tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-827824285101179434.post2070035088066426479..comments2023-08-11T04:59:57.364-04:00Comments on Sacerdotus: The Eclipse of "Daylight Atheism"Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger20125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-827824285101179434.post-68335917800042798192013-09-21T23:20:11.703-04:002013-09-21T23:20:11.703-04:00Your comment is irrelevant to the blog post. It s...Your comment is irrelevant to the blog post. It seems like you just wanted to vent your frustration instead of making an actual point. I was not aware that you possess supernatural powers that allow you to know who is an 'ex-atheist' and who is not. You make yourself look like an idiot by posting such nonsense. Atheism is a fallacious doctrine that is incompatible with reason. The reason you are having trouble identifying critical thinking, moral scrutiny and intellectual honesty is because you are commenting via an atheist filter. Your bias tendency does not allow you to think clearly and make rational assessments. This is your problem, not mine. Sacerdotushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04558048488785769126noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-827824285101179434.post-25166389759279885982013-09-21T17:14:12.550-04:002013-09-21T17:14:12.550-04:00Calling one's self an "ex-atheist" i...Calling one's self an "ex-atheist" is like calling one's self an "ex-non-smoker": none of what you say and write suggests, in any measurable interpretation of reason, that you possessed the critical thinking, moral scrutiny and intellectual honesty that would indicate that your views have changed from what they are.Emlynhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05998505131014678669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-827824285101179434.post-52467948496586196752013-02-10T01:55:02.994-05:002013-02-10T01:55:02.994-05:00Pretty much the same thing. Pretty much the same thing. Sacerdotushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04558048488785769126noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-827824285101179434.post-9382290668653891822013-02-10T01:41:45.906-05:002013-02-10T01:41:45.906-05:00This is due to conditioning, not conscious thinkin...This is due to conditioning, not conscious thinking in the sense that human beings do it. Sacerdotushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04558048488785769126noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-827824285101179434.post-51324626801069858302013-02-09T23:51:50.323-05:002013-02-09T23:51:50.323-05:00''Atheism is – There is no God.''
...''Atheism is – There is no God.''<br /><br />Atheism is There is NOT ENOUGH EVIDENCE to suggest there is a god. <br /><br /><br /><br />Muppetgalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16935521014404617780noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-827824285101179434.post-70949694643721112052013-02-09T23:50:47.609-05:002013-02-09T23:50:47.609-05:00Plenty of animals have conscious thoughts. Ever w...Plenty of animals have conscious thoughts. Ever watch an ape solve a problem using a tool? Heck even rats can some simple reasoning processes to get through mazes. Muppetgalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16935521014404617780noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-827824285101179434.post-5642502621213175572012-07-07T03:22:20.413-04:002012-07-07T03:22:20.413-04:00(REQUEST FOR MORE INFORMATION Here's my proble...(REQUEST FOR MORE INFORMATION Here's my problem. You know what I believe because I'm an atheist. If you don't, then I'll state it again. I do not BELIEVE there is a God, but I think there is still a chance something exists (or existed) which would resemble a God. It could be something eternal, or it could be something that existed once but does so no longer. But I know nothing about what you believe.)<br /><br />That is Agnosticism not Atheism. Atheism is – There is no God. End of story. Not, “maybe there is or maybe there was…” If there was something that existed before that resembled God then that something would still exists now. It would be above nature or “supernatural” and therefore not bound by the laws we are bound by. <br /><br /><br /> (Therefore, I suggest you respond or write an article about what your beliefs are. I would suggest answering questions such as your upbringing, why you were an atheist, why you converted to Catholicism, and why you believe in intelligent design. I would also like to know if you believe in Evolution or the Big Bang (I've been working under the assumption that you do). Do you take the Bible literally, figuratively, or both, and if both, which parts and why? Do you see the problem here? )<br /><br />I will answer all this in another post with more detail. Basically I was an Atheist, no religious upbringing. Physics and other sciences, including Philosophy opened my mind to God; after studying different faiths, visiting their services, Catholicism spoke to my rational mind more. Doing charity work then opened my heart to God. <br /><br />I believe in Evolution and the Big Bang. The Big Bang was formulated by a Catholic priest by the way. I do not take the Bible literally because it was never meant to be taken as such. Some parts of the Old Testament and Revelation have to be read carefully and not taken literally. There is no problem in this. Even our Constitution cannot be taken literally. <br /><br />(When you choose a particular denomination within a particular religion there are a lot of assumptions that go along with that. To me, you do not seem Catholic at all, so please explain. Thanks.)