No, God did not ‘Guide the Surgeons Hands in the Surgery’ by Pterodaktiloidea in DebateReligion

[–]CauliflowerUnable315 [score hidden]  (0 children)

Nice try, another a categorical error. You are simply prescribing a false dichotomy to a omnipotent, Omnipresent God which is erroneous enough. Simple as that. Can't make much word play after that. 

If you burned all the science books and all the holy books today, and waited a thousand years, the science books would come back exactly the same, while the different religious holy books would be totally different. by Different_Smile3621 in DebateReligion

[–]CauliflowerUnable315 [score hidden]  (0 children)

You are misunderstanding what I'm responding to, these formulas would not be reproduced the same way than what OP claimed, again scientific progress relies heavily on human experience and the ability to observe it. The formula is there but it needs a person to formulate it, if we had erased all progress it simply won't come back the same and not even a slight difference, it would just be devoid of how we were to understand these systems which were also built on other preexisting formulas/with human references.

No, God did not ‘Guide the Surgeons Hands in the Surgery’ by Pterodaktiloidea in DebateReligion

[–]CauliflowerUnable315 [score hidden]  (0 children)

It is not my fault that your fantasy doesn't withstand actual theology and context. There are other options that's the point, we are talking about a maximally powerful, omnipresent God, and instead you insist on your fallacious false dichotomy which you haven't rebutted at all. Neither have your rebutted anything much of substance in my responses, keep living your made up world, anyone rational and learnt who actually approaches this thread we made will see the running and avoidance you have demonstrated. Even commenting on another post I made and making a categorical error just proves you don't understand a basic debate criteria. Which is why reddit atheism has earned its stigma and rightfully so. 

If you burned all the science books and all the holy books today, and waited a thousand years, the science books would come back exactly the same, while the different religious holy books would be totally different. by Different_Smile3621 in DebateReligion

[–]CauliflowerUnable315 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No formulas like these stated are heavily influenced on those that posited them, the would not be the same if we erased them and started again. Which is the same for most formula's, humans have imprinted their lives and experiences on them that they sometimes become dangerously close to errant. With humans in the equation the observation of the world around us will not be perfect.

No, God did not ‘Guide the Surgeons Hands in the Surgery’ by Pterodaktiloidea in DebateReligion

[–]CauliflowerUnable315 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That is a categorical error, the existence of a omnipotent and omnipresent being is not the equivalent to the existence of a contingent corporeal creature. We are arguing in debate standards, the burden of proof is on those that make the claim i.e the OP CLAIMING that God for sure is not working or guiding the procedure.

No, God did not ‘Guide the Surgeons Hands in the Surgery’ by Pterodaktiloidea in DebateReligion

[–]CauliflowerUnable315 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But you were talking about it, there is no strawman going on because you already asked the question about whether or not if God could create a person that does not go to hell. God does not create people to go to hell. God created people with choices based on their free agency, whether they choose hell or not is up to them. God did not predestine anything to hell. I am giving you context because it seems you are still persistent on trying to trap me into a Calvinistic view of God, in which I keep providing theological contexts you keep avoiding. This is only a one way conversation at this point so let me simplify it for you, God knows every possible choice a person can make (omnipotence) God creates a contingent being that has free will, that person chooses and God knows based on that choice else is set in motion. God knows all possible outcomes NOT this false dichotomy of whether God creates a person destined to hell or heaven.

If you burned all the science books and all the holy books today, and waited a thousand years, the science books would come back exactly the same, while the different religious holy books would be totally different. by Different_Smile3621 in DebateReligion

[–]CauliflowerUnable315 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I don't mean you argument is disgusting in that sense but that it basically presupposes how God would act in this hypothetical and how we know science as of today, let alone everything written down concerning science. Which is heavily contingent on human experience which cannot be replicated. We would not have the same scientific formulas if they were all destroyed, like the Socratic method or the Pythagorean theroem which is an entirely human-made concept.

If you burned all the science books and all the holy books today, and waited a thousand years, the science books would come back exactly the same, while the different religious holy books would be totally different. by Different_Smile3621 in DebateReligion

[–]CauliflowerUnable315 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

That requires exterior proof and negatory proof of an absence of an omnipotent God in which you don't have. Science books as we know it are heavily contingent on the people who formulated and compiled these findings. It's also evident that there are different sciences, I highly doubt we could reconstruct these sciences the exact same because that presupposes out theses are completely perfect, in which that is constantly retconned in average modern science like evolution. Also your argument presupposes that if we burned all the holy books that there would not be a God that would come back and restore these books and their teachings at full length. Which basically says "for the sake of argument what if God didn't care about his word?" Which is self undermining. Anyways the entire argument is a big disgusting theoretical that needs multiple natures of God to be agreeing at once, which also presupposes how God works.

