> On Nov 1, 7:54 am, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> > Now, here's the thing: in order for the Catholic Church to accept
> > evolution, I think that you would agree that they would have to take
> > the Genesis account figuratively, since it cannot be literally true
> > and evolution be true. But, the "satiation event" is also in that
> > account. And that account is already figurative to the Catholics. So
> > can you really insist that they would HAVE to take original sin as
> > being a literal event, and thus a satiation event? Since this isn't
> > certain, wouldn't you have to look or wait to see how they DO, in
> > fact, actually interpret that?
> Treebeard, I hope you won't mind clarifying something for me. I agree
> that Genesis might not be a sequential account of Creation, or again,
> it might be, but in a way that I do not understand. But surely there
> must be some things in it that we take literally, like, e.g., "God
> created heaven and earth."
> What concerns us here is solely the account of the Fall. Briefly,
> evolution describes the process of the formation of the human race,
> "from the dust of the ground." The Fall was an event, before which,
> we had no sin, and after which, we do.
> Why would such an event necessarily be an evolutionary saltation
> event? Does the ability to sin necessarily stem from a genetic
> alteration?
That is, in fact, one of the tacks that can be taken: that there is
something in evolution that allows for it to be enough of an event to
fit the description. Or that it isn't a literal event. Or any number
of other possibilities.
It seems that it would almost have to relate to our ability to make
moral choices, and a strict evolutionary account would argue that that
develops. But it's a bit ridiculous to insist that that translation
must be literal, and must be to a satiation event at all.
On Nov 1, 7:50 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 1, 4:43 pm, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Think whatever you like. You do anyway.
> Ummm...people with good arguments have often been known to persuade me
> to abandon what I think. Come up with a good argument and you can do
> it too. Hint: try using logic instead of logical fallacies.
As I already wrote,
"the fall from grace . . . was a simple reversion to nature, loss of
grace, not a biological/evolutionary event."
Since this is the case, rappoccio's contention that
"their Dogma of Original Sin is incompatible with [the view that
evolution occurred], as it would constitute a saltation event,"
loses its force, and rappoccio should not have "deconverted."
> And stop acting like a morose martyr.> On Nov 1, 6:20 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 1, 2:55 pm, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Think whatever you like. You will anyway, so why should I bother with
> > > > you?
> > > Oh please, Joe, I can't live if you don't "bother" with me. Your
> > > magnificent presence is all I need. I don't care if you continue to
> > > use fallacies to show that God exists, I don't care if you're a
> > > pathological narcissist, as long as I am graced with the light of your
> > > eternal divinity.
> > > If you ever provided valid evidence to support your wild claims then I
> > > would have to agree with you. I'm not thinking "whatever I like" - I
> > > go where the evidence leads. Yours leads nowhere.
> > > > On Oct 25, 1:04 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Oct 25, 10:13 am, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Oct 25, 11:38 am, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > On Oct 24, 12:17 pm, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Oct 24, 1:24 am, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Oct 19, 7:41 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 11:17 PM, Timothy 1:4a <canfanor...@gmail.com>wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > I just noticed that the AvC home page says, "Conversions = 0 /
> > > > > > > > > > > Deconversions = 1." I don't know if it's said that for 2 days or 2
> > > > > > > > > > > years.
> > > > > > > > > > > Can anyone tell me hoo da guy?
> > > > > > > > > > Rappoccio and he credits Dev :-)
> > > > > > > > > Yes, it's me. I have many people to thank for this, but Dev was indeed
> > > > > > > > > a strong influence. So was Simpleton, LL, philosophy, DreadGeekGirl,
> > > > > > > > > Belly Bionic, and a bunch of others here. Reading talk.origins was
> > > > > > > > > also an eye-opening experience, as was reading Dawkins, Harris, and
> > > > > > > > > dozens of others. I also have to thank ThunderF00t for his "Why do
> > > > > > > > > people laugh at creationists" series, it was great ;).
> > > > > > > > > But I'll speak for myself now, I've got an hour to kill before I head
> > > > > > > > > to bed (trip to Geneva tomorrow ;) ):
> > > > > > > > > I stopped being a Catholic because Catholicism is logically
> > > > > > > > > inconsistent.
> > > > > > > > Yet, it isn't.
> > > > > > > > >There is nothing whatsoever consistent about their
> > > > > > > > > theology.
> > > > > > > > It is one thing to claim there are inconsistencies. That claim, you
> > > > > > > > might support by producing one at least, which you have not done (I
> > > > > > > > will address your error about evolution below). But to say there is
> > > > > > > > nothing at all consistent is a sweeping generalization that you have
> > > > > > > > not supported at all. The burden of proof is still on you to show
> > > > > > > > that "something is inconsistent," at least. "Nothing is consistent"
> > > > > > > > appears to be as unsupportable as "there is no God," or "there is no
> > > > > > > > unicorn:" a universal categorical negative. You might want to stick
> > > > > > > > with supporting the lesser claim.
> > > > > > > > >They accept that evolution occurred, however their Dogma of
> > > > > > > > > Original Sin is incompatible with such a view, as it would constitute
> > > > > > > > > a saltation event.
> > > > > > > > First, the theory of evolution is only a theory about how God created
> > > > > > > > the various species. In itself, it does not rule out extraordinary
> > > > > > > > actions of God, what would look to us like saltation events, if such
> > > > > > > > were necessary. Second, no saltation event was necessarily involved
> > > > > > > > in the fall from grace, which was a simple reversion to nature, a loss
> > > > > > > > of grace, not a biological/evolutionary event.
> > > > > > > > I have explained this to you before, and you ignored my explanation
> > > > > > > > since it did not fit your straw man.
> > > > > > > You are not "explaining" anything.
> > > > > > You ignore everything I say, so you wouldn't know.
> > > > > No I don't. Stop lying.
> > > > > Here's the rest of my paragraph that YOU are ignoring that you
> > > > > disingenuously snipped out.
> > > > > "You are merely making unsupported assertions, but your pathological
> > > > > narcissism makes you think that anything that comes out of your mouth
> > > > > must be truth."
> > > > > Now, either support your assertions (which I haven't been ignoring for
> > > > > a year or more, as you are well aware) or leave me to conclude that
> > > > > you're a pathological narcissist who conflates the fallacies that fly
> > > > > out of your mouth for God's edicts.
> > > > > > >You are merely making unsupported
> > > > > > > assertions, but your pathological narcissism makes you think that
> > > > > > > anything that comes out of your mouth must be truth.
> > > > > > > > But you should know that your
> > > > > > > > rejection of Catholicism is based on a straw man fallacy, since there
> > > > > > > > is no necessary contradiction between evolution and original sin.
> > > > > > > Sure there is. If God uses his magic powers to run the universe, then
> > > > > > > any natural laws, like evolution, are only an illusion, and can be
> > > > > > > altered at any moment at God's magic whim.> >This is contradictory to their acceptance of
> > > > > > > > > Evolution. I was hoping that they would take this finding as an
> > > > > > > > > understanding that their previous dogma was incorrect, but that's
> > > > > > > > > against their dogma too. I basically reasoned things out, and found
> > > > > > > > > that Catholicism is a bunk system of belief, even on a technicality
> > > > > > > > > (let alone the whole fact that Original Sin is pretty stupid to begin
> > > > > > > > > with, but that's another story and not historically how I arrived at
> > > > > > > > > the conclusion).
> > > > > > > > > For awhile I was a deist that attended Catholic services, but some
> > > > > > > > > interesting things are fun to examine wrt this. An omnipotent,
> > > > > > > > > omnipresent, omniscient being would have no reason to be anything
> > > > > > > > > *other* than a deist-type deity. The laws of nature could be arranged
> > > > > > > > > such that no further intervention would be required. Hence,
> > > > > > > > > intercessionary prayer is demonstrably useless. Properly set up
> > > > > > > > > scientific experiments confirm this... there is no observable benefit
> > > > > > > > > to prayer. At that point one could simply say "I'm sorry for screwing
> > > > > > > > > up", or "Thanks for X,Y,Z", but even that's a little stupid. The deity
> > > > > > > > > in question knows you're sorry or not, whether or not you mutter under
> > > > > > > > > your breath for Ten Hail Mary's and Five Our Fathers, or Five Hail
> > > > > > > > > Mary's and Ten Our Fathers, or reciting Odin's Song, or while watching
> > > > > > > > > "The Daily Show". So I realized that prayer was a completely useless
> > > > > > > > > exercise and stopped doing it.
> > > > > > > > > Then a weird thing happened: Nothing at all. In fact, if anything, my
> > > > > > > > > life got *better* after I stopped praying. Cute little anecdote... my
> > > > > > > > > wife and I tried for a long time to conceive a child "naturally". I
> > > > > > > > > prayed constantly to make it happen. Eventually (but unrelated to
> > > > > > > > > this, we decided to put the whole family thing on hold for a bit) I
> > > > > > > > > stopped praying, as I mentioned. Without prayer to turn to when we
> > > > > > > > > decided to give the family thing another go, we turned to science
> > > > > > > > > instead, and we went to an IVF clinic where we were given
> > > > > > > > > gonadotropins and we eventually successfully conceived a son (and then
> > > > > > > > > a daughter the "old fashioned" way, but that's another story). Our
> > > > > > > > > kids are beautiful, loving little atheists who are tickled pink by
> > > > > > > > > "They Might Be Giants... Here Comes Science!" My 18-month-old daughter
> > > > > > > > > can sing "Science is REAAAAALLL!!!" and my three-year-old son and I
> > > > > > > > > walk around the grocery store saying "Fossils! Dinosaur bones!
> > > > > > > > > Evolution! Mass extinction! Stratigraphy!" and we laugh hysterically
> > > > > > > > > every time.
> > > > > > > > > Now, in my Catholic days I would say that IVF clinics are murder-
> > > > > > > > > houses where tiny little souls are stored in petri dishes and then
> > > > > > > > > "murdered" when not needed anymore. But then I started to think about
> > > > > > > > > identical twins. And genetic chimeras. And other blastuoles. And
> > > > > > > > > selecting a single stem cell from a group of, what, a few hundred, to
> On Nov 1, 7:50 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 1, 4:43 pm, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Think whatever you like. You do anyway.
> > Ummm...people with good arguments have often been known to persuade me
> > to abandon what I think. Come up with a good argument and you can do
> > it too. Hint: try using logic instead of logical fallacies.
> As I already wrote,
> "the fall from grace . . . was a simple reversion to nature, loss of
> grace, not a biological/evolutionary event."
> Since this is the case
No it isn't. It's just an unsupported assertion. You have no valid
evidence of a "fall from grace."
I guess you can't take a hint.
> rappoccio's contention that
> "their Dogma of Original Sin is incompatible with [the view that
> evolution occurred], as it would constitute a saltation event,"
Sorry. You're going to have to quote exactly what rappoccio said. I've
just been talking to another Christian who doctored a quote from
Socrates to make it seem as if Socrates was a Christian. Unbelievable.
I don't exactly trust that you will quote what rappoccio said
accurately or in context.
> loses its force, and rappoccio should not have "deconverted."
I've read several descriptions of rappoccio's deconversion story, and
I disagree with you. There's way more to it than simply him
disagreeing with the dogma of Original SIn. He attributes his
deconversion to several factors, and one of them is you. Rappoccio
should have converted, because he's one happy ex-Catholic.
> > And stop acting like a morose martyr.> On Nov 1, 6:20 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Nov 1, 2:55 pm, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Think whatever you like. You will anyway, so why should I bother with
> > > > > you?
> > > > Oh please, Joe, I can't live if you don't "bother" with me. Your
> > > > magnificent presence is all I need. I don't care if you continue to
> > > > use fallacies to show that God exists, I don't care if you're a
> > > > pathological narcissist, as long as I am graced with the light of your
> > > > eternal divinity.
> > > > If you ever provided valid evidence to support your wild claims then I
> > > > would have to agree with you. I'm not thinking "whatever I like" - I
> > > > go where the evidence leads. Yours leads nowhere.
> > > > > On Oct 25, 1:04 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Oct 25, 10:13 am, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > On Oct 25, 11:38 am, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Oct 24, 12:17 pm, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Oct 24, 1:24 am, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Oct 19, 7:41 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 11:17 PM, Timothy 1:4a <canfanor...@gmail.com>wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > I just noticed that the AvC home page says, "Conversions = 0 /
> > > > > > > > > > > > Deconversions = 1." I don't know if it's said that for 2 days or 2
> > > > > > > > > > > > years.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Can anyone tell me hoo da guy?
> > > > > > > > > > > Rappoccio and he credits Dev :-)
> > > > > > > > > > Yes, it's me. I have many people to thank for this, but Dev was indeed
> > > > > > > > > > a strong influence. So was Simpleton, LL, philosophy, DreadGeekGirl,
> > > > > > > > > > Belly Bionic, and a bunch of others here. Reading talk.origins was
> > > > > > > > > > also an eye-opening experience, as was reading Dawkins, Harris, and
> > > > > > > > > > dozens of others. I also have to thank ThunderF00t for his "Why do
> > > > > > > > > > people laugh at creationists" series, it was great ;).
> > > > > > > > > > But I'll speak for myself now, I've got an hour to kill before I head
> > > > > > > > > > to bed (trip to Geneva tomorrow ;) ):
> > > > > > > > > > I stopped being a Catholic because Catholicism is logically
> > > > > > > > > > inconsistent.
> > > > > > > > > Yet, it isn't.
> > > > > > > > > >There is nothing whatsoever consistent about their
> > > > > > > > > > theology.
> > > > > > > > > It is one thing to claim there are inconsistencies. That claim, you
> > > > > > > > > might support by producing one at least, which you have not done (I
> > > > > > > > > will address your error about evolution below). But to say there is
> > > > > > > > > nothing at all consistent is a sweeping generalization that you have
> > > > > > > > > not supported at all. The burden of proof is still on you to show
> > > > > > > > > that "something is inconsistent," at least. "Nothing is consistent"
> > > > > > > > > appears to be as unsupportable as "there is no God," or "there is no
> > > > > > > > > unicorn:" a universal categorical negative. You might want to stick
> > > > > > > > > with supporting the lesser claim.
> > > > > > > > > >They accept that evolution occurred, however their Dogma of
> > > > > > > > > > Original Sin is incompatible with such a view, as it would constitute
> > > > > > > > > > a saltation event.
> > > > > > > > > First, the theory of evolution is only a theory about how God created
> > > > > > > > > the various species. In itself, it does not rule out extraordinary
> > > > > > > > > actions of God, what would look to us like saltation events, if such
> > > > > > > > > were necessary. Second, no saltation event was necessarily involved
> > > > > > > > > in the fall from grace, which was a simple reversion to nature, a loss
> > > > > > > > > of grace, not a biological/evolutionary event.
> > > > > > > > > I have explained this to you before, and you ignored my explanation
> > > > > > > > > since it did not fit your straw man.
> > > > > > > > You are not "explaining" anything.
> > > > > > > You ignore everything I say, so you wouldn't know.
> > > > > > No I don't. Stop lying.
> > > > > > Here's the rest of my paragraph that YOU are ignoring that you
> > > > > > disingenuously snipped out.
> > > > > > "You are merely making unsupported assertions, but your pathological
> > > > > > narcissism makes you think that anything that comes out of your mouth
> > > > > > must be truth."
> > > > > > Now, either support your assertions (which I haven't been ignoring for
> > > > > > a year or more, as you are well aware) or leave me to conclude that
> > > > > > you're a pathological narcissist who conflates the fallacies that fly
> > > > > > out of your mouth for God's edicts.
> > > > > > > >You are merely making unsupported
> > > > > > > > assertions, but your pathological narcissism makes you think that
> > > > > > > > anything that comes out of your mouth must be truth.
> > > > > > > > > But you should know that your
> > > > > > > > > rejection of Catholicism is based on a straw man fallacy, since there
> > > > > > > > > is no necessary contradiction between evolution and original sin.
> > > > > > > > Sure there is. If God uses his magic powers to run the universe, then
> > > > > > > > any natural laws, like evolution, are only an illusion, and can be
> > > > > > > > altered at any moment at God's magic whim.> >This is contradictory to their acceptance of
> > > > > > > > > > Evolution. I was hoping that they would take this finding as an
> > > > > > > > > > understanding that their previous dogma was incorrect, but that's
> > > > > > > > > > against their dogma too. I basically reasoned things out, and found
> > > > > > > > > > that Catholicism is a bunk system of belief, even on a technicality
> > > > > > > > > > (let alone the whole fact that Original Sin is pretty stupid to begin
> > > > > > > > > > with, but that's another story and not historically how I arrived at
> > > > > > > > > > the conclusion).