<br /><br />A study of history would show that Catholicism is the sole holder of original Christian beliefs. It traces its roots back to Christ and the Apostles themselves. Everything else is man made. Prior to the Schism and Reformation, the Catholic Church existed undisturbed. Catholicism also predates Islam.Sacerdotushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04558048488785769126noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-827824285101179434.post-31868920741245765242012-07-07T03:21:53.904-04:002012-07-07T03:21:53.904-04:00(Higgs Boson you write: "Today's discover...(Higgs Boson you write: "Today's discovery of the Higgs Boson shows that even among the tiniest of particles there is order. Every thing is set into motion in such a way that allows it to function." I think you missed the point here as well. The Higgs Boson explains WHY there is order in the universe.)<br /><br />The Higgs Boson is particle that gives mass to everything. It is basically the “air” that keeps a balloon inflated, so to speak. <br /><br /><br /> (Being a so-called man of physics, I will not elaborate on this point for fear of it being superfluous. Although intelligent designers will comfort themselves with the thought that, "well, God is still responsible for the creation of the Big Bang and the Higgs Boson", this should have been a sad day for you guys because it ruins the "God is why we have order in the universe" argument.)<br /><br /><br />No no no, this does not ruin anything. Actually it helps intelligent design. The more we look the more we see the puzzle. Puzzles can only come into existence because an intelligent person designed it. You will not find a puzzle in nature like you would in a toy shop. God will ultimately be responsible for everything because the Higgs Boson et al did not exist prior to the big bang. We are only learning things as they exist now; we still have a long way to go. Science will never be able to answer everything. <br /><br /> (But there is still hope, you can still say God created the Big Bang, and when science figures that out, you can say God created the thing that created the Big Bang. Heck, when science figures out the thing that created the Big Bang, you can still resort to saying God created the thing that created the thing that created the Big Bang.)<br /><br />Again, God will always end up the ultimate first cause, first mover. There is no way getting around this. Science can only learn what is tangible to it. We cannot learn about events prior to the big bang because we can never go to that point where no space, time and matter existed. We can only speculate based on how particles operate with one another and the effects of collision. Time travel is in discussion now among physicists. However, this idea is still far fetched because time exists post big bang so if we do develop a time machine, how can it go to a point where no time exists? <br /><br />(Intelligent design is very seductive because, no matter what, you have an explanation for your existence. God is supposedly revealed through the very thing which goes further and further to prove Him false. Science spends all its time and energy explaining why things work the way they do, and intelligent design reclines in the La-Z-Boy and explains nothing, simply retorting "yep, God did that too." )<br /><br /><br />That is not true. Intelligent design just shows that there is a Logos behind everything. Learning how things work does not mean those things do not have a creator. Learning how a baby functions does not mean we have disproved the baby has a mother and father as its origin. Suppose I can go back in time and show people from Jesus’ time a Rolex watch. I take it apart and show them how it works and why it works. This does not mean the watch does not have a creator (Rolex). It only means that I know how it works and why it works.Sacerdotushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04558048488785769126noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-827824285101179434.post-7512106329524764052012-07-07T03:21:04.665-04:002012-07-07T03:21:04.665-04:00(Buildings on Andromeda I think you're missing...(Buildings on Andromeda I think you're missing my point. God may "be" life, but life is a state of being and god is a thing.)<br /><br /><br />No, God is not a thing. God is absolute personhood. If God stops thinking of you – you will disappear into nothing. Think of it this way. You are a character in God’s version of the “Sims” game. <br /><br /><br />(In my more accurate analogy, god = John. I would not assume John (God) built all these buildings, it could have been anything else, such as Frank(intelligent Man), or Archimedes(intelligent Alien). My hypo is a bit silly, but it also conveys a point: God is only ONE possibility of SOMETHING which could have constructed something resembling intelligence. The difference is, Frank and Archimedes may have had to evolve over millions or billions of years before they developed the capacity for creating complex structures. Granted, a human building a structure is intelligence at work, but when life on a planet evolves over 3 BILLION years, that's not proof of intelligence at all.)