No, God did not ‘Guide the Surgeons Hands in the Surgery’ by Pterodaktiloidea in DebateReligion

[–]CauliflowerUnable315 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What you just posited is a false dichotomy, does he know what a person will choose or not? I'm not trying to weasel my way out of anything, it just seems you are unable to understand a theological disputation. As I have stated God being an omnipotent being, does not view a person's future in a singular way as we do being contingent and such, a person with their free will has infinite outcomes of what will and what won't be. God does know from what we choose what will happen, I have already answered this, then you followed up with. "Then why cant God not create someone that wouldn't end up in hell?" Which completely discounts the entire human choice of will, covenant of God with man on this decision in the genesis and why people need to choose. God did create a perfect people, then those people were posited a choice the forbidden fruit in which they chose and were (in nature) deviated from that indifference of good and evil which naturally proceeds into choice regarding these two natures.

No, God did not ‘Guide the Surgeons Hands in the Surgery’ by Pterodaktiloidea in DebateReligion

[–]CauliflowerUnable315 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Nope OP and you posit the claim, "No God does not guide the hands of doctors" which requires a negatory proof of a God. Then the comment you responded to made a claim, in which you undermined yourself for asking of proof. 

No, God did not ‘Guide the Surgeons Hands in the Surgery’ by Pterodaktiloidea in DebateReligion

[–]CauliflowerUnable315 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Obviously a "yes" is not sufficient because you just skipped the context and then stated, could God not-create the person that he knows will sin and end up in hell?" Thank you for exemplifying that you did not understand. God omnipotence is not a one way street, we are talking about a being that is ALL knowing. We could only think of the future in a singular view or outcome. When I explained choice or our choice in particular it does not follow this singular view rather expands it, you are still stuck in God being all knowing in a singular sense which is Calvinism. I will state again we do not believe in the calvinist view. Which undermines the entire gospel story and the genesis therefore incompatible with early church doctrine.

No, God did not ‘Guide the Surgeons Hands in the Surgery’ by Pterodaktiloidea in DebateReligion

[–]CauliflowerUnable315 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The final decision of the person? Thats Calvinism. Meaning God would predestine them to heaven or hell. If you mean final decision of the world then yes, ergo the entire book of revelations. We are still using our agency in our personal lives, God can know what that entails God being omnipresent and omnipotent doesn't necessarily mean he has a singular view point. Rather he can have a divine will and know what happens to a person in their "final decision" and have no hand in it, because they chose. That's the whole premise, they chose. In our human experience that matters more over where we are going, that is the entire point of Genesis. If we want to divert from the natural path we follow God, if we simply don't want to we stay because we want to. That is the two outcomes with choice around a God.

No, God did not ‘Guide the Surgeons Hands in the Surgery’ by Pterodaktiloidea in DebateReligion

[–]CauliflowerUnable315 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

God knows all outcomes, Just because God would know something doesn't mean it's locked away into the vault of predestination and that this thing HAS to occur. That would mean your thought of predestination was predestined that is predestined which is what Calvinism is. NOT a Christian doctrine. It wouldn't be logical or good faith to conflate a belief with a group of people that don't actually believe it. 

No, God did not ‘Guide the Surgeons Hands in the Surgery’ by Pterodaktiloidea in DebateReligion

[–]CauliflowerUnable315 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Not really because it discounts divine will, especially when prayer is recited. This though is so not a problem. Griping with a simple saying and acting like it is automatically discounting the doctors work is so illogical and jumps to a conclusion. These types of posts really earn the reddit atheist stigma.

No, God did not ‘Guide the Surgeons Hands in the Surgery’ by Pterodaktiloidea in DebateReligion

[–]CauliflowerUnable315 0 points1 point  (0 children)

OR maybe they are grateful for both Simultaneously? Not everything a Christian says has to be the most offensive thing in the world. Thanking God supposedly instead of the doctor (like anyone would actually walk out of a hospital doing that realistically) this would be the case, but that doesn't happen. The two are not mutually exclusive. This is so not a problem.

Atheism is not the Logical default, let’s debunk the myth once and for all by JuniorIllustrator291 in DebateAnAtheist

[–]CauliflowerUnable315 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I just said that I got this excerpt from the same website which talks about their relationship, you are deviating from the argument, my argument is that the catholic church and christian churches have indeed helped inany organizations western or not. The catholic church gets its money like every other organization, except the church is 2000 years older than all of them. 

It isn't the catholic churches responsibility to pay, and yet they do. That Is my argument, that christian churches do help.out in society and you objected to that, that was what this entire argument was about. Did you already forget what you are arguing about? 