> > > > > > > > > > For awhile I was a deist that attended Catholic services, but some
> > > > > > > > > > interesting things are fun to examine wrt this. An omnipotent,
> > > > > > > > > > omnipresent, omniscient being would have no reason to be anything
> > > > > > > > > > *other* than a deist-type deity. The laws of nature could be arranged
> > > > > > > > > > such that no further intervention would be required. Hence,
> > > > > > > > > > intercessionary prayer is demonstrably useless. Properly set up
> > > > > > > > > > scientific experiments confirm this... there is no observable benefit
> > > > > > > > > > to prayer. At that point one could simply say "I'm sorry for screwing
> > > > > > > > > > up", or "Thanks for X,Y,Z", but even that's a little stupid. The deity
> > > > > > > > > > in question knows you're sorry or not, whether or not you mutter under
> > > > > > > > > > your breath for Ten Hail Mary's and Five Our Fathers, or Five Hail
> > > > > > > > > > Mary's and Ten Our Fathers, or reciting Odin's Song, or while watching
> > > > > > > > > > "The Daily Show". So I realized that prayer was a completely useless
> > > > > > > > > > exercise and stopped doing it.
> > > > > > > > > > Then a weird thing happened: Nothing at all. In fact, if anything, my
> > > > > > > > > > life got *better* after I stopped praying. Cute little anecdote... my
> > > > > > > > > > wife and I tried for a long time to conceive a child "naturally". I
> > > > > > > > > > prayed constantly to make it happen. Eventually (but unrelated to
> > > > > > > > > > this, we decided to put the whole family thing on hold for a bit) I
> > > > > > > > > > stopped praying, as I mentioned. Without prayer to turn to when we
> > > > > > > > > > decided to give the family thing another go, we turned to science
> > > > > > > > > > instead, and we went to an IVF clinic where we were given
> On Nov 1, 6:10 pm, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 1, 7:54 am, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> > > Now, here's the thing: in order for the Catholic Church to accept
> > > evolution, I think that you would agree that they would have to take
> > > the Genesis account figuratively, since it cannot be literally true
> > > and evolution be true. But, the "satiation event" is also in that
> > > account. And that account is already figurative to the Catholics. So
> > > can you really insist that they would HAVE to take original sin as
> > > being a literal event, and thus a satiation event? Since this isn't
> > > certain, wouldn't you have to look or wait to see how they DO, in
> > > fact, actually interpret that?
> > Treebeard, I hope you won't mind clarifying something for me. I agree
> > that Genesis might not be a sequential account of Creation, or again,
> > it might be, but in a way that I do not understand. But surely there
> > must be some things in it that we take literally, like, e.g., "God
> > created heaven and earth."
> > What concerns us here is solely the account of the Fall. Briefly,
> > evolution describes the process of the formation of the human race,
> > "from the dust of the ground." The Fall was an event, before which,
> > we had no sin, and after which, we do.
> > Why would such an event necessarily be an evolutionary saltation
> > event? Does the ability to sin necessarily stem from a genetic
> > alteration?
> That is, in fact, one of the tacks that can be taken: that there is
> something in evolution that allows for it to be enough of an event to
> fit the description. Or that it isn't a literal event. Or any number
> of other possibilities.
> It seems that it would almost have to relate to our ability to make
> moral choices, and a strict evolutionary account would argue that that
> develops. But it's a bit ridiculous to insist that that translation
> must be literal, and must be to a satiation event at all.
Supposing the Theos, as it were, behaved like a Deus up until a
certain point, i.e., suppose evolution as a natural process operating
according to the ordinary principles of chemistry and quantum physics,
and capable of producing hominids without any kind of miraculous
intervention. That, essentially, is the supposition we require, to
accept evolution the way current science sees it. Now rappoccio would
assert, I think, that evolution as herein described rules out any kind
of a situation where one day, human beings existed on earth but there
was no sin, and the next day, human beings existed on earth and there
was sin. There cannot have been a primordial innocence and a fall
from grace. The behaviors we know as sins must all be natural
behaviors of human beings, and our calling them sins must be something
that gradually developed, as we developed a sense of justice and
morality and noticed that some of our behaviors did not match up.
This assumes --- and rightly, I believe --- that sins are behaviors
that present at least a potential evolutionary advantage, or at least
do not pose an evolutionary threat to our continued existence. So for
example, the tendency to murder another human being who is in
competition for the same limited resources would be an survival
advantage of the one who did murder over the one who was murdered.
This is a simple and obvious example, but it will do for a
demonstration of the principle. It seems likely that also, a sense of
morality that murder is wrong would tend to cut down on murders, thus
enhancing the survival odds of the race as a whole. Thus murder would
be a tendency but not an unchecked tendency, and the development of
morality would be a check on murder as a survival technique.
The above is certainly a plausible explanation for the origin of our
concept of sin and even of the origin of religion. The concept of sin
involves the concept of moral agency and morally significant free
will. It assumes moral realism. The case for moral realism is
difficult to make without God, but not, perhaps, impossible.
Evolution by itself would tend to suggest moral relativism, and
convention as the source of common morality, rather than any
transcendent standard. We treat as taboo, those activities that human
beings in general have traditionally treated as taboo, without
necessarily any rhyme or reason, but simply because it correlates
somehow with how our brains have evolved. Any reality to our moral
code is then de facto, as opposed to proper. This places the standard
in the actual behavior of human beings, rather than in a command of a
perfect Creator. It is difficult then to imagine why we would view
any particular moral behavior as ideal. And certainly, in such a
case, the concept of moral perfection would be incoherent.
Yet, it is precisely this, that we find in the Book of Genesis. Adam
and Eve, before the Fall, existed in a state of moral perfection, or
sinlessness. The concept of sin is the concept of undesirable
behavior, behavior that we can do without and would be better off
without. The fall from grace is a true fall, a misstep from a state
of original perfection. To the point, not an evolutionary event at
all. If the fall from grace is as it is described in Genesis, and if
evolution describes the proper development of the human race as an
improvement over mere mud, then the fall from grace was an event that
can only be described as devolutionary rather than evolutionary. It
was a step backwards, not a step forward. It was a mistake, not a
good idea.
Now no one will deny that human beings are beings capable of making
mistakes. The behaviors we call sins can all be classed as mistakes,
even those that are deliberate, since sin always has unforeseen
consequences. As means to our ultimate happiness, they necessarily
fall short, and that, in the end, is the simplest reason to want to be
rid of such behaviors. And here is an important point: they may have
served us in the past as means to our survival and our improvement as
a species. They may have conferred an evolutionary advantage on us in
the past. But once we become aware of the concept of right and wrong,
sin no longer confers an advantage because it is simply wrong. Any
survival advantage that sin could confer would be negated by the basic
wrongness of the act. But, if these behaviors in us come from
centuries of evolution, then it is hard to see how we could rid
ourselves of them just by realizing that they were wrong. The very
idea that some of our behaviors are wrong is inconvenient for us, and
troubles us, and it seems that if all these things evolved, then there
would necessarily have been many situations where a hominid with a
conscience was in competition with one without a conscience. If that
conscience works to prevent the survival-enhancing behaviors we call
sin, it seems that hominids without consciences would have a distinct
advantage, and should have out-survived those with consciences.
However, it is also possible that things are not quite as simple as
all that. Conscience could be a subjectively inconvenient by-product
of a different and necessary brain development. It is possible that
the kind of brain processes that are typically human happen also to
produce a sense of morality that does not always match our behavior,
which puts us in the unfortunate situation where we tend to create
religions and the like.
Or, as an alternate explanation, we have the account of Genesis. The
difference between the process of evolution and the creation of man in
Genesis is nil. There are the same forces in the world propelling
evolution forward to create hominids. Hominids are not necessarily
human beings. Hominids are simply the most advanced of all animals,
possessing brains large enough to be useful to a creature with an
immortal soul. Hominids with immortal souls are human beings. Adam
had a soul, as Genesis makes clear,
Genesis 2:7 And the Lord God formed man of the slime of the earth: and
breathed into his face the breath of life, and man became a living
soul.
Adam's soul was not the product of evolution, but was created directly
by God. Since he had a soul, it was inappropriate for God to require
Him to suffer the effects of the world of good and evil, since Adam
was innocent, and an innocent soul does not deserve to suffer. So God
protected him against good and evil, physically, by placing him in the
Garden, and spiritually, by infusing him with grace. Had Adam not
eaten of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil, he would have
remained in a state of moral perfection, and never would have suffered
or died. But he did eat of that fruit, and so God withdrew from him
His protection, both the protection of the Garden, and the protection
of grace. Thus was Adam left in his natural state, the product of
evolution, but with an immortal soul that sought God. And the seeking
of God is responsible for the creation of religions.
Thus the idea that some saltation event in evolution was necessary for
there to be Original Sin is based on a misconception of what Original
Sin is. It is not, in fact, a break in evolution, as if the behaviors
we call sins have not their analogues in other animals. It is simply
evolution uninterrupted by grace. It was God's protection of Adam and
Eve that was extraordinary, not the natural process that produced
their bodies. The story of the Garden of Eden is the story of a
temporary reprieve from that futility to which all creation is
subject, as the Scripture says,
Romans 8:20 For the creature was made subject to vanity: not
willingly, but by reason of him that made it subject, in hope.
> On Nov 1, 10:12 pm, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 1, 7:50 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 1, 4:43 pm, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Think whatever you like. You do anyway.
> > > Ummm...people with good arguments have often been known to persuade me
> > > to abandon what I think. Come up with a good argument and you can do
> > > it too. Hint: try using logic instead of logical fallacies.
> > As I already wrote,
> > "the fall from grace . . . was a simple reversion to nature, loss of
> > grace, not a biological/evolutionary event."
> > Since this is the case
> No it isn't. It's just an unsupported assertion. You have no valid
> evidence of a "fall from grace."
> I guess you can't take a hint.
> > rappoccio's contention that
> > "their Dogma of Original Sin is incompatible with [the view that
> > evolution occurred], as it would constitute a saltation event,"
> Sorry. You're going to have to quote exactly what rappoccio said. I've
> just been talking to another Christian who doctored a quote from
> Socrates to make it seem as if Socrates was a Christian. Unbelievable.
> I don't exactly trust that you will quote what rappoccio said
> accurately or in context.
> > loses its force, and rappoccio should not have "deconverted."
> I've read several descriptions of rappoccio's deconversion story, and
> I disagree with you. There's way more to it than simply him
> disagreeing with the dogma of Original SIn. He attributes his
> deconversion to several factors, and one of them is you. Rappoccio
> should have converted, because he's one happy ex-Catholic.
> > > And stop acting like a morose martyr.> On Nov 1, 6:20 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Nov 1, 2:55 pm, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > Think whatever you like. You will anyway, so why should I bother with
> > > > > > you?
> > > > > Oh please, Joe, I can't live if you don't "bother" with me. Your
> > > > > magnificent presence is all I need. I don't care if you continue to
> > > > > use fallacies to show that God exists, I don't care if you're a
> > > > > pathological narcissist, as long as I am graced with the light of your
> > > > > eternal divinity.
> > > > > If you ever provided valid evidence to support your wild claims then I
> > > > > would have to agree with you. I'm not thinking "whatever I like" - I
> > > > > go where the evidence leads. Yours leads nowhere.
> > > > > > On Oct 25, 1:04 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > On Oct 25, 10:13 am, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Oct 25, 11:38 am, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Oct 24, 12:17 pm, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Oct 24, 1:24 am, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 19, 7:41 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 11:17 PM, Timothy 1:4a <canfanor...@gmail.com>wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I just noticed that the AvC home page says, "Conversions = 0 /
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Deconversions = 1." I don't know if it's said that for 2 days or 2
> > > > > > > > > > > > > years.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Can anyone tell me hoo da guy?
> > > > > > > > > > > > Rappoccio and he credits Dev :-)
> > > > > > > > > > > Yes, it's me. I have many people to thank for this, but Dev was indeed
> > > > > > > > > > > a strong influence. So was Simpleton, LL, philosophy, DreadGeekGirl,
> > > > > > > > > > > Belly Bionic, and a bunch of others here. Reading talk.origins was
> > > > > > > > > > > also an eye-opening experience, as was reading Dawkins, Harris, and
> > > > > > > > > > > dozens of others. I also have to thank ThunderF00t for his "Why do
> > > > > > > > > > > people laugh at creationists" series, it was great ;).
> > > > > > > > > > > But I'll speak for myself now, I've got an hour to kill before I head
> > > > > > > > > > > to bed (trip to Geneva tomorrow ;) ):
> > > > > > > > > > > I stopped being a Catholic because Catholicism is logically
> > > > > > > > > > > inconsistent.
> > > > > > > > > > Yet, it isn't.
> > > > > > > > > > >There is nothing whatsoever consistent about their
> > > > > > > > > > > theology.
> > > > > > > > > > It is one thing to claim there are inconsistencies. That claim, you
> > > > > > > > > > might support by producing one at least, which you have not done (I
> > > > > > > > > > will address your error about evolution below). But to say there is
> > > > > > > > > > nothing at all consistent is a sweeping generalization that you have
> > > > > > > > > > not supported at all. The burden of proof is still on you to show
> > > > > > > > > > that "something is inconsistent," at least. "Nothing is consistent"
> > > > > > > > > > appears to be as unsupportable as "there is no God," or "there is no
> > > > > > > > > > unicorn:" a universal categorical negative. You might want to stick
> > > > > > > > > > with supporting the lesser claim.
> > > > > > > > > > >They accept that evolution occurred, however their Dogma of
> > > > > > > > > > > Original Sin is incompatible with such a view, as it would constitute
> > > > > > > > > > > a saltation event.
> > > > > > > > > > First, the theory of evolution is only a theory about how God created
> > > > > > > > > > the various species. In itself, it does not rule out extraordinary
> > > > > > > > > > actions of God, what would look to us like saltation events, if such
> > > > > > > > > > were necessary. Second, no saltation event was necessarily involved
> > > > > > > > > > in the fall from grace, which was a simple reversion to nature, a loss
> > > > > > > > > > of grace, not a biological/evolutionary event.
> > > > > > > > > > I have explained this to you before, and you ignored my explanation
> > > > > > > > > > since it did not fit your straw man.
> > > > > > > > > You are not "explaining" anything.
> > > > > > > > You ignore everything I say, so you wouldn't know.
> > > > > > > No I don't. Stop lying.
> > > > > > > Here's the rest of my paragraph that YOU are ignoring that you
> > > > > > > disingenuously snipped out.
> > > > > > > "You are merely making unsupported assertions, but your pathological
> > > > > > > narcissism makes you think that anything that comes out of your mouth
> > > > > > > must be truth."
> > > > > > > Now, either support your assertions (which I haven't been ignoring for
> > > > > > > a year or more, as you are well aware) or leave me to conclude that
> > > > > > > you're a pathological narcissist who conflates the fallacies that fly
> > > > > > > out of your mouth for God's edicts.
> > > > > > > > >You are merely making unsupported
> > > > > > > > > assertions, but your pathological narcissism makes you think that
> > > > > > > > > anything that comes out of your mouth must be truth.
> > > > > > > > > > But you should know that your
> > > > > > > > > > rejection of Catholicism is based on a straw man fallacy, since there
> > > > > > > > > > is no necessary contradiction between evolution and original sin.
> > > > > > > > > Sure there is. If God uses his magic powers to run the universe, then
> > > > > > > > > any natural laws, like evolution, are only an illusion, and can be
> > > > > > > > > altered at any moment at God's magic whim.> >This is contradictory to their acceptance of
> > > > > > > > > > > Evolution. I was hoping that they would take this finding as an
> > > > > > > > > > > understanding that their previous dogma was incorrect, but that's
> > > > > > > > > > > against their dogma too. I basically reasoned things out, and found
> > > > > > > > > > > that Catholicism is a bunk system of belief, even on a technicality
> > > > > > > > > > > (let alone the whole fact that Original Sin is pretty stupid to begin
> > > > > > > > > > > with, but that's another story and not historically how I arrived at
> > > > > > > > > > > the conclusion).
> > > > > > > > > > > For awhile I was a deist that attended Catholic services, but some
> > > > > > > > > > > interesting things are fun to examine wrt this. An omnipotent,
> > > > > > > > > > > omnipresent, omniscient being would have no reason to be anything
> > > > > > > > > > > *other* than a deist-type deity. The laws of nature could be arranged
> > > > > > > > > > > such that no further intervention would be required. Hence,
> > > > > > > > > > > intercessionary prayer is demonstrably useless. Properly set up
> > > > > > > > > > > scientific experiments confirm this... there is no observable benefit
> > > > > > > > > > > to prayer. At that point one could simply say "I'm sorry for screwing
> > > > > > > > > > > up", or "Thanks for X,Y,Z", but even that's a little stupid. The deity
> > > > > > > > > > > in question knows you're sorry or not, whether or not you mutter under
> > > > > > > > > > > your breath for Ten Hail Mary's and Five Our Fathers, or Five Hail
> > > > > > > > > > > Mary's and Ten Our Fathers, or reciting Odin's Song, or while watching
> > > > > > > > > > > "The Daily Show". So I realized that prayer was a completely useless
> > > > > > > > > > > exercise and stopped doing it.
> > > > > > > > > > > Then a weird thing happened: Nothing at all. In fact, if anything, my
> > > > > > > > > > > life got *better* after I stopped praying. Cute little anecdote... my
> > > > > > > > > > > wife and I tried for a long time to conceive a child "naturally". I
On Nov 1, 11:25 pm, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> No, I can take a hint.
No, you can't. I hinted that you might be able to make a persuasive
argument if you didn't employ logical fallacies when you make an
argument. Then you used logical fallacies when you made your
argument.
