of owning people as property.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Which, I suppose, if I was to summarise my long and wandering post, it would only be support for the institution of slavery if a political argument was being made.These are certainly issues to be explored, but I think they just take us into that discussion (which another poster mentioned in recent days) of how evil came to be in the world if God is good, etc. If we assume, for a moment, that wrong stuff exists, and that people are called upon to dealt with that wrong stuff, views like Paul's aren't necessarily out of place.

I can't honestly find any way, even the view of attempted reform of a bad practice that Paul is powerless to eliminate, of excusing Paul in this.
It could be argued that the kidnapping and rape of women in Afganitan is going to continue whether we like it or not, so trying to get kidnapped brides and rapist bridegrooms to be as civil to each other as possible and that telling these women that people are just somethimes called upon to deal with some bad things etc is an attempt to ameliorate an evil but this would never be moral and would, I think, grant at least tacit approval.

I could never under any circumstances tell a slave that they should accept their slavery and try to be as good a slave as possible as a good in in itself. Only someone who isn't a slave and doesn't care much about them could possibly tell them somthing along the lines of
"If life hands you lemons, might as well make lemonade!".
Slavery isn't just an unfortunate circumstance we happen to find ourselves in. It is an evil purposefully and deliberately perpetrated against us by other people.

Morbert

Zombrex wrote: »

Secondly he goes through the entire video with the question why is there something rather than nothing, why is the universe one way rather than another, as if this is some sort of gotcha question for science, rather than the question science itself is attempting to answer where as theology is happy to just make up an answer.

The video is problematic for an even deeper reason. He doesn't understand "why" questions. "Why is there a universe, rather than nothing?" is no less bound to assumed truths than the question "Why is there a God, rather than nothing?".

GCU Flexible Demeanour

HHobo wrote: »

... if Paul is a realiable source, what does it say about God's morality.

I suspect it says that it is independent of human institutions.

HHobo wrote: »

We are trying to establish, what should be an uncontroversial common ground, that slavery is immoral.

By reference to what? What's the standard that establishes what is moral?

HHobo wrote: »

We were quite surprised to find that there are actually people willing to defend slavery.

I hadn't noticed anyone defending slavery. For my own part, I'm simply not letting the shock value of the word stifle discussion.

HHobo wrote: »

I could never under any circumstances tell a slave that they should accept their slavery and try to be as good a slave as possible as a good in in itself.

I wouldn't want to be in circumstances where I felt that was the best option for someone. I just can't be so dogmatic about it.

philologos

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

but I think they just take us into that discussion (which another poster mentioned in recent days) of how evil came to be in the world if God is good, etc. If we assume, for a moment, that wrong stuff exists, and that people are called upon to dealt with that wrong stuff, views like Paul's aren't necessarily out of place.

Within a Christian context, the reason why evil in any form came into the world is because in the beginning man chose to do what was evil rather than what was good, and as a result man fell into sin.

In short the Bible puts forward that God is good, man chose to rebel against Him.

fitz0

philologos wrote: »

Within a Christian context, the reason why evil in any form came into the world is because in the beginning man chose to do what was evil rather than what was good, and as a result man fell into sin.

In short the Bible puts forward that God is good, man chose to rebel against Him.

Does this mean that man created evil?

Doc Farrell

fitz0 wrote: »

Does this mean that man created evil?

no, but he may have perfected it. even demons must pause sometimes to wonder at what some men and women are capable of.

fortunately we have heroes of all ages who remind us of what we can really do.

Zombrex

fitz0 wrote: »

Does this mean that man created evil?

What does "created evil" mean?

fitz0

Zombrex wrote: »

What does "created evil" mean?

That's kind of what I'm getting at. Phil stated that ' the reason why evil in any form came into the world is because in the beginning man chose to do what was evil...'

This leads me to assume that man created evil, unless god had created it ready to be introduced at man's decision.

By 'created evil' I was referring to bringing something new into existence in response to Phil's inference that 'evil in any form' did not exist in this world prior to man's decision to not obey god's wishes. Which raises another question; is it evil just because it was not god's wish?

Zombrex

fitz0 wrote: »

That's kind of what I'm getting at. Phil stated that ' the reason why evil in any form came into the world is because in the beginning man chose to do what was evil...'

This leads me to assume that man created evil, unless god had created it ready to be introduced at man's decision.

By 'created evil' I was referring to bringing something new into existence in response to Phil's inference that 'evil in any form' did not exist in this world prior to man's decision to not obey god's wishes. Which raises another question; is it evil just because it was not god's wish?

I find it odd to think of evil as a thing that is brought into existences. It is like saying that one day a cheetah ran fast and thus brought "fastness" into existence.

Zombrex

Just a BTW, Fr Barron is posting even more ignorant comments about science in response to my comments on his video on YouTube.

To paraphrase PZ Myers, atheists need better arguments to debate with, cause this stuff is amateur nonsense.

Morbert

Zombrex wrote: »

Just a BTW, Fr Barron is posting even more ignorant comments about science in response to my comments on his video on YouTube.

To paraphrase PZ Myers, atheists need better arguments to debate with, cause this stuff is amateur nonsense.

I joined in as well.

