Printable View
What about water turning into wine during RC services? A bit of chemical analysis might help prove that. Of course you will now say that performing such tests destroys the magic, which is like parents saying to children that Santa will not come if you stay up and watch.Quote:
Originally Posted by SentimentalSlop
It's wine turning into Christ's blood, not water turning into wine. How am I supposed to take you seriously if you get that important detail messed up?
Woops. Got me! I know that. Call it a senior moment. It's a bit difficult keeping all the different mythological ideas straight. Anyway, how about analysing the wine/blood before and after? And checking the wafer to see if it turns into some part of the human body?Quote:
Originally Posted by SentimentalSlop
We're not supposed to discuss politics here, but religion is acceptable. I view Dawkins' atheism as a religion anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eman Resu
As far as not knowing, I didn't understand the significance of this thread's topic either until further into it. However, the concept that there is some sort of conflict between religion and science is a 19th century atheist myth. There isn't any such conflict.
It is hard to understand how anyone could be an atheist. What atheists claim is that there is no God-like reality of any sort, anywhere, within the universe or without. How could they possibly know such a thing?
They can't, but if they could get science to construct a theory that explained everything without needing any choice to be made, they could explain the universe without needing anything that could be called a God. This would justify their atheism and discredit theism. To even hope that science could do such a thing, they assumed the universe was deterministic and materialistic. So Draper and White in the 19th century, confident enough in science to deliver the explanation that suited them, started the science vs religion conflict.
Ironically, about the same time in the 19th century electromagnetic fields were being described. Fields are not materialistic particles. Then in the early 20th century quantum physics put a foundation on the new physics and introduced indeterminism. It also described quantum reality as not materialistic in any sense that word had in the past.
At this point, the project that atheists hoped would prove their ideology had failed. Even worse for atheists, it also became known in the second half of the 20th century that the universe had a beginning. Chance, a bogus cause at best, had even less time than was originally thought to get us to the state we are in now.
Today, looking at the supposed science vs religion conflict, about 150 years after the original claim that such a conflict existed, one can see that the problem is really atheism. Atheism's antagonism to theistic religion is well known, but the unhealthy relation of atheism to science still needs to be understood. As I see it, atheism, with its insistence on determinism to justify its own atheology, has been a drag on science boxing it in conceptually.
It's not something to be analyzed. We don't believe that it's the same body he had 2000 years ago. We believe that he is taking upon himself a new body and new blood in the material presence of bread and wine. We're not supposed to taste human flesh and blood lol.Quote:
Originally Posted by mal4mac
to quote Aquinas: Christ's body is substantially present in this sacrament. But substance, as such, is not visible to the bodily eye, nor does it come under any one of the senses, nor under the imagination, but solely under the intellect, whose object is "what a thing is". And therefore, properly speaking, Christ's body, according to the mode of being which it has in this sacrament, is perceptible neither by the sense nor by the imagination, but only by the intellect, which is called the spiritual eye.
It is obviously symbolic, not physical at all to be detected by a chemical analyse.
I however would like to ask: What theists claim is that there is a God-like reality of any sort, anywhere, within the universe or without. How could they possibly know such a thing?
Btw, Materialism is quite strong on Religious philosophy, christian even. The clear influence is in the story of St.Thomas. He is a materialist. Obviously, the Catholic Church continual quest for miracles and evidences, are also a materialist influence. Materialsim is simple one of the ways philosophy approaches any theme. And thinking there is no atheism idealism is quite a hindsight. Charles Darwin for example, became and atheist due the death of his daugther. He just lost faith on God. He didnt build an empirical explanation at all such as "god does not exist because i have not found empircal evidence" on him. He just didnt like God anymore, a typical crisis of Faith rather some - i would say - theory of composition for atheism 101, where all steps towards atheism are logical explained with a precision that brings a bird to saw nevermore.