> I was right in the first place.
You were wrong, as usual.
> Continue to
> think whatever you like.
It's awfully narcissistic of you to presume to give people permission
for what they think.
> On Nov 2, 1:39 am, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 1, 10:12 pm, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 1, 7:50 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Nov 1, 4:43 pm, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Think whatever you like. You do anyway.
> > > > Ummm...people with good arguments have often been known to persuade me
> > > > to abandon what I think. Come up with a good argument and you can do
> > > > it too. Hint: try using logic instead of logical fallacies.
> > > As I already wrote,
> > > "the fall from grace . . . was a simple reversion to nature, loss of
> > > grace, not a biological/evolutionary event."
> > > Since this is the case
> > No it isn't. It's just an unsupported assertion. You have no valid
> > evidence of a "fall from grace."
> > I guess you can't take a hint.
> > > rappoccio's contention that
> > > "their Dogma of Original Sin is incompatible with [the view that
> > > evolution occurred], as it would constitute a saltation event,"
> > Sorry. You're going to have to quote exactly what rappoccio said. I've
> > just been talking to another Christian who doctored a quote from
> > Socrates to make it seem as if Socrates was a Christian. Unbelievable.
> > I don't exactly trust that you will quote what rappoccio said
> > accurately or in context.
> > > loses its force, and rappoccio should not have "deconverted."
> > I've read several descriptions of rappoccio's deconversion story, and
> > I disagree with you. There's way more to it than simply him
> > disagreeing with the dogma of Original SIn. He attributes his
> > deconversion to several factors, and one of them is you. Rappoccio
> > should have converted, because he's one happy ex-Catholic.
> > > > And stop acting like a morose martyr.> On Nov 1, 6:20 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Nov 1, 2:55 pm, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > Think whatever you like. You will anyway, so why should I bother with
> > > > > > > you?
> > > > > > Oh please, Joe, I can't live if you don't "bother" with me. Your
> > > > > > magnificent presence is all I need. I don't care if you continue to
> > > > > > use fallacies to show that God exists, I don't care if you're a
> > > > > > pathological narcissist, as long as I am graced with the light of your
> > > > > > eternal divinity.
> > > > > > If you ever provided valid evidence to support your wild claims then I
> > > > > > would have to agree with you. I'm not thinking "whatever I like" - I
> > > > > > go where the evidence leads. Yours leads nowhere.
> > > > > > > On Oct 25, 1:04 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Oct 25, 10:13 am, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Oct 25, 11:38 am, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Oct 24, 12:17 pm, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 24, 1:24 am, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 11:17 PM, Timothy 1:4a <canfanor...@gmail.com>wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I just noticed that the AvC home page says, "Conversions = 0 /
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Deconversions = 1." I don't know if it's said that for 2 days or 2
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > years.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can anyone tell me hoo da guy?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Rappoccio and he credits Dev :-)
> > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, it's me. I have many people to thank for this, but Dev was indeed
> > > > > > > > > > > > a strong influence. So was Simpleton, LL, philosophy, DreadGeekGirl,
> > > > > > > > > > > > Belly Bionic, and a bunch of others here. Reading talk.origins was
> > > > > > > > > > > > also an eye-opening experience, as was reading Dawkins, Harris, and
> > > > > > > > > > > > dozens of others. I also have to thank ThunderF00t for his "Why do
> > > > > > > > > > > > people laugh at creationists" series, it was great ;).
> > > > > > > > > > > > But I'll speak for myself now, I've got an hour to kill before I head
> > > > > > > > > > > > to bed (trip to Geneva tomorrow ;) ):
> > > > > > > > > > > > I stopped being a Catholic because Catholicism is logically
> > > > > > > > > > > > inconsistent.
> > > > > > > > > > > It is one thing to claim there are inconsistencies. That claim, you
> > > > > > > > > > > might support by producing one at least, which you have not done (I
> > > > > > > > > > > will address your error about evolution below). But to say there is
> > > > > > > > > > > nothing at all consistent is a sweeping generalization that you have
> > > > > > > > > > > not supported at all. The burden of proof is still on you to show
> > > > > > > > > > > that "something is inconsistent," at least. "Nothing is consistent"
> > > > > > > > > > > appears to be as unsupportable as "there is no God," or "there is no
> > > > > > > > > > > unicorn:" a universal categorical negative. You might want to stick
> > > > > > > > > > > with supporting the lesser claim.
> > > > > > > > > > > >They accept that evolution occurred, however their Dogma of
> > > > > > > > > > > > Original Sin is incompatible with such a view, as it would constitute
> > > > > > > > > > > > a saltation event.
> > > > > > > > > > > First, the theory of evolution is only a theory about how God created
> > > > > > > > > > > the various species. In itself, it does not rule out extraordinary
> > > > > > > > > > > actions of God, what would look to us like saltation events, if such
> > > > > > > > > > > were necessary. Second, no saltation event was necessarily involved
> > > > > > > > > > > in the fall from grace, which was a simple reversion to nature, a loss
> > > > > > > > > > > of grace, not a biological/evolutionary event.
> > > > > > > > > > > I have explained this to you before, and you ignored my explanation
> > > > > > > > > > > since it did not fit your straw man.
> > > > > > > > > > You are not "explaining" anything.
> > > > > > > > > You ignore everything I say, so you wouldn't know.
> > > > > > > > No I don't. Stop lying.
> > > > > > > > Here's the rest of my paragraph that YOU are ignoring that you
> > > > > > > > disingenuously snipped out.
> > > > > > > > "You are merely making unsupported assertions, but your pathological
> > > > > > > > narcissism makes you think that anything that comes out of your mouth
> > > > > > > > must be truth."
> > > > > > > > Now, either support your assertions (which I haven't been ignoring for
> > > > > > > > a year or more, as you are well aware) or leave me to conclude that
> > > > > > > > you're a pathological narcissist who conflates the fallacies that fly
> > > > > > > > out of your mouth for God's edicts.
> > > > > > > > > >You are merely making unsupported
> > > > > > > > > > assertions, but your pathological narcissism makes you think that
> > > > > > > > > > anything that comes out of your mouth must be truth.
> > > > > > > > > > > But you should know that your
> > > > > > > > > > > rejection of Catholicism is based on a straw man fallacy, since there
> > > > > > > > > > > is no necessary contradiction between evolution and original sin.
> > > > > > > > > > Sure there is. If God uses his magic powers to run the universe, then
> > > > > > > > > > any natural laws, like evolution, are only an illusion, and can be
> > > > > > > > > > altered at any moment at God's magic whim.> >This is contradictory to their acceptance of
> > > > > > > > > > > > Evolution. I was hoping that they would take this finding as an
> > > > > > > > > > > > understanding that their previous dogma was incorrect, but that's
> > > > > > > > > > > > against their dogma too. I basically reasoned things out, and found
> > > > > > > > > > > > that Catholicism is a bunk system of belief, even on a technicality
> > > > > > > > > > > > (let alone the whole fact that Original Sin is pretty stupid to begin
> > > > > > > > > > > > with, but that's another story and not historically how I arrived at
> > > > > > > > > > > > the conclusion).
> > > > > > > > > > > > For awhile I was a deist that attended Catholic services, but some
> > > > > > > > > > > > interesting things are fun to examine wrt this. An omnipotent,
> > > > > > > > > > > > omnipresent, omniscient being would have no reason to be anything
> > > > > > > > > > > > *other* than a deist-type deity. The laws of nature could be arranged
> > > > > > > > > > > > such that no further intervention would be required. Hence,
> > > > > > > > > > > > intercessionary prayer is demonstrably useless. Properly set up
> > > > > > > > > > > > scientific experiments confirm this... there is no observable benefit
> > > > > > > > > > > > to prayer. At that point one could simply say "I'm sorry for screwing
> > > > > > > > > > > > up", or "Thanks for X,Y,Z", but even that's a little stupid. The deity
> > > > > > > > > > > > in question knows you're sorry
On Oct 31, 3:07 pm, Chris <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> funny that Neil. I think I can fathom what you're referring to. But
> Rappy already had all his degrees before deconversion. Which was
> really no deconversion at all...
> Hey Rappoccio - when you were a *believer*, did you pray?
Quite a bit, for about 20 years.
> Was it
> little more then squeezing bakelite beeds between your fingers while
> repeating an incantation ad nauseum?
Didn't Jesus teach everyone how to pray in the NT?
> It's no mystery to me why you
> left it. The sad fact is there was nothing to really leave behind.
I'm glad you've come to this conclusion too, I didn't realize you
deconverted yourself also. Congratulations!
> You were already an atheist by the time I got here, so in reality I
> played no part in your alleged deconversion. But if there's any
> possibility of us getting along (on duh internet), I'd like to take
> steps to do that. I'll say here and now that I'm sorry for any
> needlessly hostile comments I've made in the past. Just because
> someone makes a profession of Christianity doesn't mean they're
> automatically perfect. Give them an extra week or two ;).
I'm perfectly happy to bury the hatchet. I apologize for any untoward
statements as well, I'm completely fine with a more congenial
atmosphere from here on in.
> On Oct 31, 3:54 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Oct 31, 12:17 pm, Chris <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > *can't help but wonder if my sharp tongue aided Rappy's decision to
> > > deconvert*
> > > No, I'm no Catholic, but a Christian. Problem is Rappy isn't dead set
> > > against Catholicism, but all theisms apparently.
> > > But I'm going to ask a troubling question. Is this evidence of a weak
> > > mind, that he would abandon anything based on what some group of his
> > > *peers* are or aren't doing? What difference should it make to me if
> > > there are some hypocritical Christians out there? Either the
> > > experience of conversion is real and lasting. Or perhaps there was no
> > > conversion at all. Or perhaps he was looking for an excuse to bail
> > > out? Or who knows what else?
> > We do.
> > > On Oct 25, 5:05 am, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Oct 24, 8:17 pm, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Oct 24, 1:24 am, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Oct 19, 7:41 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 11:17 PM, Timothy 1:4a <canfanor...@gmail.com>wrote:
> > > > > > > > I just noticed that the AvC home page says, "Conversions = 0 /
> > > > > > > > Deconversions = 1." I don't know if it's said that for 2 days or 2
> > > > > > > > years.
> > > > > > > > Can anyone tell me hoo da guy?
> > > > > > > Rappoccio and he credits Dev :-)
> > > > > > Yes, it's me. I have many people to thank for this, but Dev was indeed
> > > > > > a strong influence. So was Simpleton, LL, philosophy, DreadGeekGirl,
> > > > > > Belly Bionic, and a bunch of others here. Reading talk.origins was
> > > > > > also an eye-opening experience, as was reading Dawkins, Harris, and
> > > > > > dozens of others. I also have to thank ThunderF00t for his "Why do
> > > > > > people laugh at creationists" series, it was great ;).
> > > > > > But I'll speak for myself now, I've got an hour to kill before I head
> > > > > > to bed (trip to Geneva tomorrow ;) ):
> > > > > > I stopped being a Catholic because Catholicism is logically
> > > > > > inconsistent.
> > > > > Yet, it isn't.
> > > > Tell yourself whatever you need to, Joe. It's based on an incoherent
> > > > "special pleading" that is simply not in evidence in nature. The shoe-
> > > > horning of neolithic superstition into modern science often arrives at
> > > > such logically incoherent nonsense as you describe.
> > > > But I forgot to thank you, Joe. I was amiss in my deconversion story,
> > > > actually! You, Liam, and many other Catholics were the ones that first
> > > > opened my eyes to the dangers such a dogmatic world-view entails. I
> > > > was appalled by the lack of honesty that such a world-view engendered,
> > > > so it planted the seeds of discontent in my mind when I read your
> > > > posts, and those of Liam and many other Catholics. So I really should
> > > > thank you for helping me deconvert, I apologize for missing it in my
> > > > earlier post.- Hide quoted text -
> On Oct 31, 2:17 pm, Chris <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > *can't help but wonder if my sharp tongue aided Rappy's decision to
> > deconvert*
> > No, I'm no Catholic, but a Christian. Problem is Rappy isn't dead set
> > against Catholicism, but all theisms apparently.
> Catholicism has a rich, complex and beautiful rationalization process.
> By the time you understand why Catholicism makes no sense, you are
> unlikely to adopt another religion - especially another Christian
> religion.
> > But I'm going to ask a troubling question. Is this evidence of a weak
> > mind, that he would abandon anything based on what some group of his
> > *peers* are or aren't doing?
> I won't speak for Rapp but I expect he'd give the same answer as I.
> The answer is No. Catholicism believes that it has better morality and
> teaching than other religions; therefore a science-minded person knows
> that there should be measurably better behavior from Catholics. It's
> not that *some* Catholics behave as badly as anyone else; it's that
> the "average* Catholic behaves as badly. This empirical evidence
> refutes the Catholic claim to superior morality.
> > What difference should it make to me if
> > there are some hypocritical Christians out there? Either the
> > experience of conversion is real and lasting. Or perhaps there was no
> > conversion at all. Or perhaps he was looking for an excuse to bail
> > out? Or who knows what else?
> I will let him answer for himself if he wishes. In my case, I never
> converted *into* Catholicism. I was baptized as an infant and
> indoctrinated in it as I grew up. I was a good student in this as in
> other things, and I took it very seriously - I was a genuine and
> staunch Catholic. After enough evidence piled up, I eventually
> deconverted.
This was pretty much exactly how it went for me as well. I was a very
staunch Catholic for a long time. Eventually the house of cards was
plucked enough that it tumbled to pieces. Subsequently I looked for
ANY evidence of God and found nothing observable that wasn't equally
well explained by naturalistic causes. So I stopped bothering to worry
about it.
> > On Oct 25, 5:05 am, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Oct 24, 8:17 pm, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Oct 24, 1:24 am, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Oct 19, 7:41 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 11:17 PM, Timothy 1:4a <canfanor...@gmail.com>wrote:
> > > > > > > I just noticed that the AvC home page says, "Conversions = 0 /
> > > > > > > Deconversions = 1." I don't know if it's said that for 2 days or 2
> > > > > > > years.
> > > > > > > Can anyone tell me hoo da guy?
> > > > > > Rappoccio and he credits Dev :-)
> > > > > Yes, it's me. I have many people to thank for this, but Dev was indeed
> > > > > a strong influence. So was Simpleton, LL, philosophy, DreadGeekGirl,
> > > > > Belly Bionic, and a bunch of others here. Reading talk.origins was
> > > > > also an eye-opening experience, as was reading Dawkins, Harris, and
> > > > > dozens of others. I also have to thank ThunderF00t for his "Why do
> > > > > people laugh at creationists" series, it was great ;).
> > > > > But I'll speak for myself now, I've got an hour to kill before I head
> > > > > to bed (trip to Geneva tomorrow ;) ):
> > > > > I stopped being a Catholic because Catholicism is logically
> > > > > inconsistent.
> > > > Yet, it isn't.
> > > Tell yourself whatever you need to, Joe. It's based on an incoherent
> > > "special pleading" that is simply not in evidence in nature. The shoe-
> > > horning of neolithic superstition into modern science often arrives at
> > > such logically incoherent nonsense as you describe.
> > > But I forgot to thank you, Joe. I was amiss in my deconversion story,
> > > actually! You, Liam, and many other Catholics were the ones that first
> > > opened my eyes to the dangers such a dogmatic world-view entails. I
> > > was appalled by the lack of honesty that such a world-view engendered,
> > > so it planted the seeds of discontent in my mind when I read your
> > > posts, and those of Liam and many other Catholics. So I really should
> > > thank you for helping me deconvert, I apologize for missing it in my
> > > earlier post.- Hide quoted text -
> On Nov 1, 6:10 pm, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 1, 7:54 am, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> > > Now, here's the thing: in order for the Catholic Church to accept
> > > evolution, I think that you would agree that they would have to take
> > > the Genesis account figuratively, since it cannot be literally true
> > > and evolution be true. But, the "satiation event" is also in that
> > > account. And that account is already figurative to the Catholics. So
> > > can you really insist that they would HAVE to take original sin as
> > > being a literal event, and thus a satiation event? Since this isn't
> > > certain, wouldn't you have to look or wait to see how they DO, in
> > > fact, actually interpret that?
> > Treebeard, I hope you won't mind clarifying something for me. I agree
> > that Genesis might not be a sequential account of Creation, or again,
> > it might be, but in a way that I do not understand. But surely there
> > must be some things in it that we take literally, like, e.g., "God
> > created heaven and earth."
> > What concerns us here is solely the account of the Fall. Briefly,
> > evolution describes the process of the formation of the human race,
> > "from the dust of the ground." The Fall was an event, before which,
> > we had no sin, and after which, we do.
> > Why would such an event necessarily be an evolutionary saltation
> > event? Does the ability to sin necessarily stem from a genetic
> > alteration?
> That is, in fact, one of the tacks that can be taken: that there is
> something in evolution that allows for it to be enough of an event to
> fit the description. Or that it isn't a literal event. Or any number
> of other possibilities.
I'm not a theist, but if I were I would go with "not a literal
event". At some point, our ancestors became intelligent enough to
think abstractly about morality and discuss it with each other.
