Bobbybob responds to me:
quote:
quote:
Sorry, but I'm not the one making the claim. You are. Therefore, it is up to you to provide the evidence. You are the one that needs to show that Tony Blair is insincere in his religious beliefs.
Ever Heard of "false witness",
Non sequitur.
You still need to show that Tony Blair is insincere in his religious beliefs. That there are liars doesn't mean that Tony Blair is one of them.
quote:
look at the rubbish this man has spewed for the war in iraq. Look at the lies he has put forward to back up his election promises. This is not the actions of a "practising" christian.
Logical error: No "True" Scotsman.
You have equivocated what a "Christian" is with an ad hoc definition.
quote:
To say some one is a xian, and being an xian is two seperate things.
Indeed, but what makes you think you are the arbiter of what being a Christian is? Have you considered the possibility that you are the one that is in error as to what a Christian is? After all, he hasn't been excommunicated, so somebody seems to think he's still a fit member of his religious order.
quote:
I could cut and paste reams of the "false witness" this man has spouted.
Irrelevant. Even god lies, or haven't you read the Bible?
Or are you saying that as soon as somebody tells a lie, he isn't a Christian anymore? I daresay that nobody has ever managed to live up to that standard.
Notice in your original post to which I responded, you said this:
Unlike your president who actually believes the guff he spouts.
Shall we go over the lies Bush has told? You seem to think he's devout, and yet he has come up with a huge number of whoppers in his brief time in office (let alone his life). So why does Bush get a pass but Blair does not?
quote:
I asked you to prove it not to pass the onus onto you,
Yes, you did. There is no logical reason to make me prove anything about Blair. You're the one making the claim, the onus is on you. I get to respond to your claims, but I don't have to say anything about Blair.
If you say that 2 + 2 = 5, I don't have to prove to you that 2 + 2 = 4 in order to show that your statement is wrong. Oh, such a proof would be sufficient, but it is not necessary.
quote:
but for you to try to find validatable evidence for this mans "Xianity".
What does one need more than a declaration and no standing excommunication from the particular sect one is declaring?
You are not the arbiter of what a Christian is.
quote:
A few well chosen words put out in a press release is NOT proof of religious conviction.
Why not? The only way to be a Christian is to do it as you would do it? Since when?
quote:
His actions and words speak volumes for his so called "xian" beliefs.
Why? You seem to think that a Christian cannot lie.
quote:
Now go and find proof he is a Xian and prove me wrong.
Logical error: Shifting the burden of proof.
He has declared his belief in Christ and has not been excommunicated from his Christian sect. Therefore, it is up to you to give evidence that he is somehow insincere in his beliefs.
And you still haven't answered my question:
Even the Pope agrees that evolution is the only valid scientific theory we have for the diversification of life on this planet. I'm not saying you need to agree with the Pope's theology, but surely you aren't claiming that the Pope is an atheist, are you?
I really would like to hear your answer to this. The official position of the Catholic Church, the single largest group of Christians in the world, is that evolution does not preclude faith.
Are you saying that the Pope is an atheist?
There is a reason I am harping upon this. There are many people who claim that one cannot be a Christian and agree with evolution. Is that a reasonable claim to make in your mind? If one can be a Christian and still agree with evolution, then perhaps one can be a Christian and perform other actions that many would consider to be "unchristlike."
Therefore, you're going to have to come up with a definition of "Christian." I get the feeling that my definition is not going to be the same as yours.
quote:
quote:
Can you show me anywhere in evolutionary theory where one finds, "Since god does not exist," or, "Thus, god does not exist"?
No I cant, and I have no intention to.
Then retract your statement.
If you have absolutely no evidence that evolutionary theory claims that god does not exist or depends upon god not existing, then your claim that "in all the debates I have had they tend to follow the same tenets" has no justification and you were remiss in making it.
quote:
This is a loaded question,
How? You are claiming that evolution and atheism are connected somehow. I am simply asking you to provide the evidence by which you think there is a connection.
I guess in some sense it is a loaded question because I already know the answer: There is no connection between evolution and atheism. Since there are people who believe in god and also agree with evolution, then it must necessarily be the case that evolution does not claim there is no god nor is it predicated upon the assumption that there is no god. The only thing left for you to do is acknowledge that.
Ah, but that would mean you made a mistake. Are you saying you are refusing to admit you made a mistake?
quote:
no matter what I post, it will be wrong.
Not at all. You could say, "I was wrong to tie evolution and atheism together. Evolution has no connection to the idea that there is no god," and you'd be absolutely right.
Or is that something you will refuse to agree to?
[desperate ad hominem commentary deleted for space]
quote:
quote:
And I notice you didn't answer my question:
Even the Pope agrees that evolution is the only valid scientific theory we have for the diversification of life on this planet. I'm not saying you need to agree with the Pope's theology, but surely you aren't claiming that the Pope is an atheist, are you?
I have not heard this before, so how can I comment on something I do not know of.
You don't know if the Pope is an atheist?
Let's take it as a theoretical: Suppose the head of a major religious group were to say that evolution and belief in god are not mutually exclusive. Would that necessarily mean that the head of that organisation was an atheist?
As for the declarations of the Pope, look at the encyclical of Pope Pius XII,
Humani Generis:
For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter--for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God.
In short, evolution accounts for the origin of the physical human body. The soul, on the other hand, comes from god. That was in 1951.
Here's Pope John Paul II, commenting on Pius XII,
Magisterium Is Concerned with Question of Evolution For It Involves Conception of Man:
In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation, provided that we do not lose sight of certain fixed points.
Those "indisputable points" referred to what was mentioned above: Evolution can explain the body but the soul is from god.
Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis.* In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studieswhich was neither planned nor soughtconstitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory.
Seems John Paul II is recognizing that the theory of evolution is more than just a passing fad. Evolution, in fact, is the only theory we have regarding the diversification of life.
So there you go: The head of a major Christian organization is of the opinion that evolution and belief are not mutually exclusive.
So answer my question:
Is the Pope an atheist?
quote:
If I had to answer this without researching it ( which I have no intention of doing) I would say he was misguided (with his religious beliefs) but spot on about evolution.
As I directly stated the first time I asked you this question:
I'm not saying you need to agree with the Pope's theology, but surely you aren't claiming that the Pope is an atheist, are you?
In short, I don't care if you think the Pope is worshipping a worthless idol. The question is: Do you think the Pope is an atheist?
[edited because I forgot to respond to the second part]
------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!
[This message has been edited by Rrhain, 12-12-2003]
™ Version 4.2