How do you know there aren't tooth fairies or unicorns? I don't see any gods around here, just as I don't see other mythical figures striding down the streets. I don't know absolutely for sure that they don't exists, they might all be living together in Oz, which for some reason is hidden from me. But until I am given a Ryan air flight to Oz I'll continue being an atheist.Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
None of these observations make it any more likely that Santa exists. Electromagnetic & quantum fields are useful models, by using them we can predict how material objects will interact. This has enabled us to develop many useful objects, like the computer you are using at this moment. The god concept has not allowed us to develop anything useful.Quote:
Ironically, about the same time in the 19th century electromagnetic fields were being described. Fields are not materialistic particles. Then in the early 20th century quantum physics put a foundation on the new physics and introduced indeterminism. It also described quantum reality as not materialistic in any sense that word had in the past.
Hardly. The number of declared atheists in Scotland has risen from 27% to 37% in the last decade, and remember that Scotland used to be a stronghold for extreme protestantism. To get an idea about what Scottish religion was like in the 18th century try reading "The View from Castle Rock" by the new Nobel prize winner Alice Munro. From that situation to 37% atheist... it gives me hope that places like USA might get to 37% in the not too distant future.Quote:
At this point, the project that atheists hoped would prove their ideology had failed.
It's easy to understand, scientists require evidence. Why does atheism require determinism? It's simply a disbelief in gods. The world can be as indeterministic as you like and still not require any gods. All the leading quantum physicists were atheists, so atheism was hardly a drag on the development of quantum theory!Quote:
...the unhealthy relation of atheism to science still needs to be understood. As I see it, atheism, with its insistence on determinism to justify its own atheology, has been a drag on science boxing it in conceptually.
Atheists make no such claims. Atheists simply reject the proposition that a god exists until such time as there is evidence to suggest otherwise. An atheist may have any number of ideas regarding the origins of the universe, simply not believing in a god doesn't tell you anything about what an atheist DOES believe.Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
On the physics front: I think you need to get up-to-date. Have you heard of Lawrence Krauss? We now know it is entirely possible for a universe to come from nothing, and our universe actually looks like a universe that came from nothing. The OBSERVABLE universe had a beginning ( big bang) but it's not as if there was a state of complete non-existence before that. Things existed, matter actually predates the big bang, and we don't know if that state of existence ever actually began. In fact, since energy is neither created nor destroyed, that would mean energy at least has always existed, making a first cause unnecessary.
And even if existence itself did begin to exist and we had no idea how it started, that wouldn't make it reasonable to assume it was a god any more than it would be reasonable to assume it was a transcendent, cosmic purple dragon. A gap in our scientific knowledge is not justification to insert anything you can imagine.
Where is he then? If he has a new bodily presence then we should be able to go up to him and shake his hand. It's an intriguing myth! Does the wafer and wine tasted by all the congregations get "teleported" to one spot and used to generate Christ's new body. (Dan Brown please note - this is my idea and I'll be watching for copyright violations.)Quote:
Originally Posted by SentimentalSlop
OK, so it's nothing that exists, like a unicorn. This differs from SentimentalSlops account, does this bit of Aquinas still hold in the modern Roman Catholic church? Or do they have a hard story for the cleverer priests (Aquinas) and an easy story for the congregation ("It's really Christ's body!")?Quote:
Originally Posted by JCamilo
That's wrong, he states in his autobiography that lack of evidence was the main factor in his growing disbelief.Quote:
Charles Darwin for example, became an atheist due the death of his daugther. He just lost faith on God. He didnt build an empirical explanation at all such as "god does not exist because i have not found empircal evidence" on him.
"By further reflecting that the clearest evidence would be requisite to make any sane man believe in the miracles by which Christianity is supported, — that the more we know of the fixed laws of nature the more incredible, do miracles become, — that the men at that time were ignorant and credulous to a degree almost incomprehensible by us, — that the Gospels cannot be proved to have been written simultaneously with the events, — that they differ in many important details, far too important as it seemed to me to be admitted as the usual inaccuracies of eyewitness; — by such reflections as these, which I give not as having the least novelty or value, but as they influenced me, I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation. The fact that many false religions have spread over large portions of the earth like wild-fire had some weight with me." - Charles Darwin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religio..._Autobiography
He thought, as a young man, following William Paley's theory, that the complexity of nature could only be explained through supposing "God the designer". But through a lifetime of empirical research became convinced that natural selection was the better explanation. This, surely, was the main factor undermined his belief in God. Many Christians have lost children and remained Christians, which is hardly surprising as they think their loved one has gone to heaven.