> It seems that it would almost have to relate to our ability to make
> moral choices, and a strict evolutionary account would argue that that
> develops. But it's a bit ridiculous to insist that that translation
> must be literal, and must be to a satiation event at all.
It's not "satiation", it's "saltation". An easy mistake to make.
> On Oct 24, 12:24 am, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Oct 19, 7:41 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 11:17 PM, Timothy 1:4a <canfanor...@gmail.com>wrote:
> > > > I just noticed that the AvC home page says, "Conversions = 0 /
> > > > Deconversions = 1." I don't know if it's said that for 2 days or 2
> > > > years.
> > > > Can anyone tell me hoo da guy?
> > > Rappoccio and he credits Dev :-)
> > Yes, it's me. I have many people to thank for this, but Dev was indeed
> > a strong influence. So was Simpleton, LL, philosophy, DreadGeekGirl,
> > Belly Bionic, and a bunch of others here. Reading talk.origins was
> > also an eye-opening experience, as was reading Dawkins, Harris, and
> > dozens of others. I also have to thank ThunderF00t for his "Why do
> > people laugh at creationists" series, it was great ;).
> Hmmm. Interesting. You credit anti-creationist comments for your
> deconversion from Catholicism ... a religion that is not, in fact,
> creationist and accepts evolution, as you yourself reference below.
> Interesting logic there ...
> > But I'll speak for myself now, I've got an hour to kill before I head
> > to bed (trip to Geneva tomorrow ;) ):
> > I stopped being a Catholic because Catholicism is logically
> > inconsistent. There is nothing whatsoever consistent about their
> > theology. They accept that evolution occurred, however their Dogma of
> > Original Sin is incompatible with such a view, as it would constitute
> > a saltation event. This is contradictory to their acceptance of
> > Evolution. I was hoping that they would take this finding as an
> > understanding that their previous dogma was incorrect, but that's
> > against their dogma too. I basically reasoned things out, and found
> > that Catholicism is a bunk system of belief, even on a technicality
> > (let alone the whole fact that Original Sin is pretty stupid to begin
> > with, but that's another story and not historically how I arrived at
> > the conclusion).
> Another interesting comment. So, here's the idea: you noted that
> Catholicism accepted evolution, and had a notion of original sin.
> Presumably, that idea of original sin comes from Genesis, where it is
> mentioned. From Genesis, the origin of original sin has to come from
> a specific event that introduces the ability or state of sin to
> humans. Thus, it has to be a satiation event, but evolution --
> according to you -- says that no such event is possible, and therefore
> that is a problem. You fervently hoped that they'd drop original sin
> (which you state here is a concept that you find stupid) but they
> didn't, and so that was a problem for you.
> Now, here's the thing: in order for the Catholic Church to accept
> evolution, I think that you would agree that they would have to take
> the Genesis account figuratively, since it cannot be literally true
> and evolution be true. But, the "satiation event" is also in that
> account.
> And that account is already figurative to the Catholics. So
> can you really insist that they would HAVE to take original sin as
> being a literal event, and thus a satiation event? Since this isn't
> certain, wouldn't you have to look or wait to see how they DO, in
> fact, actually interpret that?
No, the saltation (not satiation) event was germane to the concept of
original sin to begin with.
> So, did you ask about it, to your priest? Read theology and
> philosophy on the topic?
> Try to bring it up to theologians (since
> you're a physicist, you almost certainly have access to a university
> and so could probably find a philosopher or theologian willing to look
> at it)? Did you do anything to see what the story actually was? As
> far as I know, there has not been a specific, official attempt to
> reconcile the two, and since you didn't reference any when I asked in
> the other debate (I've replied to that, BTW) I suspect you don't have
> one, but you can point out what it is if you have one, since you
> generally never mention the official resolution to the issue. So did
> you do anything to see if there was an answer, or did you just reject
> Catholicism because you found a supposed contradiction of a doctrine
> that you admittedly dislike? In short, was this just an excuse?
Yes, actually, you can read all about a debate I had with a theologian
here:
In particular, "macaddicted" is a theology student who seemed to be
quite well informed on the topic. Here's the relevant bits:
macaddicted: "Original sin is best understood as an attempt to
understand why there is a separation between man and God."
Me: "So it *wasn't* a sin actually committed by a person or persons?"
macaddicted: "The Church would say yes. But the admittion by the
Church that there may be validity to evolution calls that into
question. It is something the Church is currently struggling with."
rappoccio: "Was it so hard to admit that? Geesh. "We don't know, we'll
get back to you" was not such a struggle, now was it? It's okay to not
know and admit it. I'll spot y'all some time to figure it out. How
about by next Thursday? :)"
macaddicted: "How about now. You're again mischaracterizing the state
of the question. Original sin is dogma, how it relates to evolution is
in question, the truth of the event is not. There are a great many
things the Church is willing to leave to science but the reality is
the Church sees revealed truths, such as the inherent value of man
because of the imago dei, to be higher truths than those learned
solely by science."
"The Catechism states, "The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses
figurative language, but ***affirms a primeval event***, a ***deed
that took place*** at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation
gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is
marked by the original fault freely committed by our first
parents" (CCC 390)." (emphasis is mine)
In short, NO MATTER WHAT EVIDENCE is presented, the Catholic church
will never disavow original sin, even if there is a blatantly obvious
contradiction with observational reality (like evolution). There is no
possible way to say that there was a "first person" or "first people"
who were capable of doing a SPECIFIC deed or event that is "sin",
whereas their parents (and grandparents, etc) were not. The ability to
distinguish things like "sin" or "obedience to God" is a *mental
faculty*. This evolves, just like everything else. It's clearly
evident in other species that the sense of "morality" we have has less-
developed but still distinguishable analogs in other places
(particularly the other great apes, unsurprisingly, as well as
others).
Now, you could rightfully bring up the possibility that there was a
central group of people that COULD sin, but simply DIDN'T, for
hundreds of thousands of years (which is how long this particular
mental capacity would have taken to evolve), but this is complete
rubbish. There is no evidence that a "state of grace" existed anywhere
on earth that fits the description that there was a period of time
that corresponds to this, such that "sin" entered the world and a
"fallen state" became apparent.
Sorry, Allan, you're following a logically inconsistent religion.
Pity.
> I also find in interesting that in all my time posting here and even
> in the E-mail exchanges with you, you never mentioned this specific
> issue -- and you've known I was Catholic for quite a while. You
> ranted about all sorts of other problems with Catholicism, but never
> this issue until the end of the debate where you tried to show that I
> was a heretic for some reason (and even got that wrong, but I
> digress). So, if this was such a key issue for you, and you knew I
> was Catholic, and you knew that we were discussing atheism and various
> religious issues, it seems odd that you didn't bring it up to me, and
> don't bring it up all that much at all.
I know you don't follow the group that closely, and don't follow my
posts like a puppy (of course), but I also don't walk around trying to
deconvert Catholics individually. Sorry Allan :).
> I'm making a big supposition here, but I suspect that if I went back
> and examined it I'd be correct. You can prove me wrong if you think
> me way out of line. However, it seems to me that the most likely
> reason for your deconversion -- based on what you said above -- was
> that you came here and, as you said, tried to prove atheists wrong .
> While doing so, you were convinced (primarily) that your scientific
> mindset and your religious mindset were incompatible. You were also
> convinced that your moral ideas clashed with those of religion; some
> deeply held moral principles of yours are not compatible with
> religious ideas. Since your scientific and moral principles were more
> important to you than your religion, you were forced to abandon your
> theism, and then your religion. If the above issue played any part,
> it was just as a rationalizable excuse to claim
> On Nov 1, 6:10 pm, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 1, 7:54 am, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> > > Now, here's the thing: in order for the Catholic Church to accept
> > > evolution, I think that you would agree that they would have to take
> > > the Genesis account figuratively, since it cannot be literally true
> > > and evolution be true. But, the "satiation event" is also in that
> > > account. And that account is already figurative to the Catholics. So
> > > can you really insist that they would HAVE to take original sin as
> > > being a literal event, and thus a satiation event? Since this isn't
> > > certain, wouldn't you have to look or wait to see how they DO, in
> > > fact, actually interpret that?
> > Treebeard, I hope you won't mind clarifying something for me. I agree
> > that Genesis might not be a sequential account of Creation, or again,
> > it might be, but in a way that I do not understand. But surely there
> > must be some things in it that we take literally, like, e.g., "God
> > created heaven and earth."
> > What concerns us here is solely the account of the Fall. Briefly,
> > evolution describes the process of the formation of the human race,
> > "from the dust of the ground." The Fall was an event, before which,
> > we had no sin, and after which, we do.
> > Why would such an event necessarily be an evolutionary saltation
> > event? Does the ability to sin necessarily stem from a genetic
> > alteration?
> That is, in fact, one of the tacks that can be taken: that there is
> something in evolution that allows for it to be enough of an event to
> fit the description.
This is completely inconsistent with evolution.
> Or that it isn't a literal event.
This is completely discounted as a possibility by your own religion.
> Or any number
> of other possibilities.
Or, the most logical one: Catholicism is inconsistent with
observation.
> It seems that it would almost have to relate to our ability to make
> moral choices, and a strict evolutionary account would argue that that
> develops.
I think this is as plain as day. Moral customs are seen in different
forms in other species, exactly as one would expect from an
evolutionary hypothesis.
Why "moral reasoning" should be in ANY WAY different from arithmetical
capability, facial recognition, sequential recognition, model
abstraction, language, self-awareness, object persistence, or any of
our OTHER mental capacities, is only apparent to those who already
presuppose the answer for religious reasons. We see all of these other
hallmarks of "higher brain function" present in varying degrees in a
cladistic categorization of animals, and indeed we see hallmarks of
"moral reasoning" present in varying degrees in a cladistic
categorization of animals, so just pretending that biology makes
special exceptions for human beings is *ALREADY* proving my point that
the two viewpoints are inconsistent. You can, of course, make any
number of special allowances that are completely unnecessary (since
natural selection and societal species living handily makes ready
sense of the development of moral reasoning), but this is exactly my
point: You discount reality (biology) in favor of fantasy (a neolithic
myth). If that's what you want to do, then just don't mince words: SAY
you reject biology and observational reality. I know you're afraid to
do so, because you'd be branded (in most intellectual circles) as
something akin to a Holocaust denier, but hey... why should that stop
you?
> But it's a bit ridiculous to insist that that translation
> must be literal,
Oh, I agree, the Catholic viewpoint that an actual event occurred is
ridiculous. However they consider it a doctrinal point, and apparently
I'm much more aware of your own religion's teachings than you are.
You're a heretic and don't even know it, but of course, now you do, so
you're a heretic nonetheless. It's only a matter of time before Joe
starts calling you an anti-Christ. You should wear such a badge with
honor!
On Nov 2, 9:50 am, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 1, 11:25 pm, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > No, I can take a hint.
> No, you can't. I hinted that you might be able to make a persuasive
> argument if you didn't employ logical fallacies when you make an
> argument. Then you used logical fallacies when you made your
> argument.
I used no logical fallacies in the arguments I have posted many times,
refuting rappoccio's claim that Catholicism is logically inconsistent.
But you don't want to think I am capable of logic, so, you ignore such
things from me.
> > I was right in the first place.
> You were wrong, as usual.
Manifestly, I am right.
> > Continue to
> > think whatever you like.
> It's awfully narcissistic of you to presume to give people permission
> for what they think.
> On Nov 2, 1:39 am, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 1, 10:12 pm, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Nov 1, 7:50 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Nov 1, 4:43 pm, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > Think whatever you like. You do anyway.
> > > > > Ummm...people with good arguments have often been known to persuade me
> > > > > to abandon what I think. Come up with a good argument and you can do
> > > > > it too. Hint: try using logic instead of logical fallacies.
> > > > As I already wrote,
> > > > "the fall from grace . . . was a simple reversion to nature, loss of
> > > > grace, not a biological/evolutionary event."
> > > > Since this is the case
> > > No it isn't. It's just an unsupported assertion. You have no valid
> > > evidence of a "fall from grace."
> > > I guess you can't take a hint.
> > > > rappoccio's contention that
> > > > "their Dogma of Original Sin is incompatible with [the view that
> > > > evolution occurred], as it would constitute a saltation event,"
> > > Sorry. You're going to have to quote exactly what rappoccio said. I've
> > > just been talking to another Christian who doctored a quote from
> > > Socrates to make it seem as if Socrates was a Christian. Unbelievable.
> > > I don't exactly trust that you will quote what rappoccio said
> > > accurately or in context.
> > > > loses its force, and rappoccio should not have "deconverted."
> > > I've read several descriptions of rappoccio's deconversion story, and
> > > I disagree with you. There's way more to it than simply him
> > > disagreeing with the dogma of Original SIn. He attributes his
> > > deconversion to several factors, and one of them is you. Rappoccio
> > > should have converted, because he's one happy ex-Catholic.
> > > > > And stop acting like a morose martyr.> On Nov 1, 6:20 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > On Nov 1, 2:55 pm, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > Think whatever you like. You will anyway, so why should I bother with
> > > > > > > > you?
> > > > > > > Oh please, Joe, I can't live if you don't "bother" with me. Your
> > > > > > > magnificent presence is all I need. I don't care if you continue to
> > > > > > > use fallacies to show that God exists, I don't care if you're a
> > > > > > > pathological narcissist, as long as I am graced with the light of your
> > > > > > > eternal divinity.
> > > > > > > If you ever provided valid evidence to support your wild claims then I
> > > > > > > would have to agree with you. I'm not thinking "whatever I like" - I
> > > > > > > go where the evidence leads. Yours leads nowhere.
> > > > > > > > On Oct 25, 1:04 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Oct 25, 10:13 am, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Oct 25, 11:38 am, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 24, 12:17 pm, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 24, 1:24 am, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 11:17 PM, Timothy 1:4a <canfanor...@gmail.com>wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I just noticed that the AvC home page says, "Conversions = 0 /
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Deconversions = 1." I don't know if it's said that for 2 days or 2
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > years.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can anyone tell me hoo da guy?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rappoccio and he credits Dev :-)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, it's me. I have many people to thank for this, but Dev was indeed
> > > > > > > > > > > > > a strong influence. So was Simpleton, LL, philosophy, DreadGeekGirl,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Belly Bionic, and a bunch of others here. Reading talk.origins was
> > > > > > > > > > > > > also an eye-opening experience, as was reading Dawkins, Harris, and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > dozens of others. I also have to thank ThunderF00t for his "Why do
> > > > > > > > > > > > > people laugh at creationists" series, it was great ;).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > But I'll speak for myself now, I've got an hour to kill before I head
> > > > > > > > > > > > > to bed (trip to Geneva tomorrow ;) ):
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I stopped being a Catholic because Catholicism is logically
> > > > > > > > > > > > > inconsistent.
> > > > > > > > > > > > It is one thing to claim there are inconsistencies. That claim, you
> > > > > > > > > > > > might support by producing one at least, which you have not done (I
> > > > > > > > > > > > will address your error about evolution below). But to say there is
> > > > > > > > > > > > nothing at all consistent is a sweeping generalization that you have
> > > > > > > > > > > > not supported at all. The burden of proof is still on you to show
> > > > > > > > > > > > that "something is inconsistent," at least. "Nothing is consistent"
> > > > > > > > > > > > appears to be as unsupportable as "there is no God," or "there is no
> > > > > > > > > > > > unicorn:" a universal categorical negative. You might want to stick
> > > > > > > > > > > > with supporting the lesser claim.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >They accept that evolution occurred, however their Dogma of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Original Sin is incompatible with such a view, as it would constitute
> > > > > > > > > > > > > a saltation event.
> > > > > > > > > > > > First, the theory of evolution is only a theory about how God created
> > > > > > > > > > > > the various species. In itself, it does not rule out extraordinary
> > > > > > > > > > > > actions of God, what would look to us like saltation events, if such
> > > > > > > > > > > > were necessary. Second, no saltation event was necessarily involved
> > > > > > > > > > > > in the fall from grace, which was a simple reversion to nature, a loss
> > > > > > > > > > > > of grace, not a biological/evolutionary event.
> > > > > > > > > > > > I have explained this to you before, and you ignored my explanation
> > > > > > > > > > > > since it did not fit your straw man.
> > > > > > > > > > > You are not "explaining" anything.
> > > > > > > > > > You ignore everything I say, so you wouldn't know.
> > > > > > > > > No I don't. Stop lying.
> > > > > > > > > Here's the rest of my paragraph that YOU are ignoring that you
> > > > > > > > > disingenuously snipped out.
> > > > > > > > > "You are merely making unsupported assertions, but your pathological
> > > > > > > > > narcissism makes you think that anything that comes out of your mouth
> > > > > > > > > must be truth."
> > > > > > > > > Now, either support your assertions (which I haven't been ignoring for
> > > > > > > > > a year or more, as you are well aware) or leave me to conclude that
> > > > > > > > > you're a pathological narcissist who conflates the fallacies that fly
> > > > > > > > > out of your mouth for God's edicts.
> > > > > > > > > > >You are merely making unsupported
> > > > > > > > > > > assertions, but your pathological narcissism makes you think that
> > > > > > > > > > > anything that comes out of your mouth must be truth.