<br /><br /><br />Again, the point of my analogy is basically summed up in your words: “granted, a human building a structure is intelligence at work…). The way this universe is built shows design whether we want to call it that or not. Scientists of course will not say “God did it” because they are not out to preach but to learn how things work. If we all say “God did it” then why bother learning about them? God gave us minds for a reason. He wants us to learn study and grow. <br /> <br />Life could have evolved, galaxies could have formed in a way to support life just like ours; however, the bottom line is that these things cannot occur by chance. Think about it. We have this huge galaxy with one planet which is perfectly situated in the “goldilock’s zone.” This planet has a magnetic field protecting life on it. The field is generated by the movement of the core within the planet. In a sense, this planet is like the Star Ship Enterprise with a shield around it. <br /><br />Life evolved, but human beings only have the HAR1 gene that allows for better more advanced brain function. Do you think all of this happened by coincidence or by chance? That would be an illogical assessment. This planet, this galaxy shows order. Order can only exist when intelligence is behind it. Intelligence can only exist if a person or living being exists to possess it and demonstrate it. Intelligence is something that is unique. Take the “Chinese room” for example. It was a thought experiment presented by John Searle which describes why intelligence is unique to human beings and computers cannot truly develop it despite showing it to a certain extent. <br /><br />(The problem with your analogy, besides it being a non sequitur, is that it promotes naivety.)<br /><br />It does not promote naivety because it highlights that discovering buildings on an Alien planet is evidence of intelligent designers. Even today, some claim the Pyramids were designed by Aliens! Our minds rationalize the sensory input of architecture as having its origin in an intelligent mind capable of producing it. <br /><br /> (Philosophy Philosophy has given is evidence and proof to the extent that it has given us the ability to reason and use logic.)<br /><br />Philosophy is very important. This is why it is required for every degree. It develops critical thinking skills that allow us to question everything, even “evidence.”Sacerdotushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04558048488785769126noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-827824285101179434.post-87741958351055435242012-07-06T19:12:20.817-04:002012-07-06T19:12:20.817-04:00Buildings on Andromeda
I think you're missing ...Buildings on Andromeda<br />I think you're missing my point. God may "be" life, but life is a state of being and god is a thing. In my more accurate analogy, god = John. I would not assume John (God) built all these buildings, it could have been anything else, such as Frank(intelligent Man), or Archimedes(intelligent Alien). My hypo is a bit silly, but it also conveys a point: God is only ONE possibility of SOMETHING which could have constructed something resembling intelligence. The difference is, Frank and Archimedes may have had to evolve over millions or billions of years before they developed the capacity for creating complex structures. Granted, a human building a structure is intelligence at work, but when life on a planet evolves over 3 BILLION years, that's not proof of intelligence at all. The problem with your analogy, besides it being a non sequitur, is that it promotes naivety. <br /><br />Philosophy<br />Philosophy has given is evidence and proof to the extent that it has given us the ability to reason and use logic.<br /><br />Higgs Boson<br />you write: "Today's discovery of the Higgs Boson shows that even among the tiniest of particles there is order. Every thing is set into motion in such a way that allows it to function." <br /><br />I think you missed the point here as well. The Higgs Boson explains WHY there is order in the universe. Being a so-called man of physics, I will not elaborate on this point for fear of it being superfluous. Although intelligent designers will comfort themselves with the thought that, "well, God is still responsible for the creation of the Big Bang and the Higgs Boson", this should have been a sad day for you guys because it ruins the "God is why we have order in the universe" argument. But there is still hope, you can still say God created the Big Bang, and when science figures that out, you can say God created the thing that created the Big Bang. Heck, when science figures out the thing that created the Big Bang, you can still resort to saying God created the thing that created the thing that created the Big Bang. <br /><br />Intelligent design is very seductive because, no matter what, you have an explanation for your existence. God is supposedly revealed through the very thing which goes further and further to prove Him false. Science spends all its time and energy explaining why things work the way they do, and intelligent design reclines in the La-Z-Boy and explains nothing, simply retorting "yep, God did that too." <br /><br />REQUEST FOR MORE INFORMATION<br />Here's my problem. You know what I believe because I'm an atheist. If you don't, then I'll state it again. I do not BELIEVE there is a God, but I think there is still a chance something exists (or existed) which would resemble a God. It could be something eternal, or it could be something that existed once but does so no longer. But I know nothing about what you believe.<br /><br />Therefore, I suggest you respond or write an article about what your beliefs are. I would suggest answering questions such as your upbringing, why you were an atheist, why you converted to Catholicism, and why you believe in intelligent design. I would also like to know if you believe in Evolution or the Big Bang (I've been working under the assumption that you do). Do you take the Bible literally, figuratively, or both, and if both, which parts and why? Do you see the problem here? When you choose a particular denomination within a particular religion there are a lot of assumptions that go along with that. To me, you do not seem Catholic at all, so please explain. Thanks.LGnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-827824285101179434.post-57008565232870258972012-07-05T03:46:58.492-04:002012-07-05T03:46:58.492-04:00Girl/Boy Analogy
