Jump to content
Science Forums

chilehed

Members
  • Content Count

    84
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

chilehed last won the day on July 18 2011

chilehed had the most liked content!

About chilehed

  • Rank
    Thinking
  • Birthday 03/21/1961
  1. Only if it were truly a belief of that religion, yes? That's not the case for Catholicism, nor, I believe, for Ba'hai.
  2. This sounds rather similar to a narrow point of Catholicism, which holds this as a possibility. I've known a couple of Ba'hais, and, based on my conversation's with them, CraigD's summary is pretty good.
  3. It most certainly is not an invention of the Catholic Church, because in fact the Catholic Church rejects the idea that we are of a dual nature. In Catholic theology, the word soul indicates "the principle which animates the body of a living being". The Catholic understanding is very similar to the Jewish idea that one finds in the terms nephesh, nuah, and neshamah. Although it's possible to abstractly discuss the body and the soul as if they were separate things, in reality they are intimately united and inseparable: together they constitute a single substancial being. The body/soul is a
  4. Do you really think that the existence of evidence for a proposition eliminates debate about it? That's at least as absurd as anything I've ever heard the most ardent YEC say.
  5. Maybe I was feeling a bit cranky. Usually I’ve got enough judgment to not post at all if I’m going to be overly terse, but I guess I fell off the wagon. I have the same reaction when I hear Kent Hovind bloviating about how entropy is synonymous with disorder, so evolution must be false because it requires more information to be generated which is a violation of the Second Law. The guy doesn’t know a damn thing about either thermodynamics or information theory, and he’s so sure that he does that he’s unteachable. You've substituted the word "proof" for the word "evidence" (which is what
  6. So it wasn’t trivial for Dawkins to give them as reasons why theists are delusional, but it was trivial for me to point out that his reasoning is pitiably flawed?
  7. Dawkins is a brilliant expositor of biology and evolutionary theory, but the fact is that he’s woefully ignorant about philosophy and theology in general and Christianity in particular. For example, (this one’s in an interview he did with Richard Fidler) he says things like “Catholics don’t know anything about the bible at all, do they, the bible’s taboo in the Catholic Church, it always has been, it has to be interpreted by the priests, they don’t trust the people to read the bible”, which is not merely absolute nonsense but nonsense which is very easy to disprove. There’s quite simply no g
  8. I'm very sorry that your dad put your family though that. "Hypocritical" is a very charitable way to describe it. But the fact that your father was a scumbag doesn't prove that theists are wrong, any more than the fact that the existance of kind and loving atheists proves that atheists are right. Religion wasn't the cause of your father's behavior, the cause was irreligion. At least, it certainly wasn't adherence to the teachings of Christianity.
  9. Whoever came up with THAT idea must be smokin' the good stuff.
  10. By definition this is the *** hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. And, in fact, what it means is "People are Catholic because they're poor and ignorant”. What part of “feels sorrow in his soul and destestation of it, and firmly resolves to not do it ever again” is unclear to you? Your understanding of Catholic teaching is extremely poor. I know many people who do. There’s nothing unique about them. As I’ve said repeatedly, this is a problem of the will. People will not adhere to common sense (which is what the teaching of the Church is), therefore they get sexually transmitted diseases.
  11. Well, I for one can't see why, so could you explain it? "Correlation equals causation" is the *** hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. "People are Catholic because they're poor and ignorant" is an ad hominem argument that also begs the question by presupposing that Christianity is not true. I could just as easily say that people are atheists because they’re ignorant, with the same lack of validity. "Poverty prevents people from being free moral agents" is not worthy of any response. How is it absurd?It’s like saying that a woman tolerates infidelity who kicks her husband out of the house unles
  12. My job requires me to take a lot of data in automobiles, and since it's often very sunny I have polarized sunglasses. I've had three of four different laptops at work and every one of them has the screen polarized at an angle, which is a pain in the rear because it means I have to tip either my head or the laptop. Why don't they have them polarized vertically?
  13. Oh, I get it: correlation equals causation, people are Catholic because they're poor and ignorant, and poverty prevents people from being free moral agents. I don't need to explain why that argument is less than convincing. I'm struggling to find a charitable way to describe the absurdity of that statement. You have a very strange understanding of human nature; if that was instinctive then our biochemistry would reflect it. The desire to have multiple partners doesn't come from our instinct, it comes from our will. ROTFLMAO! The effectiveness of a course of action is not to be judge
  14. That might seem to be a reasonable assumption to some people, but it certainly can't explain the HIV epidemic in Africa unless you know of a religion that insists that its adherents must engage in fornication, homosexuality, prostitution and drug abuse.
×
×
  • Create New...