> > > > > > > > > > > > But you should know that your
> > > > > > > > > > > > rejection of Catholicism is based on a straw man fallacy, since there
> > > > > > > > > > > > is no necessary contradiction between evolution and original sin.
> > > > > > > > > > > Sure there is. If God uses his magic powers to run the universe, then
> > > > > > > > > > > any natural laws, like evolution, are only an illusion, and can be
> > > > > > > > > > > altered at any moment at God's magic whim.> >This is contradictory to their acceptance of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Evolution. I was hoping that they would take this finding as an
> > > > > > > > > > > > > understanding that their previous dogma was incorrect, but that's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > against their dogma too. I basically reasoned things out, and found
> > > > > > > > > > > > > that Catholicism is a bunk system of belief, even on a technicality
> > > > > > > > > > > > > (let alone the whole fact that Original Sin is pretty stupid to begin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > with, but that's another story and not historically how I arrived at
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the conclusion).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > For awhile I was a deist that attended Catholic services, but some
> > > > > > > > > > > > > interesting things are fun to examine wrt this. An omnipotent,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > omnipresent, omniscient being would have no reason to be
> On Nov 1, 5:15 pm, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> > On Nov 1, 6:10 pm, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 1, 7:54 am, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> > > > Now, here's the thing: in order for the Catholic Church to accept
> > > > evolution, I think that you would agree that they would have to take
> > > > the Genesis account figuratively, since it cannot be literally true
> > > > and evolution be true. But, the "satiation event" is also in that
> > > > account. And that account is already figurative to the Catholics. So
> > > > can you really insist that they would HAVE to take original sin as
> > > > being a literal event, and thus a satiation event? Since this isn't
> > > > certain, wouldn't you have to look or wait to see how they DO, in
> > > > fact, actually interpret that?
> > > Treebeard, I hope you won't mind clarifying something for me. I agree
> > > that Genesis might not be a sequential account of Creation, or again,
> > > it might be, but in a way that I do not understand. But surely there
> > > must be some things in it that we take literally, like, e.g., "God
> > > created heaven and earth."
> > > What concerns us here is solely the account of the Fall. Briefly,
> > > evolution describes the process of the formation of the human race,
> > > "from the dust of the ground." The Fall was an event, before which,
> > > we had no sin, and after which, we do.
> > > Why would such an event necessarily be an evolutionary saltation
> > > event? Does the ability to sin necessarily stem from a genetic
> > > alteration?
> > That is, in fact, one of the tacks that can be taken: that there is
> > something in evolution that allows for it to be enough of an event to
> > fit the description. Or that it isn't a literal event. Or any number
> > of other possibilities.
> I'm not a theist, but if I were I would go with "not a literal
> event". At some point, our ancestors became intelligent enough to
> think abstractly about morality and discuss it with each other.
You seem to assume all religions are human inventions. That is not a
theistic view at all. If you were a theist, you would necessarily
acknowledge that God could, in principle, start a religion.
> > It seems that it would almost have to relate to our ability to make
> > moral choices, and a strict evolutionary account would argue that that
> > develops. But it's a bit ridiculous to insist that that translation
> > must be literal, and must be to a satiation event at all.
> It's not "satiation", it's "saltation". An easy mistake to make.
On Nov 3, 1:10 pm, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 2, 9:50 am, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 1, 11:25 pm, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > No, I can take a hint.
> > No, you can't. I hinted that you might be able to make a persuasive
> > argument if you didn't employ logical fallacies when you make an
> > argument. Then you used logical fallacies when you made your
> > argument.
> I used no logical fallacies in the arguments I have posted many times,
> refuting rappoccio's claim that Catholicism is logically inconsistent.
You use logical fallacies constantly, including when you "refute"
rappoccio's argument that Catholicism is inconsistent.
> But you don't want to think I am capable of logic,
I am neutral in that regard. I just observe that you don't show logic,
and of course you already know why I think you aren't logical.
> so, you ignore such things from me.
Pretending that you're a persecuted martyr isn't displaying much
logic, at least not in my books. It amounts to an argument from
emotion fallacy - people feel sorry for you, therefore God exists.
See? You used another fallacy.
> > > I was right in the first place.
> > You were wrong, as usual.
> Manifestly, I am right.
> > > Continue to
> > > think whatever you like.
> > It's awfully narcissistic of you to presume to give people permission
> > for what they think.
> Get over yourself.
I wasn't the one giving the other permission to think.
> > On Nov 2, 1:39 am, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Nov 1, 10:12 pm, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Nov 1, 7:50 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Nov 1, 4:43 pm, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > Think whatever you like. You do anyway.
> > > > > > Ummm...people with good arguments have often been known to persuade me
> > > > > > to abandon what I think. Come up with a good argument and you can do
> > > > > > it too. Hint: try using logic instead of logical fallacies.
> > > > > As I already wrote,
> > > > > "the fall from grace . . . was a simple reversion to nature, loss of
> > > > > grace, not a biological/evolutionary event."
> > > > > Since this is the case
> > > > No it isn't. It's just an unsupported assertion. You have no valid
> > > > evidence of a "fall from grace."
> > > > I guess you can't take a hint.
> > > > > rappoccio's contention that
> > > > > "their Dogma of Original Sin is incompatible with [the view that
> > > > > evolution occurred], as it would constitute a saltation event,"
> > > > Sorry. You're going to have to quote exactly what rappoccio said. I've
> > > > just been talking to another Christian who doctored a quote from
> > > > Socrates to make it seem as if Socrates was a Christian. Unbelievable.
> > > > I don't exactly trust that you will quote what rappoccio said
> > > > accurately or in context.
> > > > > loses its force, and rappoccio should not have "deconverted."
> > > > I've read several descriptions of rappoccio's deconversion story, and
> > > > I disagree with you. There's way more to it than simply him
> > > > disagreeing with the dogma of Original SIn. He attributes his
> > > > deconversion to several factors, and one of them is you. Rappoccio
> > > > should have converted, because he's one happy ex-Catholic.
> > > > > > And stop acting like a morose martyr.> On Nov 1, 6:20 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Nov 1, 2:55 pm, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Think whatever you like. You will anyway, so why should I bother with
> > > > > > > > > you?
> > > > > > > > Oh please, Joe, I can't live if you don't "bother" with me. Your
> > > > > > > > magnificent presence is all I need. I don't care if you continue to
> > > > > > > > use fallacies to show that God exists, I don't care if you're a
> > > > > > > > pathological narcissist, as long as I am graced with the light of your
> > > > > > > > eternal divinity.
> > > > > > > > If you ever provided valid evidence to support your wild claims then I
> > > > > > > > would have to agree with you. I'm not thinking "whatever I like" - I
> > > > > > > > go where the evidence leads. Yours leads nowhere.
> > > > > > > > > On Oct 25, 1:04 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Oct 25, 10:13 am, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 25, 11:38 am, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 24, 12:17 pm, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 11:17 PM, Timothy 1:4a <canfanor...@gmail.com>wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I just noticed that the AvC home page says, "Conversions = 0 /
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Deconversions = 1." I don't know if it's said that for 2 days or 2
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > years.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can anyone tell me hoo da guy?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rappoccio and he credits Dev :-)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, it's me. I have many people to thank for this, but Dev was indeed
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > a strong influence. So was Simpleton, LL, philosophy, DreadGeekGirl,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Belly Bionic, and a bunch of others here. Reading talk.origins was
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > also an eye-opening experience, as was reading Dawkins, Harris, and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > dozens of others. I also have to thank ThunderF00t for his "Why do
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > people laugh at creationists" series, it was great ;).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > But I'll speak for myself now, I've got an hour to kill before I head
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to bed (trip to Geneva tomorrow ;) ):
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I stopped being a Catholic because Catholicism is logically
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > inconsistent.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > It is one thing to claim there are inconsistencies. That claim, you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > might support by producing one at least, which you have not done (I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > will address your error about evolution below). But to say there is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > nothing at all consistent is a sweeping generalization that you have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > not supported at all. The burden of proof is still on you to show
> > > > > > > > > > > > > that "something is inconsistent," at least. "Nothing is consistent"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > appears to be as unsupportable as "there is no God," or "there is no
> > > > > > > > > > > > > unicorn:" a universal categorical negative. You might want to stick
> > > > > > > > > > > > > with supporting the lesser claim.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >They accept that evolution occurred, however their Dogma of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Original Sin is incompatible with such a view, as it would constitute
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > a saltation event.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > First, the theory of evolution is only a theory about how God created
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the various species. In itself, it does not rule out extraordinary
> > > > > > > > > > > > > actions of God, what would look to us like saltation events, if such
> > > > > > > > > > > > > were necessary. Second, no saltation event was necessarily involved
> > > > > > > > > > > > > in the fall from grace, which was a simple reversion to nature, a loss
> > > > > > > > > > > > > of grace, not a biological/evolutionary event.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I have explained this to you before, and you ignored my explanation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > since it did not fit your straw man.
> > > > > > > > > > > > You are not "explaining" anything.
> > > > > > > > > > > You ignore everything I say, so you wouldn't know.
> > > > > > > > > > No I don't. Stop lying.
> > > > > > > > > > Here's the rest of my paragraph that YOU are ignoring that you
> > > > > > > > > > disingenuously snipped out.
> > > > > > > > > > "You are merely making unsupported assertions, but your pathological
> > > > > > > > > > narcissism makes you think that anything that comes out of your mouth
> > > > > > > > > > must be truth."
> > > > > > > > > > Now, either support your assertions (which I haven't been ignoring for
> > > > > > > > > > a year or more, as you are well aware) or leave me to conclude that
> > > > > > > > > > you're a pathological narcissist who conflates the fallacies that fly
> > > > > > > > > > out of your mouth for God's edicts.
> > > > > > > > > > > >You are merely making unsupported
> > > > > > > > > > > > assertions, but your pathological narcissism makes you think that
> > > > > > > > > > > > anything that comes out of your mouth must be truth.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > But you should know that your
> > > > > > > > > > > > > rejection of Catholicism is based on a straw man fallacy, since there
> > > > > > > > > > > > > is no necessary contradiction between evolution and original sin.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Sure there is. If God uses his magic powers to run the universe, then
> > > > > > > > > > > > any natural laws, like evolution, are only an illusion, and can be
> > > > > > > > > > > > altered at any moment at God's magic whim.> >This is contradictory to their acceptance of
> On Nov 1, 7:54 am, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> > On Oct 24, 12:24 am, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Oct 19, 7:41 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 11:17 PM, Timothy 1:4a <canfanor...@gmail.com>wrote:
> > > > > I just noticed that the AvC home page says, "Conversions = 0 /
> > > > > Deconversions = 1." I don't know if it's said that for 2 days or 2
> > > > > years.
> > > > > Can anyone tell me hoo da guy?
> > > > Rappoccio and he credits Dev :-)
> > > Yes, it's me. I have many people to thank for this, but Dev was indeed
> > > a strong influence. So was Simpleton, LL, philosophy, DreadGeekGirl,
> > > Belly Bionic, and a bunch of others here. Reading talk.origins was
> > > also an eye-opening experience, as was reading Dawkins, Harris, and
> > > dozens of others. I also have to thank ThunderF00t for his "Why do
> > > people laugh at creationists" series, it was great ;).
> > Hmmm. Interesting. You credit anti-creationist comments for your
> > deconversion from Catholicism ... a religion that is not, in fact,
> > creationist and accepts evolution, as you yourself reference below.
> > Interesting logic there ...
> Hey, look, you didn't read my post!
> > > But I'll speak for myself now, I've got an hour to kill before I head
> > > to bed (trip to Geneva tomorrow ;) ):
> > > I stopped being a Catholic because Catholicism is logically
> > > inconsistent. There is nothing whatsoever consistent about their
> > > theology. They accept that evolution occurred, however their Dogma of
> > > Original Sin is incompatible with such a view, as it would constitute
> > > a saltation event. This is contradictory to their acceptance of
> > > Evolution. I was hoping that they would take this finding as an
> > > understanding that their previous dogma was incorrect, but that's
> > > against their dogma too. I basically reasoned things out, and found
> > > that Catholicism is a bunk system of belief, even on a technicality
> > > (let alone the whole fact that Original Sin is pretty stupid to begin
> > > with, but that's another story and not historically how I arrived at
> > > the conclusion).
> > Another interesting comment. So, here's the idea: you noted that
> > Catholicism accepted evolution, and had a notion of original sin.
> > Presumably, that idea of original sin comes from Genesis, where it is
> > mentioned. From Genesis, the origin of original sin has to come from
> > a specific event that introduces the ability or state of sin to
> > humans. Thus, it has to be a satiation event, but evolution --
> > according to you -- says that no such event is possible, and therefore
> > that is a problem. You fervently hoped that they'd drop original sin
> > (which you state here is a concept that you find stupid) but they
> > didn't, and so that was a problem for you.
> > Now, here's the thing: in order for the Catholic Church to accept
> > evolution, I think that you would agree that they would have to take
> > the Genesis account figuratively, since it cannot be literally true
> > and evolution be true. But, the "satiation event" is also in that
> > account.
> > And that account is already figurative to the Catholics. So
> > can you really insist that they would HAVE to take original sin as
> > being a literal event, and thus a satiation event? Since this isn't
> > certain, wouldn't you have to look or wait to see how they DO, in
> > fact, actually interpret that?
> No, the saltation (not satiation) event was germane to the concept of
> original sin to begin with.
> > So, did you ask about it, to your priest? Read theology and
> > philosophy on the topic?
> > Try to bring it up to theologians (since
> > you're a physicist, you almost certainly have access to a university
> > and so could probably find a philosopher or theologian willing to look
> > at it)? Did you do anything to see what the story actually was? As
> > far as I know, there has not been a specific, official attempt to
> > reconcile the two, and since you didn't reference any when I asked in
> > the other debate (I've replied to that, BTW) I suspect you don't have
> > one, but you can point out what it is if you have one, since you
> > generally never mention the official resolution to the issue. So did
> > you do anything to see if there was an answer, or did you just reject
> > Catholicism because you found a supposed contradiction of a doctrine
> > that you admittedly dislike? In short, was this just an excuse?
> Yes, actually, you can read all about a debate I had with a theologian
> here:
> In particular, "macaddicted" is a theology student who seemed to be
> quite well informed on the topic. Here's the relevant bits:
> macaddicted: "Original sin is best understood as an attempt to
> understand why there is a separation between man and God."
> Me: "So it *wasn't* a sin actually committed by a person or persons?"
> macaddicted: "The Church would say yes. But the admittion by the
> Church that there may be validity to evolution calls that into
> question. It is something the Church is currently struggling with."
> rappoccio: "Was it so hard to admit that? Geesh. "We don't know, we'll
> get back to you" was not such a struggle, now was it? It's okay to not
> know and admit it. I'll spot y'all some time to figure it out. How
> about by next Thursday? :)"
> macaddicted: "How about now. You're again mischaracterizing the state
> of the question. Original sin is dogma, how it relates to evolution is
> in question, the truth of the event is not. There are a great many
> things the Church is willing to leave to science but the reality is
> the Church sees revealed truths, such as the inherent value of man
> because of the imago dei, to be higher truths than those learned
> solely by science."
> "The Catechism states, "The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses
> figurative language, but ***affirms a primeval event***, a ***deed
> that took place*** at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation
> gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is
> marked by the original fault freely committed by our first
> parents" (CCC 390)." (emphasis is mine)
> In short, NO MATTER WHAT EVIDENCE is presented, the Catholic church
> will never disavow original sin, even if there is a blatantly obvious
> contradiction with observational reality (like evolution). There is no
> possible way to say that there was a "first person" or "first people"
> who were capable of doing a SPECIFIC deed or event that is "sin",
> whereas their parents (and grandparents, etc) were not. The ability to
> distinguish things like "sin" or "obedience to God" is a *mental
> faculty*. This evolves, just like everything else. It's clearly
> evident in other species that the sense of "morality" we have has less-
> developed but still distinguishable analogs in other places
> (particularly the other great apes, unsurprisingly, as well as
> others).
> Now, you could rightfully bring up the possibility that there was a
> central group of people that COULD sin, but simply DIDN'T, for
> hundreds of thousands of years (which is how long this particular
> mental capacity would have taken to evolve), but this is complete
> rubbish. There is no evidence that a "state of grace" existed anywhere
> on earth that fits the description that there was a period of time
> that corresponds to this, such that "sin" entered the world and a
> "fallen state" became apparent.
> Sorry, Allan, you're following a logically inconsistent religion.
> Pity.
The pity is that you reject a perfectly logical religion, on specious
arguments.
> On May 23 2007, 10:28 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 23, 8:39 pm, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
> >rappocciowrote:
> > > Therefore the sins ofAdamgive rise to original sin. SinceAdam
> > > didn't actually exist and/or actually commit any actual sin, then the
> > > "taint" thatAdam'sblood carries is non-existent because he himself
> > > is non-existent, therefore the concept of original sin is inconsistent
> > > with the theory of evolution.
> > sin is not a scientific concept so it's pointless to sayadamdid/
> > didn't sin from an evolutionary viewpoint.
> The existence ofAdamis a historical concept.