Though I have to say, I don't think he is necessarily ignorant or an amateur. I think you might end up talking past him unless you express your argument in a more formal manner. For example, he is right when he says your position is that of reductionism, and that reductionism is distinct from what he is talking about (which is more similar to a platonic world of forms). The debate you should be having with him would be similar to the constructivism vs. platonism debate often had by computer scientists and mathematicians.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

fitz0 wrote: »

This leads me to assume that man created evil, unless god had created it ready to be introduced at man's decision.

One way or another, that's the issue. I don't think I've ever seen it convincingly argued that "evil" could just spring from nowhere as a result of God-granted human free will, unless evil was created and included as one of the possible options that humans could choose.

fitz0

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

One way or another, that's the issue. I don't think I've ever seen it convincingly argued that "evil" could just spring from nowhere as a result of God-granted human free will, unless evil was created and included as one of the possible options that humans could choose.

This is how I see it too. So, by choosing to follow one of god's preconceived paths (evil) are those who commit evil following god?

Doc Farrell

I have to respectfully disagree with you Zombrex as I find his opinions neither ignorant nor nonsensical.
I'm surprised that you went to trouble to write comments on his channel but then I'm surprised you spend so much time on a Christianity forum. As an atheist surely you believe that when you die in a few decades then its all over? Why not spend that time doing something enjoyable rather than just following Christians around the Internet?
My reason for being here is to share some of the hope and comforts that I have found in the New Testament and the tradition that follows since the time of Jesus. I find those teachings of love and compassion fulfilling and like to discuss them here. I've no interest in annoying people which is why I don't engage in endless debates with fundamentalists of all denominations and religions who need to define themselves by what they are not, rather than by who they really are.

Thankfully typing away here is only a small part of my life, I'm home an hour having spent the evening in the company of someone who has spent the last 50 years of their life helping the mentally disabled, an extraordinary brother. I'm hoping to continue to move towards people like that if I can but I still like to pop in here to share the words of people like Thomas Merton or one of the saints, in the hope that souls will find comfort in their choices as I do.
I genuinely hope you have more going on than simply typing anti theist or anti church stuff on Christian sites. Even if you win every argument what have you really won? Better to do something constructive or enjoyable in the real world, no?
If your life is over in a couple of years why not be more proactive and leave a legacy rather than simply follow Christians around? Or are you, as i suspect, a modern day Saul, looking for answers in an angry way? Are you challenging God to hit you with an epiphany that will knock you off your horse? Are you Liam Neeson from The Grey, punching wolves and damning God? as we all do from time to time.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

fitz0 wrote: »

This is how I see it too. So, by choosing to follow one of god's preconceived paths (evil) are those who commit evil following god?

I'd feel that it's taking the argument a little to far to say those who commit evil are following God; but I do appreciate what you mean. If you throw in an all-powerful, all-knowing God, then he must have known exactly what would happen when he created everything, including free will.

And, if we're talking about a supreme creator, then it's his universe to design as he sees fit. So, absolutely, he can design humans who will follow his will by refusing to follow his will, if you like. And (I'd suspect) such a supreme creator can deem whatever he wishes to be evil.

But, just working through the implications of the model, once God has determined that certain things are evil, then they are evil. I'd argue that, if we're talking about this creator as the ulitmate source of absolutely everything, the ultimate cause that explains everything, there's (pretty much by defintion) nothing that anyone can appeal to that would make God-determined evil to seem like a whim by comparison.

Doc Farrell

Here you go zom, Liam Neeson as Job, as explained by your new favorite evangelist. Skip to the second half if you haven't seen the movie.

http://www.wordonfire.org/WOF-TV/Commentaries-New/Fr-Barron-comments-on-The-Grey-(SPOILERS).aspx

Zombrex

Doc Farrell wrote: »

My reason for being here is to share some of the hope and comforts that I have found in the New Testament and the tradition that follows since the time of Jesus.

You do that by posting videos about a priest complaining about the arrogance of scientists?

Science is important, as it accurate public understanding of science. I posted in response to this video because you linked it. I posted on Fr. Barron's YouTube page because he went to the trouble of making a video full of inaccurate and faulty logic attacking a scientist and scientific standards, and people read his YouTube page.

The question "Why do atheists bother" comes up all the time on the A&A forum, and the answer is always the same, "Because religious people bother." When religious people stop attacking science and rationalism in order to making their supernatural beliefs seem more reasonable, it will not longer be necessary for atheists to respond to such attacks.

jacksie66

This post has been deleted.

Peregrinus

jacksie66 wrote: »

Im sorry if im posting in the wrong area or if im repeateing previous questions. Im an atheist. Full blown you might say (but I dont ridicule others). I was born and raised a catholic. Question is, Is there any way I can officially leave the catholic church as i dont want to be associated with it in any shape or form.

Yes. You just leave. From the Catholic perspective, that's effective. There are no formalities required, and no hoops you have to jump through.

If you want, you can write to your bishop (or to the man who would be your bishop, if you were a Catholic) and tell him that you have left, and that provides a documentary record of the fact that you have left, if you feel the need for a record.

There used to be a more formal procedure that you could go through - indeed, that you had to go through if you wanted to be exempted from certain rules of Catholic canon law regarding marriage. But they dropped that requirement a couple of years back.