Animavore wrote:The Catholic Church say one thing and do another. They go out of their way to have their own 'sceptics' investigate the latest miracle only to officially say 'it's not a miracle' but still do little to ward off their supporters flocking to the most recent likeness of Mary in a slice of cooked bread.

IIRC the Church does advise people not to take these apparitions seriously or to consider them as authorized for veneration by the Church. It isn't the Church who attends these "apparitions", it is people from the church.

How can skepticism of alleged miracles be a bad thing?

Gallstones wrote:Bill Donahue is a .... idiot.
Every group has ... idiots, that doesn't mean they all are.

This thread topic is an allegation that the Catholic Church is anti-knowledge and anti-science. Bill Donahue is not the Catholic Church nor does he represent the majority of Catholics. He has nothing to do with science and no one looks to him as an authority on anything except his own BS.

One finds weird people in every group; Theist or Atheist; for sure.

Gallstones wrote:List of Catholic Scientists.

Rather impressive list.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRLR9jhP ... ature=fvwp

Regards
DL

willhud9 wrote:[
Care to share these experiments? Or are you making a statement that sounds factual but has no scientific support?

Furthermore do babies know right from wrong or know basic survival instincts? Right from wrong also does not equal good and evil. Right and wrong are absolutes. 2+2=4, right. 2+2=7, wrong. Good and evil are subjective to cultures and people. A culture who worships a God of War may present a child sacrifice so that they can victorious over a coming battle. In their culture there religion is good. In our culture we'd call them inhumane bastards and evil. Likewise, a culture that honoured thievery and tricks would be be considered good in their opinion, but in our culture would be considered at fault with altruistic principles. You see the problem with stating that morals make us humans? What morals make us humans? You have not answered that, but instead make blanketed statements about Protestant and Catholics hoping to get approval from other members on this forum. Furthermore, when I presented the case about Adam and Eve knowing right from wrong before you simply shrugged it off as being incorrect without offering why my view was incorrect. Now are you going to address my posts with reasons why I am wrong or are you going to continue to give me one line responses?

I like to KIS and think that if you cannot see that one cannot know good and evil and develop a moral sense, without having the knowledge of good and evil, then you are not worth my time or explanations.

Can you know the taste of an apple without ever tasting one or having the knowledge of it?

As to babies.

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20 ... ty-100511/

If you think I make your case, think again.

We cannot compare reality to a myth.

Regards
DL

paarsurrey wrote:

james1v wrote:

paarsurrey wrote:

proudfootz wrote:They are afraid of losing the power over others that control over what people may think, say, and do gives them.

Adam and Eve story perfect way to start a book about how we ordinary people must accept being controlled by others.

The clergy is political; either they themselves want to rule or they support the exploiting ruler and interpret everything to make for the ruler easy to rule; only for worldly gains; in this sense they are only politicians doing wrongs in the name of the truthful religion; strictly speaking they should not be considered religious altogether; they are greedy non-believers.

Which would exclude every opinion, spiritual or political, of every Imam. Also, the writers of the Koran. Now, where do you get your political/religious thinking from? An Imam? Who preaches from that ultimate political/spiritually controlling book, that was written by control freaks? "Submit!"

From the Word revealed on messengers prophets of the Creator God.

Sure but was he lying thanks to God.

Now, therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee.
1Kings 22:23

Now therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets.
2 Chron 18:22

Ah, Lord GOD! surely thou hast greatly deceived this people.
Jer 4:10

O Lord, thou hast deceived me, and I was deceived. Jer 20:7

And if a prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the Lord have deceived that prophet.
Ezekiel 14:9

For this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie.
Thessalonians 2:11

Regards
DL

paarsurrey wrote:
But there are no morals exhibited without knowing good and evil; a good act done at a proper time or situation knowing good and evil for benefit of the humanity is called moral, in my opinion, otherwise it is an instinct not a moral act.

I agree. To know morals one must have the knowledge of good and evil.

Experiments show that even babies know right from wrong and choose the right so there may well be instincts involved.

Regards
DL[/quote]

Babies of what age?[/quote]

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20 ... ty-100511/

Regards
DL

proudfootz wrote:

Regina wrote:

Animavore wrote:
Plus we need the Disciples Toasting IronsTM - collect all Twelve!

Eh. They do not know who the twelve are.
Strange since as the founding fathers, they are basically ignored by Christians.

That could be an O P.

Why does Christianity not know who formed them?

Regards
DL

Greatest I am wrote:

willhud9 wrote:[
Care to share these experiments? Or are you making a statement that sounds factual but has no scientific support?

Furthermore do babies know right from wrong or know basic survival instincts? Right from wrong also does not equal good and evil. Right and wrong are absolutes. 2+2=4, right. 2+2=7, wrong. Good and evil are subjective to cultures and people. A culture who worships a God of War may present a child sacrifice so that they can victorious over a coming battle. In their culture there religion is good. In our culture we'd call them inhumane bastards and evil. Likewise, a culture that honoured thievery and tricks would be be considered good in their opinion, but in our culture would be considered at fault with altruistic principles. You see the problem with stating that morals make us humans? What morals make us humans? You have not answered that, but instead make blanketed statements about Protestant and Catholics hoping to get approval from other members on this forum. Furthermore, when I presented the case about Adam and Eve knowing right from wrong before you simply shrugged it off as being incorrect without offering why my view was incorrect. Now are you going to address my posts with reasons why I am wrong or are you going to continue to give me one line responses?

I like to KIS and think that if you cannot see that one cannot know good and evil and develop a moral sense, without having the knowledge of good and evil, then you are not worth my time or explanations.

I never said that. I said you can know right from wrong without conflating it with terms such as good and evil. That's my argument. Now if you wish to ignore it, fine, but I'll continue to make posts on all the threads you create which do nothing but try to slam Christians who do not happen to be Gnostic.

Can you know the taste of an apple without ever tasting one or having the knowledge of it?

Yes if you detail the taste of an apple to me I can know the taste of an apple. Likewise, I have never gone skydiving. But simply listening to people discussing skydiving I can know the sensation of skydiving. Now can I have a deep understanding of skydiving without experiencing it? No. But this is like saying someone can not know what murder is without having killed someone. I can understand that murdering someone is against my culture, but unless you can prove that murder is an absolute evil, your point is moot.

As to babies.

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20 ... ty-100511/

If you think I make your case, think again.

Actually you have. The first comment sums up my thoughts of this article:

"This is not a study that shows morality, it shows self preservation. We are social animals, and are going to prefer to interact in a positive manner with someone/something that will benefit us."

Simple developmental psychology. It is not a morality of good and evil, but an understanding of choosing those things which are beneficial for ourselves. A helpful shape can accomplish the task at hand for the infant. A "good animal" is known to be less harmful than a "bad animal." At a core, this is not morality as the infant shows no regards for morality. He or she is simply picking options that help he or she accomplish what they are trying to do.

We cannot compare reality to a myth.

I am discussing philosophy. If you care to read my other posts I do not hold to the existence of Adam and Eve. Nor am I a Christian.