Indeed, Adam was the first human being.
> > as toadambeing the first man, presumably god would know when our
> > ancestors had achieved sufficient self awareness to be considered
> > 'human' and that/those people would have been 'adamandeve'.
> And their parents weren't "self-aware" enough?
Their parents did not have immortal souls. Souls are not products of
evolution the way that bodies are. Their parents had enough neural
capacity for a soul, but did not have them. They were incapable of
sin for the same reason that animals are; in fact, they were animals,
not human beings. They were pre-human hominids. The distinction
between a mere hominid and a human being is the soul.
>Since they could have
> in principle mated with their parents (or species members from that
> generation), they're the same species. There is no dividing line on a
> generation-by-generation basis of "species".
But biological species alone does not constitute a human being. God
could have chosen lizards instead of apes, and then the human beings
on this planet would be lizard-like rather
...
> On Nov 3, 1:10 pm, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 2, 9:50 am, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 1, 11:25 pm, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > No, I can take a hint.
> > > No, you can't. I hinted that you might be able to make a persuasive
> > > argument if you didn't employ logical fallacies when you make an
> > > argument. Then you used logical fallacies when you made your
> > > argument.
> > I used no logical fallacies in the arguments I have posted many times,
> > refuting rappoccio's claim that Catholicism is logically inconsistent.
> You use logical fallacies constantly, including when you "refute"
> rappoccio's argument that Catholicism is inconsistent.
Bare assertion sans support. If this is an argument, it is fallacious
for that reason.
> > But you don't want to think I am capable of logic,
> I am neutral in that regard. I just observe that you don't show logic,
> and of course you already know why I think you aren't logical.
> > so, you ignore such things from me.
> Pretending that you're a persecuted martyr isn't displaying much
> logic, at least not in my books. It amounts to an argument from
> emotion fallacy - people feel sorry for you, therefore God exists.
> See? You used another fallacy.
> > > > I was right in the first place.
> > > You were wrong, as usual.
> > Manifestly, I am right.
> > > > Continue to
> > > > think whatever you like.
> > > It's awfully narcissistic of you to presume to give people permission
> > > for what they think.
> > Get over yourself.
> I wasn't the one giving the other permission to think.
I am dismissing you from the discussion due to your demonstration of
incapacity for the same.
> > On Nov 2, 1:39 am, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Nov 1, 10:12 pm, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Nov 1, 7:50 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > On Nov 1, 4:43 pm, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > Think whatever you like. You do anyway.
> > > > > > > Ummm...people with good arguments have often been known to persuade me
> > > > > > > to abandon what I think. Come up with a good argument and you can do
> > > > > > > it too. Hint: try using logic instead of logical fallacies.
> > > > > > As I already wrote,
> > > > > > "the fall from grace . . . was a simple reversion to nature, loss of
> > > > > > grace, not a biological/evolutionary event."
> > > > > > Since this is the case
> > > > > No it isn't. It's just an unsupported assertion. You have no valid
> > > > > evidence of a "fall from grace."
> > > > > I guess you can't take a hint.
> > > > > > rappoccio's contention that
> > > > > > "their Dogma of Original Sin is incompatible with [the view that
> > > > > > evolution occurred], as it would constitute a saltation event,"
> > > > > Sorry. You're going to have to quote exactly what rappoccio said. I've
> > > > > just been talking to another Christian who doctored a quote from
> > > > > Socrates to make it seem as if Socrates was a Christian. Unbelievable.
> > > > > I don't exactly trust that you will quote what rappoccio said
> > > > > accurately or in context.
> > > > > > loses its force, and rappoccio should not have "deconverted."
> > > > > I've read several descriptions of rappoccio's deconversion story, and
> > > > > I disagree with you. There's way more to it than simply him
> > > > > disagreeing with the dogma of Original SIn. He attributes his
> > > > > deconversion to several factors, and one of them is you. Rappoccio
> > > > > should have converted, because he's one happy ex-Catholic.
> > > > > > > And stop acting like a morose martyr.> On Nov 1, 6:20 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Nov 1, 2:55 pm, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > Think whatever you like. You will anyway, so why should I bother with
> > > > > > > > > > you?
> > > > > > > > > Oh please, Joe, I can't live if you don't "bother" with me. Your
> > > > > > > > > magnificent presence is all I need. I don't care if you continue to
> > > > > > > > > use fallacies to show that God exists, I don't care if you're a
> > > > > > > > > pathological narcissist, as long as I am graced with the light of your
> > > > > > > > > eternal divinity.
> > > > > > > > > If you ever provided valid evidence to support your wild claims then I
> > > > > > > > > would have to agree with you. I'm not thinking "whatever I like" - I
> > > > > > > > > go where the evidence leads. Yours leads nowhere.
> > > > > > > > > > On Oct 25, 1:04 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 25, 10:13 am, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 25, 11:38 am, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 11:17 PM, Timothy 1:4a <canfanor...@gmail.com>wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I just noticed that the AvC home page says, "Conversions = 0 /
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Deconversions = 1." I don't know if it's said that for 2 days or 2
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > years.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can anyone tell me hoo da guy?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rappoccio and he credits Dev :-)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, it's me. I have many people to thank for this, but Dev was indeed
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a strong influence. So was Simpleton, LL, philosophy, DreadGeekGirl,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Belly Bionic, and a bunch of others here. Reading talk.origins was
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > also an eye-opening experience, as was reading Dawkins, Harris, and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dozens of others. I also have to thank ThunderF00t for his "Why do
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > people laugh at creationists" series, it was great ;).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But I'll speak for myself now, I've got an hour to kill before I head
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to bed (trip to Geneva tomorrow ;) ):
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I stopped being a Catholic because Catholicism is logically
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inconsistent.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is one thing to claim there are inconsistencies. That claim, you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > might support by producing one at least, which you have not done (I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > will address your error about evolution below). But to say there is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > nothing at all consistent is a sweeping generalization that you have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > not supported at all. The burden of proof is still on you to show
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > that "something is inconsistent," at least. "Nothing is consistent"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > appears to be as unsupportable as "there is no God," or "there is no
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > unicorn:" a universal categorical negative. You might want to stick
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > with supporting the lesser claim.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >They accept that evolution occurred, however their Dogma of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Original Sin is incompatible with such a view, as it would constitute
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a saltation event.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > First, the theory of evolution is only a theory about how God created
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the various species. In itself, it does not rule out extraordinary
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > actions of God, what would look to us like saltation events, if such
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > were necessary. Second, no saltation event was necessarily involved
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > in the fall from grace, which was a simple reversion to nature, a loss
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > of grace, not a biological/evolutionary event.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have explained this to you before, and you ignored my explanation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > since it did not fit your straw man.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > You are not "explaining" anything.
> > > > > > > > > > > > You ignore everything I say, so you wouldn't know.
> > > > > > > > > > > No I don't. Stop lying.
> > > > > > > > > > > Here's the rest of my paragraph that YOU are ignoring that you
> > > > > > > > > > > disingenuously snipped out.
> > > > > > > > > > > "You are merely making unsupported assertions, but your pathological
> > > > > > > > > > > narcissism makes you think that anything that comes out of your mouth
> > > > > > > > > > > must be truth."
> > > > > > > > > > > Now, either support your assertions (which I haven't been ignoring for
> > > > > > > > > > > a year or more, as you are well aware) or leave me to conclude that
> > > > > > > > > > > you're a pathological narcissist who conflates the fallacies that fly
> > > > > > > > > > > out of your mouth for God's edicts.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >You are merely making unsupported
> > > > > > > > > > > > > assertions, but your pathological narcissism makes you think that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > anything that comes out of your mouth must be truth.
That which appears as reasoning in a creature without an immortal soul
is really only a chemical reaction, such as they who assert the
unreality of free will posit happens even in us.
Creatures without immortal souls do not "reason" per se; they have no
volitional control over their brain processes. Indeed, there is
nothing in them that could exercise volition at all. There are *only*
brain processes, that proceed according to the known (and unknown)
principles of chemistry and quantum mechanics. That would include pre-
human hominids. So-called moral behavior in them and in other beasts
is simply part of the genetic programming that makes up the organism.
Human beings alone among the animals have free will, and thus the
capacity for sin or virtue.
The above facts are consistent both with evolution and Catholicism.
On Nov 2, 1:35 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 1, 8:15 pm, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> > On Nov 1, 6:10 pm, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 1, 7:54 am, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> > > > Now, here's the thing: in order for the Catholic Church to accept
> > > > evolution, I think that you would agree that they would have to take
> > > > the Genesis account figuratively, since it cannot be literally true
> > > > and evolution be true. But, the "satiation event" is also in that
> > > > account. And that account is already figurative to the Catholics. So
> > > > can you really insist that they would HAVE to take original sin as
> > > > being a literal event, and thus a satiation event? Since this isn't
> > > > certain, wouldn't you have to look or wait to see how they DO, in
> > > > fact, actually interpret that?
> > > Treebeard, I hope you won't mind clarifying something for me. I agree
> > > that Genesis might not be a sequential account of Creation, or again,
> > > it might be, but in a way that I do not understand. But surely there
> > > must be some things in it that we take literally, like, e.g., "God
> > > created heaven and earth."
> > > What concerns us here is solely the account of the Fall. Briefly,
> > > evolution describes the process of the formation of the human race,
> > > "from the dust of the ground." The Fall was an event, before which,
> > > we had no sin, and after which, we do.
> > > Why would such an event necessarily be an evolutionary saltation
> > > event? Does the ability to sin necessarily stem from a genetic
> > > alteration?
> > That is, in fact, one of the tacks that can be taken: that there is
> > something in evolution that allows for it to be enough of an event to
> > fit the description.
> This is completely inconsistent with evolution.
> > Or that it isn't a literal event.
> This is completely discounted as a possibility by your own religion.
> > Or any number
> > of other possibilities.
> Or, the most logical one: Catholicism is inconsistent with
> observation.
> > It seems that it would almost have to relate to our ability to make
> > moral choices, and a strict evolutionary account would argue that that
> > develops.
> I think this is as plain as day. Moral customs are seen in different
> forms in other species, exactly as one would expect from an
> evolutionary hypothesis.
> Why "moral reasoning" should be in ANY WAY different from arithmetical
> capability, facial recognition, sequential recognition, model
> abstraction, language, self-awareness, object persistence, or any of
> our OTHER mental capacities, is only apparent to those who already
> presuppose the answer for religious reasons. We see all of these other
> hallmarks of "higher brain function" present in varying degrees in a
> cladistic categorization of animals, and indeed we see hallmarks of
> "moral reasoning" present in varying degrees in a cladistic
> categorization of animals, so just pretending that biology makes
> special exceptions for human beings is *ALREADY* proving my point that
> the two viewpoints are inconsistent. You can, of course, make any
> number of special allowances that are completely unnecessary (since
> natural selection and societal species living handily makes ready
> sense of the development of moral reasoning), but this is exactly my
> point: You discount reality (biology) in favor of fantasy (a neolithic
> myth). If that's what you want to do, then just don't mince words: SAY
> you reject biology and observational reality. I know you're afraid to
> do so, because you'd be branded (in most intellectual circles) as
> something akin to a Holocaust denier, but hey... why should that stop
> you?
> > But it's a bit ridiculous to insist that that translation
> > must be literal,
> Oh, I agree, the Catholic viewpoint that an actual event occurred is
> ridiculous. However they consider it a doctrinal point, and apparently
> I'm much more aware of your own religion's teachings than you are.
> You're a heretic and don't even know it, but of course, now you do, so
> you're a heretic nonetheless. It's only a matter of time before Joe
> starts calling you an anti-Christ. You should wear such a badge with
> honor!
> On Oct 24, 3:45 pm, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Oct 24, 4:46 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Oct 24, 11:50 am, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Oct 21, 2:10 am, "Timothy 1:4a" <canfanor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Oct 20, 6:31 pm, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Oct 20, 11:31 am, Alan Wostenberg <awo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > Joe, this phrase "true Christian" bears some thought. Could we say
> > > > > > > somebody is no true Christian in the sense that a poorly drawn
> > > > > > > triangle is a not a true triangle? For a thing is an instance of a
> > > > > > > class even if imperfect. So could we say the heretic is not a true
> > > > > > > Catholic in the sense he's not a good one?
> > > > > > Imperfections do not render us false Christians. If they did, there
> > > > > > would be no Christians at all.
> > > > > > A true Christian is one who authentically believes in Jesus Christ.
> > > > > > Romans 10:8 But what saith the scripture? The word is nigh thee; even
> > > > > > in thy mouth and in thy heart. This is the word of faith, which we
> > > > > > preach. 9 For if thou confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus and
> > > > > > believe in thy heart that God hath raised him up from the dead, thou
> > > > > > shalt be saved. 10 For, with the heart, we believe unto justice: but,
> > > > > > with the mouth, confession is made unto salvation.
> > > > > > By contrast, are they spoken of in 1 John, "if they had been of us,
> > > > > > they would no doubt have remained with us:"
> > > > > > So it is obvious that no one actually deconverts.
> > > > > It is only obvious that John says so. I was a true Catholic until my
> > > > > late teens, and considered becoming a priest. No test or trial at the
> > > > > time would have shown me to be non-Catholic. Deconversions are real.
> > > > So you say. Saint John says differently, and he is a better authority
> > > > than you.
> > > Argument from authority fallacies are not evidence that Timothy 1:4a
> > > has not deconverted from Catholicism to atheism.
> > But God's Holy Word is the guarantee that that is not possible for
> > those who believe.
> Arguments from an imaginary authority (like God) fallacies are even
> less evidence that Timothy 1:4a has not deconverted from Catholicism
> than arguments from authorities who actually exist. Congratulations,
> you just invented a new way to be wrong.
> Obviously, Timothy 1:4a no longer believes.
Nor did he, ever, authentically, according to Scripture.
> > > > Scripture also says,
> > > > > > John 10:27 My sheep hear my voice. And I know them: and they follow
> > > > > > me. 28 And I give them life everlasting: and they shall not perish for
> > > > > > ever. And no man shall pluck them out of my hand. 29 That which my
> > > > > > Father hath given me is greater than all: and no one can snatch them
> > > > > > out of the hand of my Father.
> > > > > > The score board the atheists are so proud of is really only an atheist
> > > > > > showing his true colors after pretending to be a Christian for a time.
> > > > > > > On Oct 19, 3:11 pm, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > It means rappoccio never was a true Christian, and now shows his true
> > > > > > > > colors as an antichrist.
> > > > > > > > 1 John 2:18 Little children, it is the last hour: and as you have
> > > > > > > > heard that Antichrist cometh, even now there are become many
> > > > > > > > Antichrists: whereby we know that it is the last hour.19 They went out
> > > > > > > > from us but they were not of us. For if they had been of us, they
> > > > > > > > would no doubt have remained with us: but that they may be manifest,
> > > > > > > > that they are not all of us.
> > > > > > > > On Oct 19, 2:12 pm, Doris Ragland <dr4...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > what does this mean
> > > > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 4:41 AM, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com>wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 11:17 PM, Timothy 1:4a <canfanor...@gmail.com>wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >> I just noticed that the AvC home page says, "Conversions = 0 /
> > > > > > > > > >> Deconversions = 1." I don't know if it's said that for 2 days or 2
> > > > > > > > > >> years.
> > > > > > > > > >> Can anyone tell me hoo da guy?
> > > > > > > > > > Rappoccio and he credits Dev :-)
> On Nov 3, 4:36 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 3, 1:10 pm, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 2, 9:50 am, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Nov 1, 11:25 pm, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > No, I can take a hint.
> > > > No, you can't. I hinted that you might be able to make a persuasive
> > > > argument if you didn't employ logical fallacies when you make an
> > > > argument. Then you used logical fallacies when you made your
> > > > argument.
> > > I used no logical fallacies in the arguments I have posted many times,
> > > refuting rappoccio's claim that Catholicism is logically inconsistent.
> > You use logical fallacies constantly, including when you "refute"
> > rappoccio's argument that Catholicism is inconsistent.
> Bare assertion sans support.
Stop being disingenuous. You know as well as I do that rappocccio has
pointed you the flaws in your reasoning.
But since you insist on being a brick wall, here is an exchange
between you and rappoccio from elsewhere in this same thread.
Rappoccio: I stopped being a Catholic because Catholicism is logically
inconsistent.
Joe: Yet, it isn't.
(Neil: it only took you one sentence for you to employ an argument
from assertion fallacy. You didn't "refute" anything.)
> If this is an argument, it is fallacious
> for that reason.
Selective memory is not evidence that you don't use logical fallacies.
Even if you don't keep track of them, other people do. You're only
fooling yourself.
> > > But you don't want to think I am capable of logic,
> > I am neutral in that regard. I just observe that you don't show logic,
> > and of course you already know why I think you aren't logical.
> > > so, you ignore such things from me.
> > Pretending that you're a persecuted martyr isn't displaying much
> > logic, at least not in my books. It amounts to an argument from
> > emotion fallacy - people feel sorry for you, therefore God exists.
> > See? You used another fallacy.
> > > > > I was right in the first place.
> > > > You were wrong, as usual.
> > > Manifestly, I am right.
