Chris, I know that we've drifted off the original subject, but I notice that you offer bonuses, like free books, to those who recruit the most new members. If you'd like to use the new edition of Atheist Universe as a bonus, I'll be happy to donate three signed copies to booktalk. Please let me know and, if you're interested, share a US postal address with me so I can ship them to you. David

I'm not ignoring the context, what this paragraph is is the typical "escape clause". It is the universal answer because it can fit any situation. This section is the why in the paper about what is acceptable to believe about evolution in the Catholic Church. And to me, the why proposed is a cop out answer. It's a very long winded way to say that even if we can explain all the natural aspects of every single thing, it doesn't disagree with god, because god made it that way. I'm not saying that this invalidates anything else said in the article or is a reason why Catholics should or shouldn't believe in evolution. I'm merely pointing out that the argument rests on a very old and often used concept.

How exactly is it a cop out? I don't get it. Full of Porn*http://plainofpillars.blogspot.com

Because any and all findings can be explained by the same answer. Everything is the way it is because god wanted it that way. You can't prove this wrong, and by the same token you can't prove it right. For example, if by some astounding new discovery we were able to prove that Jesus was in fact not born of a virgin birth, it would not contradict this logic. You could simply say it's that way because god wanted it that way.It's a cop-out because they are answering a complicated issue with a catch all we are right either way answer. If the evidence finds proof of miracles, hey we were right, if the evidence doesn't find any proof of miracles then, hey we were right.

Sound reasoning, Phiend.

I think I get you. You're wrong on the virgin birth though, but that's way too complicated to even try. Could be a virgin birth by natural means, but that's a totally different story. Quote:It's a cop-out because they are answering a complicated issue with a catch all we are right either way answer. If the evidence finds proof of miracles, hey we were right, if the evidence doesn't find any proof of miracles then, hey we were right.But it isn't that we'd be right. That'd be a bit like saying that if we found proof that God exists, or proof that God didn't exist, then agnostics would be able to say that they were right. You can't be right about something that you don't have a position on. Catholicism has no position on the details of how we and the universe came to be, that's up to every Catholic to decide for themselves on whatever basis they want to. Full of Porn*http://plainofpillars.blogspot.com

Ok...I see a tangential discussion here:Mad, in response to Pheind says: Quote:It's good to remind ourselves (or one another) from time to time that only vigilence allows us to keep at hand the difference between a belief and the person who holds it. So if someone has the belief that it is ok to hurt others in the name of their belief, we should strive to accept these people on some other basis?Sorry...but I do indeed gauge the measure of a person based on their beliefs...especially those beliefs that control their actions.How else are we to judge people then? Looks?Mr. P. Mr. P's place. I warned you!!!The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.The pain in hell has two sides. The kind you can touch with your hand; the kind you can feel in your heart...Scorsese's "Mean Streets"I came to kick ass and chew Bubble Gum...and I am all out of Bubble Gum - They Live, Roddy Piper

Sometimes I just wanna give you a big bear hug Nick. You know....a hetero-style bear hug.

By the way, Phiend, I am really loving your posts.

The book is more or less just a misunderstanding of religion in general.Furthermore, It doesn't use a mature understanding of God.