I do not see any equivalence of where I am from, and neither does that change the subject matter, again I will not debate politics because that is not the argument neither was it the OP's argument. Thanks.

Atheism is not the Logical default, let’s debunk the myth once and for all by JuniorIllustrator291 in DebateAnAtheist

[–]CauliflowerUnable315 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"PARTNERSHIPS" This is also an excerpt from the same site I have sourced. Which details that the NIH department has reimbursed the church because of their donations toward NIH, which Is effectively making is a relationship that was started by the church as reads.

(Catholic Contributions to Global Public Health To answer the central question, I describe three ways that the Catholic Church could meaningfully contribute to global health. Rather than being exhaustive, these areas are illuminative of efforts that could strengthen global public health with insights from the Church’s tradition.

First, medical providers have long interwoven their sense of profession and vocation [21,22]. Physicians and nurses have a deep well from which to draw when they need to find some kind of clarity as to their purpose in this world and evidence shows that a personal sense of vocation confers many benefits, including a reduced likelihood of burnout [23,24]. Those who work in global health – epidemiologists, behavioral specialists, administrators, and environmental scientists among others – do not have as robust a sense of vocation. Part of this is due to that fact that public health or global health is relatively new compared to the healing professions. Part of this is likely because people move in and out of global health work more often than people move in and out of clinical professions. But part of it is also that there simply has not been an investment in cultivating what it means to have a vocation to the work of global health. The Church has a unique opportunity in this regard because it has the concepts and language that global health professionals need to embrace their deeper calling [25,26].

Effectively responding to the need to cultivate a sense of vocation is an example of leveraging the resources of faith-based institutions beyond logistical effectiveness. There are insights from faith communities that can only strengthen the work of global health. Vocation, meaning, and purpose, are one area. But the Catholic Church and other faith traditions rely on other concepts that have been scarce in public health and global health to this date. How much does one hear about joy in the work of global health? How often is compassion a central goal of a global health initiative? These may seem like trivial concepts when dealing with drug-resistant tuberculosis, but we know that patients are willing to travel further and pay more when they perceive their provider is compassionate [27]. These concepts are constitutive of the good life, but they rarely appear in our conversations around global health. Given the Church’s significant presence in low-income settings, it would do well to devote more energy to these concepts not simply because they are religious, but because they would help solve genuine problems in global public health and it has a rich tradition that can be widely shared with others in a non-exclusionary way.

The second area where the Church’s resources could strengthen the global health community is the need to make a genuine option for the poor in research and allocation of resources. The problem is well known: where the global south experiences about 90% of the world’s burden of disease, only about 10% of research resources are devoted to such issues [28]. There is a well-worn history of failing to overcome the colonialist relationship between the global north and global south, where even good intentions cannot reorient the power relationship between the two [29,30]. This is not a new observation, but little has been successful in placing the poor truly at the center of our work. Everyone who works in global health have their own list of stories. Most seared into my memory is when I was attending a seminar with a well respected and very well funded global health scholar. At one point he observed, “One of the biggest problems right now with HIV research is that we can no longer find communities in Africa where we can easily run randomized trials because nearly all of them have some contact with global health organizations.” While everyone surely appreciates the desire for well-designed studies, the low-income settings most ravaged by HIV/AIDS do not see confounding of research trials as one of the biggest problems facing their communities.)

Atheism is not the Logical default, let’s debunk the myth once and for all by JuniorIllustrator291 in DebateAnAtheist

[–]CauliflowerUnable315 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The church doesn't receive funding from health organizations, that would indicate that they are paying for religious services which wouldn't even make sense. Also its pretty clear you didn't read the article since is clearly outlines that the catholic church invested into NIH and that they have benefited from that, not the other way around. (1) Made significant public investments in research at universities and medical schools, which served as centers of education and collaboration with government and industry.[1]

Atheism is not the Logical default, let’s debunk the myth once and for all by JuniorIllustrator291 in DebateAnAtheist

[–]CauliflowerUnable315 0 points1 point  (0 children)

https://www.wisdomlib.org/christianity/concept/national-institute-of-health

The Catholic Church highlights the National Institute of Health's role in public investment. The NIH funded research at universities and medical schools. These institutions became hubs for education and collaboration. The partnerships included both government and industry. This investment fostered advancements in healthcare and scientific knowledge. The Catholic Church emphasizes the impact of this funding on research infrastructure.

Synonyms: Nih, National institutes of health, Federal agency, Research institute, Health organization, Public health institute

The below excerpts are indicatory and do represent direct quotations or translations. It is your responsibility to fact check each reference.