> > > > > Continue to
> > > > > think whatever you like.
> > > > It's awfully narcissistic of you to presume to give people permission
> > > > for what they think.
> > > Get over yourself.
> > I wasn't the one giving the other permission to think.
> I am dismissing you from the discussion due to your demonstration of
> incapacity for the same.
It is narcissistic of you to think you have the authority to dismiss
me from a conversation. And I demonstrated for probably the 1000th
time (but hey, your memory is selective) that you rely on logical
fallacies to prop up your religious beilefs.
> > > On Nov 2, 1:39 am, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Nov 1, 10:12 pm, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > On Nov 1, 7:50 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Nov 1, 4:43 pm, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Think whatever you like. You do anyway.
> > > > > > > > Ummm...people with good arguments have often been known to persuade me
> > > > > > > > to abandon what I think. Come up with a good argument and you can do
> > > > > > > > it too. Hint: try using logic instead of logical fallacies.
> > > > > > > As I already wrote,
> > > > > > > "the fall from grace . . . was a simple reversion to nature, loss of
> > > > > > > grace, not a biological/evolutionary event."
> > > > > > > Since this is the case
> > > > > > No it isn't. It's just an unsupported assertion. You have no valid
> > > > > > evidence of a "fall from grace."
> > > > > > I guess you can't take a hint.
> > > > > > > rappoccio's contention that
> > > > > > > "their Dogma of Original Sin is incompatible with [the view that
> > > > > > > evolution occurred], as it would constitute a saltation event,"
> > > > > > Sorry. You're going to have to quote exactly what rappoccio said. I've
> > > > > > just been talking to another Christian who doctored a quote from
> > > > > > Socrates to make it seem as if Socrates was a Christian. Unbelievable.
> > > > > > I don't exactly trust that you will quote what rappoccio said
> > > > > > accurately or in context.
> > > > > > > loses its force, and rappoccio should not have "deconverted."
> > > > > > I've read several descriptions of rappoccio's deconversion story, and
> > > > > > I disagree with you. There's way more to it than simply him
> > > > > > disagreeing with the dogma of Original SIn. He attributes his
> > > > > > deconversion to several factors, and one of them is you. Rappoccio
> > > > > > should have converted, because he's one happy ex-Catholic.
> > > > > > > > And stop acting like a morose martyr.> On Nov 1, 6:20 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Nov 1, 2:55 pm, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > Think whatever you like. You will anyway, so why should I bother with
> > > > > > > > > > > you?
> > > > > > > > > > Oh please, Joe, I can't live if you don't "bother" with me. Your
> > > > > > > > > > magnificent presence is all I need. I don't care if you continue to
> > > > > > > > > > use fallacies to show that God exists, I don't care if you're a
> > > > > > > > > > pathological narcissist, as long as I am graced with the light of your
> > > > > > > > > > eternal divinity.
> > > > > > > > > > If you ever provided valid evidence to support your wild claims then I
> > > > > > > > > > would have to agree with you. I'm not thinking "whatever I like" - I
> > > > > > > > > > go where the evidence leads. Yours leads nowhere.
> > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 25, 1:04 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 25, 10:13 am, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 25, 11:38 am, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 11:17 PM, Timothy 1:4a <canfanor...@gmail.com>wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I just noticed that the AvC home page says, "Conversions = 0 /
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Deconversions = 1." I don't know if it's said that for 2 days or 2
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > years.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can anyone tell me hoo da guy?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rappoccio and he credits Dev :-)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, it's me. I have many people to thank for this, but Dev was indeed
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a strong influence. So was Simpleton, LL, philosophy, DreadGeekGirl,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Belly Bionic, and a bunch of others here. Reading talk.origins was
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > also an eye-opening experience, as was reading Dawkins, Harris, and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dozens of others. I also have to thank ThunderF00t for his "Why do
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > people laugh at creationists" series, it was great ;).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But I'll speak for myself now, I've got an hour to kill before I head
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to bed (trip to Geneva tomorrow ;) ):
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I stopped being a Catholic because Catholicism is logically
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inconsistent.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is one thing to claim there are inconsistencies. That claim, you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > might support by producing one at least, which you have not done (I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will address your error about evolution below). But to say there is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nothing at all consistent is a sweeping generalization that you have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not supported at all. The burden of proof is still on you to show
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that "something is inconsistent," at least. "Nothing is consistent"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > appears to be as unsupportable as "there is no God," or "there is no
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unicorn:" a universal categorical negative. You might want to stick
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with supporting the lesser claim.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >They accept that evolution occurred, however their Dogma of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Original Sin is incompatible with such a view, as it would constitute
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a saltation event.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > First, the theory of evolution is only a theory about how God created
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the various species. In itself, it does not rule out extraordinary
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > actions of God, what would look to us like saltation events, if such
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > were necessary. Second, no saltation event was necessarily involved
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in the fall from grace, which was a simple reversion to nature, a loss
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of grace, not a biological/evolutionary event.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have explained this to you before, and you ignored my explanation
> On Nov 3, 2:19 pm, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 3, 4:36 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 3, 1:10 pm, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Nov 2, 9:50 am, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Nov 1, 11:25 pm, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > No, I can take a hint.
> > > > > No, you can't. I hinted that you might be able to make a persuasive
> > > > > argument if you didn't employ logical fallacies when you make an
> > > > > argument. Then you used logical fallacies when you made your
> > > > > argument.
> > > > I used no logical fallacies in the arguments I have posted many times,
> > > > refuting rappoccio's claim that Catholicism is logically inconsistent.
> > > You use logical fallacies constantly, including when you "refute"
> > > rappoccio's argument that Catholicism is inconsistent.
> > Bare assertion sans support.
> Stop being disingenuous. You know as well as I do that rappocccio has
> pointed you the flaws in your reasoning.
> But since you insist on being a brick wall, here is an exchange
> between you and rappoccio from elsewhere in this same thread.
> Rappoccio: I stopped being a Catholic because Catholicism is logically
> inconsistent.
> Joe: Yet, it isn't.
> (Neil: it only took you one sentence for you to employ an argument
> from assertion fallacy. You didn't "refute" anything.)
> > If this is an argument, it is fallacious
> > for that reason.
> Selective memory is not evidence that you don't use logical fallacies.
> Even if you don't keep track of them, other people do. You're only
> fooling yourself.
> > > > But you don't want to think I am capable of logic,
> > > I am neutral in that regard. I just observe that you don't show logic,
> > > and of course you already know why I think you aren't logical.
> > > > so, you ignore such things from me.
> > > Pretending that you're a persecuted martyr isn't displaying much
> > > logic, at least not in my books. It amounts to an argument from
> > > emotion fallacy - people feel sorry for you, therefore God exists.
> > > See? You used another fallacy.
> > > > > > I was right in the first place.
> > > > > You were wrong, as usual.
> > > > Manifestly, I am right.
> > > > > > Continue to
> > > > > > think whatever you like.
> > > > > It's awfully narcissistic of you to presume to give people permission
> > > > > for what they think.
> > > > Get over yourself.
> > > I wasn't the one giving the other permission to think.
> > I am dismissing you from the discussion due to your demonstration of
> > incapacity for the same.
> It is narcissistic of you to think you have the authority to dismiss
> me from a conversation. And I demonstrated for probably the 1000th
> time (but hey, your memory is selective) that you rely on logical
> fallacies to prop up your religious beilefs.> > > On Nov 2, 1:39 am, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > On Nov 1, 10:12 pm, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Nov 1, 7:50 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Nov 1, 4:43 pm, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > Think whatever you like. You do anyway.
> > > > > > > > > Ummm...people with good arguments have often been known to persuade me
> > > > > > > > > to abandon what I think. Come up with a good argument and you can do
> > > > > > > > > it too. Hint: try using logic instead of logical fallacies.
> > > > > > > > As I already wrote,
> > > > > > > > "the fall from grace . . . was a simple reversion to nature, loss of
> > > > > > > > grace, not a biological/evolutionary event."
> > > > > > > > Since this is the case
> > > > > > > No it isn't. It's just an unsupported assertion. You have no valid
> > > > > > > evidence of a "fall from grace."
> > > > > > > I guess you can't take a hint.
> > > > > > > > rappoccio's contention that
> > > > > > > > "their Dogma of Original Sin is incompatible with [the view that
> > > > > > > > evolution occurred], as it would constitute a saltation event,"
> > > > > > > Sorry. You're going to have to quote exactly what rappoccio said. I've
> > > > > > > just been talking to another Christian who doctored a quote from
> > > > > > > Socrates to make it seem as if Socrates was a Christian. Unbelievable.
> > > > > > > I don't exactly trust that you will quote what rappoccio said
> > > > > > > accurately or in context.
> > > > > > > > loses its force, and rappoccio should not have "deconverted."
> > > > > > > I've read several descriptions of rappoccio's deconversion story, and
> > > > > > > I disagree with you. There's way more to it than simply him
> > > > > > > disagreeing with the dogma of Original SIn. He attributes his
> > > > > > > deconversion to several factors, and one of them is you. Rappoccio
> > > > > > > should have converted, because he's one happy ex-Catholic.
> > > > > > > > > And stop acting like a morose martyr.> On Nov 1, 6:20 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Nov 1, 2:55 pm, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > Think whatever you like. You will anyway, so why should I bother with
> > > > > > > > > > > > you?
> > > > > > > > > > > Oh please, Joe, I can't live if you don't "bother" with me. Your
> > > > > > > > > > > magnificent presence is all I need. I don't care if you continue to
> > > > > > > > > > > use fallacies to show that God exists, I don't care if you're a
> > > > > > > > > > > pathological narcissist, as long as I am graced with the light of your
> > > > > > > > > > > eternal divinity.
> > > > > > > > > > > If you ever provided valid evidence to support your wild claims then I
> > > > > > > > > > > would have to agree with you. I'm not thinking "whatever I like" - I
> > > > > > > > > > > go where the evidence leads. Yours leads nowhere.
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 25, 1:04 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 11:17 PM, Timothy 1:4a <canfanor...@gmail.com>wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I just noticed that the AvC home page says, "Conversions = 0 /
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Deconversions = 1." I don't know if it's said that for 2 days or 2
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > years.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can anyone tell me hoo da guy?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rappoccio and he credits Dev :-)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, it's me. I have many people to thank for this, but Dev was indeed
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a strong influence. So was Simpleton, LL, philosophy, DreadGeekGirl,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Belly Bionic, and a bunch of others here. Reading talk.origins was
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > also an eye-opening experience, as was reading Dawkins, Harris, and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dozens of others. I also have to thank ThunderF00t for his "Why do
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > people laugh at creationists" series, it was great ;).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But I'll speak for myself now, I've got an hour to kill before I head
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to bed (trip to Geneva tomorrow ;) ):
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I stopped being a Catholic because Catholicism is logically
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inconsistent.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is one thing to claim there are inconsistencies. That claim, you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > might support by producing one at least, which you have not done (I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will address your error about evolution below). But to say there is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nothing at all consistent is a sweeping generalization that you have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not supported at all. The burden of proof is still on you to show
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that "something is inconsistent," at least. "Nothing is consistent"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > appears to be as unsupportable as "there is no God," or "there is no
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unicorn:" a universal categorical negative. You might want to stick
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with supporting the lesser claim.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >They accept that evolution occurred, however their Dogma of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Original Sin is incompatible with such a view, as it would constitute
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a saltation event.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > First, the theory of evolution is only a theory about how God created
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the various species. In itself, it does not rule out extraordinary
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > actions of God, what would look to us like saltation events, if such
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > were necessary. Second, no
> On Nov 3, 5:50 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 3, 2:19 pm, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 3, 4:36 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Nov 3, 1:10 pm, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Nov 2, 9:50 am, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Nov 1, 11:25 pm, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > No, I can take a hint.
> > > > > > No, you can't. I hinted that you might be able to make a persuasive
> > > > > > argument if you didn't employ logical fallacies when you make an
> > > > > > argument. Then you used logical fallacies when you made your
> > > > > > argument.
> > > > > I used no logical fallacies in the arguments I have posted many times,
> > > > > refuting rappoccio's claim that Catholicism is logically inconsistent.
> > > > You use logical fallacies constantly, including when you "refute"
> > > > rappoccio's argument that Catholicism is inconsistent.
> > > Bare assertion sans support.
> > Stop being disingenuous. You know as well as I do that rappocccio has
> > pointed you the flaws in your reasoning.
Joseph Geloso: Also, the consistent testimony of every Saint familiar
with it is that it does exactly this. The testimony of the Saints is
useful for obtaining confidence that it will work, but the actual
working of it is only available to the one who actually does it.
Rappoccio: So you've got an argument ad populum. Still not convincing.
Joseph Geloso: I believe if I intentionally jumped off a building, my
God would quite justifiably hurl me to the ground.
Rappoccio: At an acceleration of 9.8 m/s^2.
You don't need to resort to God to "explain" it in any way.
Joseph Geloso: It is impossible that either I, or the building, or
gravity, or words, or arguments, or you, could ever exist at all, if
there were not God.
Rappoccio: Unproven assertion.
Or (from the same thread):
Joseph Geloso Another fact, to which you appear completely oblivious,
is that if human beings were to "seek first the Kingdom of Heaven,"
God would very quickly alleviate all of human suffering, rendering
scientific solutions unnecessary. The fact is, the benefit to mankind
of religion is actually infinite, and so completely overshadows all
the finite benefits of technology.
Rappoccio: You're assuming:
1) That God exists in the first place.
2) That Christianity is true and other religions are not.
3) That everyone on the planet living a Christian lifestyle would then
make God decide to eliminate all human suffering.
And so, you have two metaphysical assertions and one prediction of
God's behaviour that doesn't necessarily have to be true.
So far in the world, we have seen countless applications of science
that have revealed themselves to be useful to alleviate suffering and
make our lives better, and the Kingdom of God is not here, despite
the
belief of many people that it exists.
So would you rather take the sure thing, or gamble on what you think
God's will is?
I'll take the sure thing for now. If the long shot ends up coming in,
I
will have lost nothing: Pascal's Wager in reverse.
Or
Rappoccio: there's no reason to identify one's self as "agnostic" on
the question, any more than people feel the need to strenuously
identify themselves as "agnostic" on the question of whether unicorns
or leprechauns exist.
Joseph Geloso: Ah, the Old Standard, "Flying Spaghetti Monster
Fallacy." I thought we had been over this.
"God" is essentially interchangeable with "anything you might think
doesn't exist."
Can you see the fallacy in that? Hint: it begs the question.
God is green. Beans are green. Beans exist. Therefore, God exists.
Same logic, only reversed.
Rappoccio: Actually the logic is that there is no need to disprove
positive assertions like "Joe owes rappoccio $10 million dollars". Why
should we need to disprove something to consider it not true? We
cannot disprove the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Invisible Pink
Unicorn, Zeus, Apollo, Yahweh, leprechauns with pots of gold at the
end of the rainbow, or that Joe doesn't owe rappoccio $10 million
dollars. But some of the above some of us ascribe to, and none of the
above do all of us ascribe to. If you have your evidence that God
exists personally, great for you. However the atheists here don't have
access to that evidence that convinces you (personally) and therefore
you can't be terribly surprised that they don't take your word for it.
Good grief. Even when rappoccio was a Christian he was disintegrating
your arguments. The examples are endless, as you are well aware. Go
search it yourself, just type in "rappoccio joseph geloso fallacy."
The problem isn’t that you don’t use fallacies - which you do,
endlessly; the problem is that you’re too narcissistic to admit that
you do.
> > But since you insist on being a brick wall, here is an exchange
> > between you and rappoccio from elsewhere in this same thread.
> > Rappoccio: I stopped being a Catholic because Catholicism is logically
> > inconsistent.
> > Joe: Yet, it isn't.
> > (Neil: it only took you one sentence for you to employ an argument
> > from assertion fallacy. You didn't "refute" anything.)
> > > If this is an argument, it is fallacious
> > > for that reason.
> > Selective memory is not evidence that you don't use logical fallacies.
> > Even if you don't keep track of them, other people do. You're only
> > fooling yourself.
> > > > > But you don't want to think I am capable of logic,
> > > > I am neutral in that regard. I just observe that you don't show logic,
> > > > and of course you already know why I think you aren't logical.
> > > > > so, you ignore such things from me.
> > > > Pretending that you're a persecuted martyr isn't displaying much
> > > > logic, at least not in my books. It amounts to an argument from
> > > > emotion fallacy - people feel sorry for you, therefore God exists.
> > > > See? You used another fallacy.
> > > > > > > I was right in the first place.
> > > > > > You were wrong, as usual.
> > > > > Manifestly, I am right.
> > > > > > > Continue to
> > > > > > > think whatever you like.
> > > > > > It's awfully narcissistic of you to presume to give people permission
> > > > > > for what they think.
> > > > > Get over yourself.
> > > > I wasn't the one giving the other permission to think.
> > > I am dismissing you from the discussion due to your demonstration of
> > > incapacity for the same.