Your claims cannot be verified. ...Girl/Boy Analogy<br />Your claims cannot be verified. No one can test the internal state of others. You rely on prejudice and misinformation regarding personal experiences to make claims. The mind cannot manipulate reality. This is not the Matrix movie with the "spoon bending." My analogy was meant to describe the remoteness of the relationship between God and man.<br /><br />Intelligent design<br />Intelligent design is a concept that is rational. Nothing can take form without cause, intent and order. Order cannot occur unless intelligence is involved. For example, putting books in alphabetical order can only take place with an intelligence who organizes it in that order. Today's discovery of the Higgs Boson shows that even among the tiniest of particles there is order. Every thing is set into motion in such a way that allows it to function. I cannot go into detail here because of limits, but will in another blog. Science will never be able to explain everything. Even explanations bring about more questions. <br /><br />I disagree. Philosophy allows the mind to rationalize without limits. Thinking is the first step to finding answers. The problem with your idea of evidence is the same as with Rosa's. It is narrow. As I stated before, evidence can be anything to anyone. Reread the blog again as I go into detail there :http://sacerdotvs.blogspot.com/2012/06/rosa-rubicondior-evidence-gaffe.html<br /><br />Mathematics is a creation of man. It is abstract language that defines properties of things within their spatial and temporal limits. It is not perfect. Physicists all the time formulate equations that within a year are disproved by others and then in another year proven again. Purgatory is a state, not a place. It is a state of purification. <br /><br />No intelligent person who sees buildings will conclude that they came into existence on their own. Logic would dictate that those structures are not natural and are "man/alien-made." What you're describing is like Columbus landing in the west and discovering Taino villages and then saying that they "took along time and we should therefore analyze to see how they came into existence." Any rational person would automatically conclude that there is life or was life there who built the village. <br /><br />God IS life. Everything exists because of God. WE are God's thoughts. He is the one that is living, we are His imagination, so to speak. However, that was not the point I was trying to make with Andromeda. The analogy deals with empirical evidence of intelligent design. In your analogy, we cannot prove John built it. You say "anyone could have built it," that is the key phrase. The reality that "SOMEONE" built it is what intelligent design argues. The order, aesthetics, mathematics behind any building found on another world automatically show that there was an intelligence behind it.Sacerdotushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04558048488785769126noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-827824285101179434.post-84368421187196439752012-07-04T20:44:31.000-04:002012-07-04T20:44:31.000-04:00Girl/boy analogy
The boy can see the girl and hea...Girl/boy analogy<br /> The boy can see the girl and hear her say hi/bye, so he at least knows she exists. He believes she may like him because of the human senses. God does nothing via the human senses. Sure, there are nutcases out there that think they have religious experiences, but it’s just as likely they’re so jacked up on God that their suffering from hallucinations. Surely you can appreciate the immense power the mind has in manipulating reality. So powerful – in fact – that if you’re trying to communicate with an imaginary man in the sky, you just might imagine he is communicating back. This brings me to intelligent design.<br /><br />Intelligent design<br /> This is the last great hope for religion, claiming that the world is so complex that it must have been designed by something superior and that something is ultimately God. This type of thinking is no different than the caveman seeing fire, the Greek hearing thunder, or the Indian looking at nature and claiming God because at one point in time they could not explain such complexity. Science will continue to struggle against this pernicious way of thinking until they’re able to explain the first mover, or an alternative to it, because you people will never stop hanging onto that next little thread of pathetic hope. Lastly, I’d like to very quickly comment on the use of different types of evidence. <br /><br /> I agree that evidence can come in various ways, but philosophy is not proof of anything. Philosophy is just a WAY of thinking; philosophy does not offer proof. Evidence, by its very nature, has to come