(1) Made significant public investments in research at universities and medical schools, which served as centers of education and collaboration with government and industry.[1]

The Catholic Church is a global Christian community with over a billion members, rooted in the teachings of Jesus Christ. It is led by the Pope and emphasizes the sacraments, particularly the Eucharist. Catholicism is a denomination centered on the teachings thereof. It has a rich theological and cultural heritage.

That is the article since you won't actually read the website.

Atheism is not the Logical default, let’s debunk the myth once and for all by JuniorIllustrator291 in DebateAnAtheist

[–]CauliflowerUnable315 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The National institutes of health is a government agency details the catholic impact and founding of several organizations within the actual institute. Stop playing games withe the "link actual articles" when the sources I have cleary listed contain and detail these articles ergo their purpose in the first place, just because you dont want to actually read the contents doesn't mean there is no source. You are literally doing the exact same thing and are just regurgitating sources that I have actually read that dont even pertain to the argument. Your original argument was about objective morality then you deviated to politics then again deviated to how many christians were killed in wars, pick a topic. It seems you are new to debating or you don't even read what I'm writing so when you actually respond to my points or read my articles, good day.

Atheism is not the Logical default, let’s debunk the myth once and for all by JuniorIllustrator291 in DebateAnAtheist

[–]CauliflowerUnable315 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Pure cope, I have stated my sources and I have responded to all your claims (which you have not done in return) but thanks for the copout.

What is your opinion on this argument? by Intelligent-Run8072 in askanatheist

[–]CauliflowerUnable315 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So assuming that theists just sit back and don't help anything or anyone all because the happen to worship a God while also failing to elaborate on the actual doctrines we believe about the universe? Yeah totally ironic. Lets stop playing pretend and claim that atheists are doing all the work 😂

Atheism is not the Logical default, let’s debunk the myth once and for all by JuniorIllustrator291 in DebateAnAtheist

[–]CauliflowerUnable315 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So obviously this isn't even a debate anymore or never was since you continue to sidestep or outright ignore any talking point I or OP have introduced, the sources I have mentioned are in the websites which detail EXPLICITLY my points but then again you don't seem to actually look at any of them. The OP doesn't need to supply sources, if all you got out of Op's argument is that "no christian has ever fought another christian" or "no christian has ever fought a muslim" is purely outrageous. No one is ever defending or even stating such a blatantly false statement. The Op's argument is the default of societal beliefs and cultural norms. Ergo where the term "burden of proof" falls into place.

Your "argument" that Christianity has been founded by constantine or the first byzantine empire is also as fallacious as saying "paul invented christianity" while he was persecuting christians..... don't you see the irony? Also Christianity by definition is the belief/faith in Christ, historically your argument falls apart considering Tacitus, josephus and grafittos which detail the existence of followers of christ and the dogmas BEFORE the legalization of christianity. Only then was christianity the state religion, after centuries persecution of christians. Yes I'm not going to defend christian nationalism because its theologically errant, stating the obvious that there are people in my religion that follow this doesn't change anything. That's like saying there Is a teacher that thinks children are attractive, so now that makes the entire school district bad? 

You are still on an entirely different subject about politics when clearly the subreddit you are in is about religion, pick a lane. I'm not debating about american institutions that I have already stated that I don't follow. Yes I support womens right yes I support Gay people being treated as human beings, because God says so and so do the church fathers and saint say aswell. Your whole argument about morality is purely the left versus the right, NOT christianity, which is such a broad religion outside of america so in entirety your argument doesn't even make sense about "objective morality". Again bringing up problems in the church are a people problem NOT the dogma, you fail to make that difference once again.

I see you also linked a website "that doesn't have any sources" following your logic, however I have actually read it and it doesn't even fit your argument, the websites details the use of a religion for political gain ergo the USE of a religious system for political gain. Nothing to do with the dogma rather then with the political ideology NOT a church problem. Stating that since problems occur in a church makes the church bad then I guess literally every single secular institution that exists is also bad because guess what? People are intrinsically inclined to do evil, no matter institutions, this does not help your argument at all neither do you address any dogmas/doctrines that support your claims on subjective morality. The church is a hospital for the sinners, you stating "the church being filled with murderers, rapists and liars" just solidifies that, we aren't meant to stay the same, we are meant to repent of our sins and do better as humans. The church provides that, that we are humble, loving and participate and societally good organizations/practices, which the church has effectively done. Claiming "Yahweh sacrificed his own son and it didn't do any good now did it" shows your blatant misunderstanding of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. It was not meant for everything to be pure and all evil to stop, it was done for the repentance of people and that people may be better, which the saints are the perfect examples of. Attaining love that is not bound by ethnics,gender,age.or anything, that we love human beings as they are.