After many religious debates, I've found a recurring theme: the ignorance of the atheist.
For example, Duke on IRC claimed that souls have no specified time of birth, which is false. They are created at conception.
Another example is the claim of dinosaurs not fitting into Genesis. They fit if you take the first chapter metaphorically, as it's meant to be taken.

This is not a religious debate thread, merely a clearing-up-confusion thread.

EDIT: In all cases I mean Catholicism

Do you have a scripture to back this up?

"Ignorance of the atheist"?
I can see a flame war approaching

Religious Dogma is the original fan fiction. The concept that a soul is created at conception has no scriptural backing, quite the opposite. The idea that dinosaurs were around before the flood also has no scriptural backing. These ideas are assumed to be true and just shoehorned in with little to no explanation because it's what the church wants.

The reason why church wants abortion to be illegal is it wants to have women punished for having sex. It's the same reason why the Catholic Church hates condoms.

The Genesis account is nothing more than mythological folklore designed to explain phenomena. For instance, the Great Flood was written in part because other religions had Great Flood myths and it's a popular thing to do, and in part to explain what rainbows come from and why they exist.

The flood story was not written to explain what happened to the dinosaurs. No one knew anything about dinosaurs when those books were written and rewritten.

Also, there is law surrounding what to do if a child is murdered or killed accidentally

If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life. -- Exodus 21:22-23

(ie, killing a fetus isn't considered murder)

(From skeptics annotated bible)

The Bible places no value on fetuses or infants less than one month old.

And if it be from a month old even unto five years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male five shekels of silver, and for the female thy estimation shall be three shekels of silver. -- Leviticus 27:6

Fetuses and infants less than one month old are not considered persons.

Number the children of Levi after the house of their fathers, by their families: every male from a month old and upward shalt thou number them. And Moses numbered them according to the word of the LORD. -- Numbers 3:15-16

God sometimes approves of killing fetuses.

And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? ... Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. -- Numbers 31:15-17
(Some of the non-virgin women must have been pregnant. They would have been killed along with their unborn fetuses.)

Give them, O LORD: what wilt thou give? give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts. -- Hosea 9:14

Yea, though they bring forth, yet will I slay even the beloved fruit of their womb. -- Hosea 9:16

Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up. -- Hosea 13:16

God sometimes kills newborn babies to punish their parents.

Because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die. -- 2 Samuel 12:14

As an atheist, I a) take offense, and b) have found no side with a monopoly on ignorance.

If he believes a soul exists, he is not an atheist.

If you take the Bible metaphorically, then it can mean anything. Now, I agree that the Bible may have been intended as a metaphor and a fable such that it could convey the lessons within, but you can't say that a book is correct because it's claims aren't actually what is says.

I'd like to apologize for the ignorance of the atheist bit. I should probably explain that. The atheist in the sentence is only the person defending atheism in the particular debate, not atheists in general, ai. a lot of the debates I was in featured an ignorant atheist.
P.S.-I'll have to bring those verses to my priest-teacher.

Having had this thread pointed out to me, I feel I should wade in, to prevent myself being misrepresented.



I remember various conversations on this topic, but am reasonably confident I never made that claim (it would be uncharacteristically definite of me). I may be wrong (and feel free to correct me if I am wrong), but I suspect the relevant statement was:


Yes, that does demonstrate the ignorance of an atheist; I do not know when souls appear (and was using this list of questions to point out some of the questions that must be answered by anyone positing the existence of a soul).

I didn't claim that they had no specific time of "birth", not least because I didn't claim they existed at all - but that's another point. On this specific issue, the logic runs something like this:

Axiom 1: Souls (not defined) exist,
Axiom 2: While people (to be defined elsewhere) have bodies, their soul is linked to their body (defined loosely as the collection of cells and whatnot),
Axiom 3: There is a time before the body exists,
Theorem: At some point, the soul must become attached to the body.

My question was when this attachment occurs. It is (and correct me if I am wrong) a logical consequence of the given assumptions and so anyone asserting those assumptions to be true (I'll take 3 as fairly uncontentious, although it does require a definition of time which I don't have) must have an answer to this question, or accept that their theory is not complete.

Now, it may well be that you, personally, believe that this attachment occurs at conception (and coincides with the creation of the soul) - which is fair enough (although may raise interesting issues with identical twins) - good for you. However, I'm fairly confident that you can't prove that everyone believes that is when souls are attached, and can prove that not all possible religions hold that to be the case.

So, you have an answer (without evidence or proof) to one of the questions. Good. Now try to answer all the others (each, I submit, were consequential questions to assertions made in the conversation). If you can answer them all, then you might have a basic theory of the practicalities of how souls work (but not why, or what they are, the science behind them, and so on).

In summary; I'm fairly certain I didn't claim that, and your assertion is one of belief, not of scientific fact. The difference between me (an atheist) and you (a "believer in souls") is that I try to recognise and admit when I don't know something, and throw in probabilities and risk assessments, whereas you seem to simply make your own assertion and hold it to be true.



As an aside, while we're here:


The emphasised bit is another assertion. Now, it might be a rather common one among many religious groups, but again, I'm fairly certain it isn't taken metaphorically by all (and can prove that some possible religions will hold it to be literal). It is important, imho, when making an argument, to recognise when something is merely an assertion of fact or an assumption, and the level of evidence to support them. Of course, with the whole "it should be taken metaphorically" argument, you then have to answer the question of which bits of your scripture you take literally, and which metaphorically (it can make quite a big difference) - some religions hold their scriptures to be entirely literal.

But anyway... this is why I avoid forums; I tend to get rather caught up in them. To summarise:

Personally, I'm happy to be ignorant, it means that I'm always looking for answers, and more questions - that is how I learn, and improve myself.

[Apologies if I have repeated something someone else has said; I sort of dove straight in at the top.]

[Edit 0: Blake! Why doesn't your forum accept lists or quotes using quote-tags from non-users?]

[Edit 1: Thanks Soph; quote boxes fixed.]

Duke:

I always liked to think of the Bible coinciding with evolution. Since science has proved one and religion another, it makes sense. For instance, who's to say that God didn't create man by changing a monkey to his own image?

I think you might find this video relevant.

Proved?

It's unfortunatly low on my list of things, and fell off the bottom. Apologies.

I will watch it when I can.