in a form which we can ascertain. Since our human senses are our only ways to ascertain anything, human senses become our only medium for understanding what’s real in the world. You can determine a particle exists by mathematical calculation. I want to see God’s mathematical calculation. If religious folk have a problem with that, I suggest they pick up a calculator; I’m not going to live in purgatory because others choose to BELIEVE in something they cannot provide any inkling of evidence for. <br /><br />As for Andromeda, the intelligent person would say “Wow, that’s unique. I bet it took a long time. We should analyze these structures and see how they came into existence.” Unfortunately, God and Life are not analogous to each other. You’re saying God (a THING, albeit with supernatural abilities and intelligence) is the same as life (a STATE OF BEING). The more appropriate analogy would be God and a hypothetical human life form I will call John. I would not assume John built this structure on Andromeda just because it is there. Anyone could have built it; John is just one possibility. I couldn’t even assume a human built it; it could have been some other type of life form. So not only can we not prove John built it, we can’t even prove a human built it.LGnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-827824285101179434.post-43735680533206268342012-07-03T02:40:29.234-04:002012-07-03T02:40:29.234-04:00Part II
A "God hypothesis" can be prov...Part II<br /><br /><br />A "God hypothesis" can be proven as true. In my post critiquing Agnostic Rosa Rubicondior's idea of evidence, I state that evidence can be anything to anyone. For example Physics. We can never "grab" particles and put them in a lab. What we do is use math and then collide particles, those collisions bring about charges that we then label as such and such particle. The same with black holes. There is no way we can obtain tactile evidence of black holes. All we have are math equations and photos from the Hubble telescope showing light disappearing. If Physicists ever bring a black hole to a lab rest assured that will be the last time they have experimented! <br /><br />So evidence of God is out there. Some use thought experiments or philosophy, some use math, others use Physics and other forms of science to show intelligent design. The problem is, will people accept it or just brush it off. <br /><br />I always found it awkward that as an Atheist and student of Physics I had to accept that there are sub atomic particles without ever seeing one myself. In reality, no one has. A machine detects their charges and we assume they are there based on those charges. This week a big announcement will be made regarding the Higgs Boson or the "God particle." I think they finally found it. <br /><br />Again, the idea of it came from mathematics and the little we learned from colliding protons. So basically what I'm saying is that we don't need to have a living walking dinosaur to know they existed. To a believer, nature and everything in it is evidence of a very intelligent designer. For example, let's say you're an astronaut. You travel to the galaxy Andromeda and find a planet like Earth. You land and find buildings or a town. Your first conclusion will be, "there was/is life here." You will not say, "oh these buildings must have appeared here over the centuries on their own and from nothing." <br /><br />Science is not out to prove or disprove God. Its only purpose is to learn about nature.Sacerdotushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04558048488785769126noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-827824285101179434.post-6559177775079490702012-07-03T02:40:07.749-04:002012-07-03T02:40:07.749-04:00You're forgiven. :) All joking aside, it is...You're forgiven. :) All joking aside, it is funny you have mentioned this. I had a similar discussion on Twitter over the weekend. <br /><br />If something does come from nothing without an external sentient cause, then life, existence, the laws of physics would not make sense. It is like the Statue of Liberty appearing on Ellis island fully constructed just on its own.<br /><br />The "is" you mention would be God because of the fact that it is the cause of the universe and therefore supreme compared to everything within the universe. Actually there is something that exists forever and that is energy. Energy as it exists now is eternal. <br /><br />We don't know, that is why we call it Faith and Belief. As a Catholic, I say "I believe" in God in the Creed. We never say, "I know" because we really don't know. We have not made the full "connection" to God for it to go from "believe" to "know."<br /><br />For example, Let's say there is a young guy about 15. He is growing, hormones going wild. He sees a nice looking girl and she looks back and smiles. This happens throughout the year. They even say hi to each other as they pass through the halls but never sit down to chat. Now will the young man say, "I know she likes me" or will he tell his friends, "I believe she might like me?" Most likely he will say the latter. <br /><br />He will not find out if the girl does like him unless he gets close to her and communicates in a manner that is more interactive than merely hi/bye and cute smiles here and there. We on Earth who believe are the young kid. We sense God in our lives, but He is not fully revealed to us as how He really is. We still have the "veil" or "dark view" as 1 Cor. 13:12 says. However, Belief doesn't mean we are not aware. The