> > It is narcissistic of you to think you have the authority to dismiss
> > me from a conversation. And I demonstrated for probably the 1000th
> > time (but hey, your memory is selective) that you rely on logical
> > fallacies to prop up your religious beilefs.> > > On Nov 2, 1:39 am, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Nov 1, 10:12 pm, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Nov 1, 7:50 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Nov 1, 4:43 pm, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > Think whatever you like. You do anyway.
> > > > > > > > > > Ummm...people with good arguments have often been known to persuade me
> > > > > > > > > > to abandon what I think. Come up with a good argument and you can do
> > > > > > > > > > it too. Hint: try using logic instead of logical fallacies.
> > > > > > > > > As I already wrote,
> > > > > > > > > "the fall from grace . . . was a simple reversion to nature, loss of
> > > > > > > > > grace, not a biological/evolutionary event."
> > > > > > > > > Since this is the case
> > > > > > > > No it isn't. It's just an unsupported assertion. You have no valid
> > > > > > > > evidence of a "fall from grace."
> > > > > > > > I guess you can't take a hint.
> > > > > > > > > rappoccio's contention that
> > > > > > > > > "their Dogma of Original Sin is incompatible with [the view that
> > > > > > > > > evolution occurred], as it would constitute a saltation event,"
> > > > > > > > Sorry. You're going to have to quote exactly what rappoccio said. I've
> > > > > > > > just been talking to another Christian who doctored a quote from
> > > > > > > > Socrates to make it seem as if Socrates was a Christian. Unbelievable.
> > > > > > > > I don't exactly trust that you will quote what rappoccio said
> > > > > > > > accurately or in context.
> > > > > > > > > loses its force, and rappoccio should not have "deconverted."
> > > > > > > > I've read several descriptions of rappoccio's deconversion story, and
> > > > > > > > I disagree with you. There's way more to it than simply him
> > > > > > > > disagreeing with the dogma of Original SIn. He attributes his
> > > > > > > > deconversion to several factors, and one of them is you. Rappoccio
> > > > > > > > should have converted, because he's one happy ex-Catholic.
> > > > > > > > > > And stop acting like a morose martyr.> On Nov 1, 6:20 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Nov 1, 2:55 pm, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Think whatever you like. You will anyway, so why should I bother with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > you?
> That which appears as reasoning in a creature without an immortal soul
> is really only a chemical reaction, such as they who assert the
> unreality of free will posit happens even in us.
> Creatures without immortal souls do not "reason" per se; they have no
> volitional control over their brain processes. Indeed, there is
> nothing in them that could exercise volition at all. There are *only*
> brain processes, that proceed according to the known (and unknown)
> principles of chemistry and quantum mechanics. That would include pre-
> human hominids. So-called moral behavior in them and in other beasts
> is simply part of the genetic programming that makes up the organism.
> Human beings alone among the animals have free will, and thus the
> capacity for sin or virtue.
> The above facts are consistent both with evolution and Catholicism.
> On Nov 2, 1:35 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 1, 8:15 pm, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> > > On Nov 1, 6:10 pm, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Nov 1, 7:54 am, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> > > > > Now, here's the thing: in order for the Catholic Church to accept
> > > > > evolution, I think that you would agree that they would have to take
> > > > > the Genesis account figuratively, since it cannot be literally true
> > > > > and evolution be true. But, the "satiation event" is also in that
> > > > > account. And that account is already figurative to the Catholics. So
> > > > > can you really insist that they would HAVE to take original sin as
> > > > > being a literal event, and thus a satiation event? Since this isn't
> > > > > certain, wouldn't you have to look or wait to see how they DO, in
> > > > > fact, actually interpret that?
> > > > Treebeard, I hope you won't mind clarifying something for me. I agree
> > > > that Genesis might not be a sequential account of Creation, or again,
> > > > it might be, but in a way that I do not understand. But surely there
> > > > must be some things in it that we take literally, like, e.g., "God
> > > > created heaven and earth."
> > > > What concerns us here is solely the account of the Fall. Briefly,
> > > > evolution describes the process of the formation of the human race,
> > > > "from the dust of the ground." The Fall was an event, before which,
> > > > we had no sin, and after which, we do.
> > > > Why would such an event necessarily be an evolutionary saltation
> > > > event? Does the ability to sin necessarily stem from a genetic
> > > > alteration?
> > > That is, in fact, one of the tacks that can be taken: that there is
> > > something in evolution that allows for it to be enough of an event to
> > > fit the description.
> > This is completely inconsistent with evolution.
> > > Or that it isn't a literal event.
> > This is completely discounted as a possibility by your own religion.
> > > Or any number
> > > of other possibilities.
> > Or, the most logical one: Catholicism is inconsistent with
> > observation.
> > > It seems that it would almost have to relate to our ability to make
> > > moral choices, and a strict evolutionary account would argue that that
> > > develops.
> > I think this is as plain as day. Moral customs are seen in different
> > forms in other species, exactly as one would expect from an
> > evolutionary hypothesis.
> > Why "moral reasoning" should be in ANY WAY different from arithmetical
> > capability, facial recognition, sequential recognition, model
> > abstraction, language, self-awareness, object persistence, or any of
> > our OTHER mental capacities, is only apparent to those who already
> > presuppose the answer for religious reasons. We see all of these other
> > hallmarks of "higher brain function" present in varying degrees in a
> > cladistic categorization of animals, and indeed we see hallmarks of
> > "moral reasoning" present in varying degrees in a cladistic
> > categorization of animals, so just pretending that biology makes
> > special exceptions for human beings is *ALREADY* proving my point that
> > the two viewpoints are inconsistent. You can, of course, make any
> > number of special allowances that are completely unnecessary (since
> > natural selection and societal species living handily makes ready
> > sense of the development of moral reasoning), but this is exactly my
> > point: You discount reality (biology) in favor of fantasy (a neolithic
> > myth). If that's what you want to do, then just don't mince words: SAY
> > you reject biology and observational reality. I know you're afraid to
> > do so, because you'd be branded (in most intellectual circles) as
> > something akin to a Holocaust denier, but hey... why should that stop
> > you?
> > > But it's a bit ridiculous to insist that that translation
> > > must be literal,
> > Oh, I agree, the Catholic viewpoint that an actual event occurred is
> > ridiculous. However they consider it a doctrinal point, and apparently
> > I'm much more aware of your own religion's teachings than you are.
> > You're a heretic and don't even know it, but of course, now you do, so
> > you're a heretic nonetheless. It's only a matter of time before Joe
> > starts calling you an anti-Christ. You should wear such a badge with
> > honor!
On Nov 4, 8:28 am, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> That which appears as reasoning in a creature without an immortal soul
> is really only a chemical reaction, such as they who assert the
> unreality of free will posit happens even in us.
Don't try that Jo. That's rubbish. The crows that live around here
are amazing animals. I hate their call, but they have figured out
how to leave the humans alone, and go and get the food they want
from the kookaburras who are being fed. The kookaburra flys off
with its food, and the crow flys over it and dive bombs it. The K.
complains, and the food falls out of its beak.... so the crow just
follows the food to the ground.
Another example........ the magpie takes its food and "hides it",
turns it back, and the crow pinches it. That's not a chemical
reaction of the type you are talking about. This is pure reasoning.
Also, what creature doesn't have an immortal soul, as you put it?
In the Masoretic text it says in Genesis that all creatures have
souls. It was the Catholic church which changed that, for it's own
purposes. At least try and be honest about your own religion,
please.
> Creatures without immortal souls do not "reason" per se; they have no
> volitional control over their brain processes. Indeed, there is
> nothing in them that could exercise volition at all. There are *only*
> brain processes, that proceed according to the known (and unknown)
> principles of chemistry and quantum mechanics. That would include pre-
> human hominids. So-called moral behavior in them and in other beasts
> is simply part of the genetic programming that makes up the organism.
> Human beings alone among the animals have free will, and thus the
> capacity for sin or virtue.
> The above facts are consistent both with evolution and Catholicism.
> On Nov 2, 1:35 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 1, 8:15 pm, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> > > On Nov 1, 6:10 pm, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Nov 1, 7:54 am, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> > > > > Now, here's the thing: in order for the Catholic Church to accept
> > > > > evolution, I think that you would agree that they would have to take
> > > > > the Genesis account figuratively, since it cannot be literally true
> > > > > and evolution be true. But, the "satiation event" is also in that
> > > > > account. And that account is already figurative to the Catholics. So
> > > > > can you really insist that they would HAVE to take original sin as
> > > > > being a literal event, and thus a satiation event? Since this isn't
> > > > > certain, wouldn't you have to look or wait to see how they DO, in
> > > > > fact, actually interpret that?
> > > > Treebeard, I hope you won't mind clarifying something for me. I agree
> > > > that Genesis might not be a sequential account of Creation, or again,
> > > > it might be, but in a way that I do not understand. But surely there
> > > > must be some things in it that we take literally, like, e.g., "God
> > > > created heaven and earth."
> > > > What concerns us here is solely the account of the Fall. Briefly,
> > > > evolution describes the process of the formation of the human race,
> > > > "from the dust of the ground." The Fall was an event, before which,
> > > > we had no sin, and after which, we do.
> > > > Why would such an event necessarily be an evolutionary saltation
> > > > event? Does the ability to sin necessarily stem from a genetic
> > > > alteration?
> > > That is, in fact, one of the tacks that can be taken: that there is
> > > something in evolution that allows for it to be enough of an event to
> > > fit the description.
> > This is completely inconsistent with evolution.
> > > Or that it isn't a literal event.
> > This is completely discounted as a possibility by your own religion.
> > > Or any number
> > > of other possibilities.
> > Or, the most logical one: Catholicism is inconsistent with
> > observation.
> > > It seems that it would almost have to relate to our ability to make
> > > moral choices, and a strict evolutionary account would argue that that
> > > develops.
> > I think this is as plain as day. Moral customs are seen in different
> > forms in other species, exactly as one would expect from an
> > evolutionary hypothesis.
> > Why "moral reasoning" should be in ANY WAY different from arithmetical
> > capability, facial recognition, sequential recognition, model
> > abstraction, language, self-awareness, object persistence, or any of
> > our OTHER mental capacities, is only apparent to those who already
> > presuppose the answer for religious reasons. We see all of these other
> > hallmarks of "higher brain function" present in varying degrees in a
> > cladistic categorization of animals, and indeed we see hallmarks of
> > "moral reasoning" present in varying degrees in a cladistic
> > categorization of animals, so just pretending that biology makes
> > special exceptions for human beings is *ALREADY* proving my point that
> > the two viewpoints are inconsistent. You can, of course, make any
> > number of special allowances that are completely unnecessary (since
> > natural selection and societal species living handily makes ready
> > sense of the development of moral reasoning), but this is exactly my
> > point: You discount reality (biology) in favor of fantasy (a neolithic
> > myth). If that's what you want to do, then just don't mince words: SAY
> > you reject biology and observational reality. I know you're afraid to
> > do so, because you'd be branded (in most intellectual circles) as
> > something akin to a Holocaust denier, but hey... why should that stop
> > you?
> > > But it's a bit ridiculous to insist that that translation
> > > must be literal,
> > Oh, I agree, the Catholic viewpoint that an actual event occurred is
> > ridiculous. However they consider it a doctrinal point, and apparently
> > I'm much more aware of your own religion's teachings than you are.
> > You're a heretic and don't even know it, but of course, now you do, so
> > you're a heretic nonetheless. It's only a matter of time before Joe
> > starts calling you an anti-Christ. You should wear such a badge with
> > honor!
> On Nov 4, 8:28 am, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > That which appears as reasoning in a creature without an immortal soul
> > is really only a chemical reaction, such as they who assert the
> > unreality of free will posit happens even in us.
> Don't try that Jo. That's rubbish. The crows that live around here
> are amazing animals. I hate their call, but they have figured out
> how to leave the humans alone, and go and get the food they want
> from the kookaburras who are being fed. The kookaburra flys off
> with its food, and the crow flys over it and dive bombs it. The K.
> complains, and the food falls out of its beak.... so the crow just
> follows the food to the ground.
> Another example........ the magpie takes its food and "hides it",
> turns it back, and the crow pinches it. That's not a chemical
> reaction of the type you are talking about. This is pure reasoning.
Is it reasoning, or is it conditioning? Recall the example in "The
God Delusion" of the insect that finds food, checks its hole before
entering, and then returns and brings it in. It seems like that's
reasoning, right? Except that if you move the food away from the hole
while it is inside, it will drag the food to the hole, check the hole
again, and then come back. You can actually get that insect to do
this infinitely; it never, ever changes those actions. So, that
doesn't really seem like reasoning, does it? It certainly does seem
like a simple conditioned and instinctive reaction.
The same could be true of the crow, in both cases.
> Also, what creature doesn't have an immortal soul, as you put it?
> In the Masoretic text it says in Genesis that all creatures have
> souls. It was the Catholic church which changed that, for it's own
> purposes. At least try and be honest about your own religion,
> please.
> > Creatures without immortal souls do not "reason" per se; they have no
> > volitional control over their brain processes. Indeed, there is
> > nothing in them that could exercise volition at all. There are *only*
> > brain processes, that proceed according to the known (and unknown)
> > principles of chemistry and quantum mechanics. That would include pre-
> > human hominids. So-called moral behavior in them and in other beasts
> > is simply part of the genetic programming that makes up the organism.
> > Human beings alone among the animals have free will, and thus the
> > capacity for sin or virtue.
> > The above facts are consistent both with evolution and Catholicism.
> > On Nov 2, 1:35 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 1, 8:15 pm, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> > > > On Nov 1, 6:10 pm, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Nov 1, 7:54 am, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> > > > > > Now, here's the thing: in order for the Catholic Church to accept
> > > > > > evolution, I think that you would agree that they would have to take
> > > > > > the Genesis account figuratively, since it cannot be literally true
> > > > > > and evolution be true. But, the "satiation event" is also in that
> > > > > > account. And that account is already figurative to the Catholics. So
> > > > > > can you really insist that they would HAVE to take original sin as
> > > > > > being a literal event, and thus a satiation event? Since this isn't
> > > > > > certain, wouldn't you have to look or wait to see how they DO, in
> > > > > > fact, actually interpret that?
> > > > > Treebeard, I hope you won't mind clarifying something for me. I agree
> > > > > that Genesis might not be a sequential account of Creation, or again,
> > > > > it might be, but in a way that I do not understand. But surely there
> > > > > must be some things in it that we take literally, like, e.g., "God
> > > > > created heaven and earth."
> > > > > What concerns us here is solely the account of the Fall. Briefly,
> > > > > evolution describes the process of the formation of the human race,
> > > > > "from the dust of the ground." The Fall was an event, before which,
> > > > > we had no sin, and after which, we do.
> > > > > Why would such an event necessarily be an evolutionary saltation
> > > > > event? Does the ability to sin necessarily stem from a genetic
> > > > > alteration?
> > > > That is, in fact, one of the tacks that can be taken: that there is
> > > > something in evolution that allows for it to be enough of an event to
> > > > fit the description.
> > > This is completely inconsistent with evolution.
> > > > Or that it isn't a literal event.
> > > This is completely discounted as a possibility by your own religion.
> > > > Or any number
> > > > of other possibilities.
> > > Or, the most logical one: Catholicism is inconsistent with
> > > observation.
> > > > It seems that it would almost have to relate to our ability to make
> > > > moral choices, and a strict evolutionary account would argue that that
> > > > develops.
> > > I think this is as plain as day. Moral customs are seen in different
> > > forms in other species, exactly as one would expect from an
> > > evolutionary hypothesis.
> > > Why "moral reasoning" should be in ANY WAY different from arithmetical
> > > capability, facial recognition, sequential recognition, model
> > > abstraction, language, self-awareness, object persistence, or any of
> > > our OTHER mental capacities, is only apparent to those who already
> > > presuppose the answer for religious reasons. We see all of these other
> > > hallmarks of "higher brain function" present in varying degrees in a
> > > cladistic categorization of animals, and indeed we see hallmarks of
> > > "moral reasoning" present in varying degrees in a cladistic
> > > categorization of animals, so just pretending that biology makes
> > > special exceptions for human beings is *ALREADY* proving my point that
> > > the two viewpoints are inconsistent. You can, of course, make any
> > > number of special allowances that are completely unnecessary (since
> > > natural selection and societal species living handily makes ready
> > > sense of the development of moral reasoning), but this is exactly my
> > > point: You discount reality (biology) in favor of fantasy (a neolithic
> > > myth). If that's what you want to do, then just don't mince words: SAY
> > > you reject biology and observational reality. I know you're afraid to
> > > do so, because you'd be branded (in most intellectual circles) as
> > > something akin to a Holocaust denier, but hey... why should that stop
> > > you?
> > > > But it's a bit ridiculous to insist that that translation
> > > > must be literal,
> > > Oh, I agree, the Catholic viewpoint that an actual event occurred is
> > > ridiculous. However they consider it a doctrinal point, and apparently
> > > I'm much more aware of your own religion's teachings than you are.
> > > You're a heretic and don't even know it, but of course, now you do, so
> > > you're a heretic nonetheless. It's only a matter of time before Joe
> > > starts calling you an anti-Christ. You should wear such a badge with
> > > honor!
> > > > and must be to a satiation event at all.
> > > Have you ever studied primate behavior?- Hide quoted text -
|