Actually these ideas were around in the 1980s when I was doing my physics degrees, so don't give Krauss too much credit! (Though he is an excellent guy!)Quote:
Originally Posted by Delta40
I don't think atheists need to strain to provide alternative explanations of cosmic origins. Christians can just point out they are speculative, and they would be correct, and physicists would agree with them. Of course, they are interesting speculations, and speculating is part of the scientific process, but only a small part and not generally encouraged. (Boy do I know that! Being too interested in speculation derailed my physics career...)
For instance if a Christian asks, "If God didn't cause the universe then what did", you can just respond, "Why couldn't the universe have been around forever", and quickly get back on the tack that they can't respond to, that is, "Where is the evidence for God!"
I don't feel under any obligation to disprove the existence of God - the burden of proof lies with the person making the fantastic claim. I haven't seen any evidence that a God exists - just a book handed down through history like Grimms Fairy Tales, which proves zilch. In fact, as far as I'm concerned it calls the claim into question even more since here we are in the 21st century relying on the word of earlier man whose understanding was far more limited than it is now. We have a duty to put all claims under the microscope and advance forward. That the human race is diverse in its beliefs yet continues to survive and evolve anyway is proof enough for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by mal4mac
that sorcery isn't it? how does water ever turn into wine? the ingredients are missing. where is the grapes in there? even science would tell you that.Quote:
Originally Posted by SentimentalSlop
water on its own does not make wine and neither would Jesus turn it into win.e if he could then he would saved himself from dying. that's magic or that's Merlin for you. that's what a sorcerer does. turn things into things and save you from dying everytime.
Lol. Yeah, if a woman did that she would've have been burnt at the stake!!! Now I know why the RCC can't have a female Pope!Quote:
Originally Posted by cacian
She did said actually it is not his real body and blood, so she is saying the samething. Also, the church always said it was symbolic and breed and wine still the same. You are just firing at the wrong place.Quote:
Originally Posted by mal4mac
Meh, First at not momment Darwin mentions it is the main factor. Second, he is reflecting after his disbelief is set. Third he is saying he disbelief in the gospels and christianity. Fourth, read the article and notice how until Anne Death the majority his questions about God are in the realm of morality and how when she dies he questions how a god can allow evil. He is only materialist when considering God's influence on natural world and questioning OT, since Noah flood and such were the basic "myths" Llyel debunked.Quote:
That's wrong, he states in his autobiography that lack of evidence was the main factor in his growing disbelief.
There is letters, diary entries, etc. that show the importancy of Anne's death on Darwin's resolution, how this moved his foward to abandon all religiosity and embrace firmly the research since he knew Anne disease was genetical. Certainly, both the theory and the skepticism were there before, but It is Anne's death that changes his spirt and then, it was easier for him to rationalize and do this "futher reflecting".
Quote:
He thought, as a young man, following William Paley's theory, that the complexity of nature could only be explained through supposing "God the designer". But through a lifetime of empirical research became convinced that natural selection was the better explanation. This, surely, was the main factor undermined his belief in God. Many Christians have lost children and remained Christians, which is hardly surprising as they think their loved one has gone to heaven.
He never claime Natural Selection was a better explanation to "existence of god". It is about God's interference on Evolution. He was refusing ID already. And you may notice, Darwin was quite worried about people going to hell and if Anne - naughty girl - would go to hell. It is even in the article that Darwin some of it:
"There seems to me too much misery in the world. I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent & omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidę with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice. Not believing this, I see no necessity in the belief that the eye was expressly designed."
Darwin is worried with the evil caused by such designer. It is his main question because he never found any evidence to disproof god at all or claimed to do so. This is man who saw his daugther suffer because the design is flawed. A man thinking about the origem of evil and considering all his friends will be in hell. This is not a materialist.