kid in my analogy is aware of the girl but not fully connected with her. <br /><br />Christianity does not teach God as a male. Yes Jesus took on a human male form, but God as Father Son Holy Spirit does not have gender.Sacerdotushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04558048488785769126noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-827824285101179434.post-86059557331464391432012-07-01T16:28:36.046-04:002012-07-01T16:28:36.046-04:00Forgive me if I'm wrong, but it appears as if ...Forgive me if I'm wrong, but it appears as if your entire belief system is based upon the idea that something cannot come from nothing. But what if it can? Better yet, what if there is something that just "is”? Of course, your first instinct would be to call this eternal substance "god”, but why? Because it does something you cannot do, i.e., exist eternally? This may sound like a theistic (rather than atheistic) point, but just because there's no current evidence of something that can exist forever (theoretically, there are some jellyfish which never die of natural causes), doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s impossible. This goes for the idea of a god as well. My point is, you don’t know and I don’t either. Will we know someday? Maybe, but for us to find out, we will need people in the scientific community (which ultimately relies on some acquiescence from society as a whole) willing to work with what we do know, yet still capable of keeping an open mind about what we do not know. Point being, we cannot rely on axiomatic ideas such as “something cannot come from nothing” if we truly wish to understand the nature of our existence.<br /> To touch on something of lesser significance, consider what I’ve proposed thus far and think about the likelihood of a god with the characteristics suggested in any religion. For simplicity’s sake, let’s focus on Christianity. Here, even though we ultimately do not know whether there is a god or not, Christianity states this: there is a god; there is one god; the one god is male; this one, male god has human traits; this god created everything, including heaven and hell; god is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent; god answers prayers and performs miracles (i.e. he created the universe, so he can also defy its laws), and of course this list could go on for days. The point is, there is an enormous “leap of faith” going on when you acknowledge that you’re part of this (or any) religion. I agree with your proposed use of the scientific method, or as you say, to create a hypothesis (god) and test it. But if you do this, you cannot possibly conclude that your hypothesis is true. There simply isn’t enough evidence. The only thing you can’t do is rule god out; it’s a possibility – nothing more. I understand your concern with the big bang theory, but for something to be labeled a theory means that it has withstood the scrutiny which your god hypothesis did not. Concededly, the big bang theory only explains the creation of the universe and not, necessarily, everything (given god could have been the “first mover”). However, just because something could be the case doesn’t really mean anything.LGnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-827824285101179434.post-1995254084872461952012-06-26T01:08:03.431-04:002012-06-26T01:08:03.431-04:00**** Translation: Straw man fallacy and Ad homine...**** Translation: Straw man fallacy and Ad hominem. :)<br /><br />All joking aside, your comment shows you have read my post through the filter of anger and because of that, you have misinterpreted it. <br /><br /><br /><br />###***TRANSLATION: "Raping a few children isn't as bad as the rest of the world raping bunches of them."*###<br /><br />I was merely stating what the statistics say. Abuse occurs less in the Church than in the family. I agree that one abuse is one too much, but I have to stick by the statistics.<br /><br /> <br /><br />###****TRANSLATION: "What's the big deal? It's not like the church actually TOLD the priests and brothers to sodomize those boys." ###<br /><br />You are correct. The Church never told anyone to abuse anyone. Anti-Catholics often hold the ignorant idea that the Church is some sort of child-abusing organization. This is far from the truth. <br /><br /><br />###****TRANSLATION: "And besides, it wasn't the priest's fault! Society made them do it!"###<br /><br /><br />Actually, you misread what I wrote. At the time most abuse cases occurred, psychology and law enforcement officials had weak knowledge and policies that dealt with the issue. (Benjamin Karplan, The Sexual Offender and His Offences) <br /><br /><br />###****TRANSLATION: "Plus 'experts' told us not to worry about it, so we didn't. What's wrong with that?"###<br /><br />This was the case in many Dioceses. http://www.bishop-accountability.org/news2005_01_06/2005_05_25_Guccione_ReportsShow.htm<br /><br /><br />###****TRANSLATION: "None of that child abuse was the fault of church. After all, the church is infallible. This has been a conspiracy by evil progressives infiltrating our ranks. We were framed!!!"###<br /><br /><br />This is true. The Church has no fault. Being a child abuser is not on the job description forms in the Church. Some individuals in the Church are at fault, not the Church. See the John Jay report regarding this. <br /><br /><br />"Sir, any time you devote a paragraph to rationalizing the systematic abuse of children, you loose all credibility. You should question who you are as a human being because I find your justifications appalling!"<br /><br />There is no systematic abuse of children in the Church. This is all in your misinformed mind. I invite you to read the documents from every diocese and see for yourself. I won't ask you to question your humanity, but rather, question your objectivity and quantitative skills.Sacerdotushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04558048488785769126noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-827824285101179434.post-30738840152039198922012-06-25T09:40:07.265-04:002012-06-25T09:40:07.265-04:00"The sex abuse scandals are small compared to..."The sex abuse scandals are small compared to the general society. Sexual abuse occurs more among families than with priests." <br />***TRANSLATION: "Raping a few children isn't as bad as the rest of the world raping bunches of them."<br /><br />"The Catholic Church never mandated anyone to abuse minors or protect criminals." <br />****TRANSLATION: "What's the big deal? It's not like the church actually TOLD the priests and brothers to sodomize those boys." <br /><br />"These are unfortunately the consequences of the culture and understanding at the time the crime was committed."<br />****TRANSLATION: "And besides, it wasn't the priest's fault! Society made them do it!"<br /><br />"In many instances, psychologists informed bishops that priests were cured and fit for ministry. Moreover, some law officials gave advice that was directed to find mutual agreement among both parties instead of going to trial."<br />****TRANSLATION: "Plus 'experts' told us not to worry about it, so we didn't. What's wrong with that?"<br /><br />"The scandals of the Church exist due to the progressive infiltration that has attempted to bring her down."<br />****TRANSLATION: "None of that child abuse was the fault of church. After all, the church is infallible. This has been a conspiracy by evil progressives infiltrating our ranks. We were framed!!!"<br /><br />Sir, any time you devote a paragraph to rationalizing the systematic abuse of children, you loose all credibility. You should question who you are as a human being because I find your justifications appalling!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-827824285101179434.post-70038109609925434552012-06-25T00:38:40.987-04:002012-06-25T00:38:40.987-04:00So is your lack of evidence supporting your accusa...So is your lack of evidence supporting your accusation, but who is keeping score? :) In all seriousness, what I have written is supported by science.Sacerdotushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04558048488785769126noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-827824285101179434.post-77136978345406384502012-06-24T22:16:44.389-04:002012-06-24T22:16:44.389-04:00Your ignorance of the history of science is appall...Your ignorance of the history of science is appalling !!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-827824285101179434.post-37149247693692565742012-06-24T01:30:29.511-04:002012-06-24T01:30:29.511-04:00On Daylight's Atheism blog someone replied to ...On Daylight's Atheism blog someone replied to a comment I posted:<br /><br /><><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Sacerdotus replies:<br /><br /><br />{(1) "Some assume that the conscience developed as a safety mechanism; however, why did only human beings develop this feature?"<br /><br />Who says no other animals have a conscience, or something similar?}<br /><br /><br />Well zoologists, biologists and psychologists who work with non-human animals (humans are animals too) have found no evidence of a conscience.<br />Non-human animals operate on instinct. Their brains do not allow for a conscience or even the capacity to reason to exist. I invite you to enter a lion's den and observe if the Lion's deliberate whether to feast on you or not. :)<br /><br />{(2) "How many times did primitive man have to murder each other until it realized that murder was not beneficial to the survival of the species and there for immoral?"<br /><br />Who says immoral = not beneficial to the survival of the species?}<br /><br /><br />Well we just saw the answer to that in the verdict given to Jerry Sandusky. How can immorality serve humanity? The answer is that it does not. Behavior that causes harm is not beneficial to any species. Hence we have laws that protect human beings and non human animals. <br /><br /><br />{(3 "I would personally counsel Atheists to rationalize the reality that nothing cannot produce something."<br /><br />I don't believe atheists take that position. Often the people who talk about the "nothing" that creates something really mean some sort of medium or system with quantum fluctuations, and so therefore not really nothing. They use the word 'nothing' because it is the easiest way to describe it.}<br /><br /><br />Not true. Before the "Big Bang" there was "nothing." Space, time and matter began to exist at the point of the explosion. So "nothing" is understood as the absence of space, time, matter and entropy. <br /><br /><br /><br />{(4) "The order in this universe cannot be coincidental."<br /><br />What "order"? Why not? And who ever said it is a coincidence?}<br /><br /><br />The order found in the universe. Everything in this universe is ordered in a particular manner that is composed of "order" and "disorder" or entropy. The coincidental factor is implied in the suggestion of "chance."Sacerdotushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04558048488785769126noreply@blogger.com