Atheism - Paradox

[swplan76]

The main difference I’ve seen between the Catholic Christian and the Protestant Christian is in the idea of the Word of God.

Protestants believe that the Word of God is literally the Bible, a book. You have faith in that book and you are saved. Catholics believe that the Word of God is Jesus Christ and the Bible reveals the Word. The Word is not only a Godman who lived 2000 years ago, but the Being through which all creation proceeds. When you combine the metaphysical nature of Christ with this man Jesus who is the Christ in the sacrament of the Eucharist, you get a profound yet practical way of life. It isn’t stagnant, existing in some past we can never be sure of… it is real and present in our lives today.

I am just a Christian, neither Catholic or Protestant (though I am probably closer to protestant). I believe the Word is Jesus. Often times scripture refers to the word and it means message. The Bible is the word of God in terms of it being his message to us. I think I also receive the word through the Holy Spirit which speaks to me through prayer, other Christians, books I read and through worship. I don’t disagree with what you’ve said above.

I know very few protestants who believe that the Bible is the Word. I know a few. I know a few who believe that the Bible is Jesus because both are the Word - they believe the book is Jesus. (blink, blink, blink… “what?!!”)… not many, but some.

I think you are pointing at the idea that when we enter into attempting to understand the supernatural, we are looking at mystery. Our minds cannot fully fathom it at once. It requires time and process… but it materializes in a very real way.

 

[happilycatholic]

I’m not a big fan of myself when I get worked up over Pascal’s Wager, so I’m plenty happy to drop that line of discussion — as you said, it’s a simplification, and it’s not like there aren’t other reasons to believe. However, I do wonder what you meant by your train track analogy if not a form of Pascal’s Wager.

I meant we all have to face the unknown and make a choice whether to “stay on the tracks”. That is, do we go along and face the consequences or do we get off and wonder if we missed something? I guess it was a bad example seeing as to how there’s really no reward in it. Can I stuff a dare of winning a million bucks in there?

I don’t know. It’s really tough. I think maybe for some, it’s a simple comfort thinking that God is there and there’s something bigger than you and I. (so cliche) But when you put your whole heart in it, you start to feel His presence in your life. I can remember thinking my Dad was so cheesy for saying that to try to get me on board. I used to roll my eyes at him. Now, I truly feel the Holy Spirit. I can’t explain it or prove it. I wish I could. I wish there were magic words.

I’m not convinced of that, if for no other reason than that it’s a “choice” I’ve been unable to make. I’d like

 

[truthiness]

Have any atheists read ‘The Great Divorce’ by CS Lewis?

Yes, Lewis is an amazing author, and The Great Divorce was an interesting read, as were the Screwtape Letters. I am curious to see where you go with this question.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

This has become a very popular argument among atheists… “the burden of proof.”

The problem with this argument is that proof denotes an object that is the cause or effect of something. When it comes to proof of God, we aren’t talking about something that is within the universe that is the cause of all other objects.

The atheist believes truth is fact; a summary of a cause/effect relationship. The theist believes truth is being. Since being is self-evident, it precedes all cause/effect relationships, no matter how you slice them up.

This is exactly what the OP is pointing to: the atheist has no ground to stand on… he or she can make no affirmative statement about reality, leading him or her into logical fallacy.

To be an atheist it is not necessary to prove that God doesn’t exist. What do we call people who don’t believe in leprechauns, the Tooth Fairy, the Sandman, or Tinkerbell? Do we have to prove they don’t exist? Rather, it is incumbent upon those who assert God does physically exist to prove it.

– A-Bierce

The reason this argument is popular among atheists is because it is true. That just happens to be the same reason you don’t like it. You theists are the ones making unbelievable claims. Atheists simply see these claims for what they are. The basis for your religion is an unrealistic fantasy created by a bronze age citistate trying to justify their inflated view of their place in the world.

 

[Heliotropium]

What I have found in my journey is that I was using the wrong method to find God. I was using the scientific method for physical science (which is concerned only with material things) to find an entity that is both spiritual and physical. Then it hit me that there has to be a spiritual method much like how there is a scientific method which will allow me to search and research the spiritual sphere! The short answer is religion has this spiritual method I’m looking for, because it is religion that we come to know, love, and serve God. Now knowing religion is not enough just like knowing the scientific method is not enough. You have to actually live it and practice it to get results.

I then was on the grueling path to find out which religion gives the method needed to investigate the spiritual sphere and find God! Well long story short I found it in Christianity/Catholicism to be more specific. When I read the New Testament the verse that captured me the most at that time was:“Blessed are the pure of heart, for they shall see God” which is in the Gospel of St. Matthew 5:3-10. It is one of the eight beatitudes Christ listed in his sermon on the mountain. Then I asked how does one become pure in heart? The answer I found just happened to also be the answer to my questions regarding what is the spiritual method needed to find God, know God and then honor and serve God.
Here is the method and I challenge others to do this with honest intentions, and don’t set a time limit because what scientist set a time limit on when they will just stop searching for truth? Answers come in time people not at the specific time we choose. Anyway without further adew here is the method

The method is found in the seven opposing virtues! The virtue on the right and the sin on the left 

Pride vs. Humility
Wrath vs. Meekness
Envy vs. Charity
Lust vs. Chastity
Gluttony vs. Moderation
Sloth vs. Zeal
Avarice vs. Generosity

The interesting thing I have found is the people (at one point in time myself) who cannot find God suffer from the sins more than the virtues (not because all unbelievers are morally bad people but because they are unaware of what the benefit of the virtues really are), and that the lack of their success in finding God is because of these very sins. The horrible reality of these sins is that they keep you blind to the spiritual world and as a result they keep you from finding God! See it is only when we deny ourselves and remove ourselves from worldly things do we see more the spiritual world that exists. If you don’t believe me then try it. I wouldn’t be sharing this if I felt it wasn’t true. It is my honest opinion that anyone who practices these virtues and makes them part of their daily life while searching for God will in fact find God. Only you will know if you have done these with a sincere and honest intention to find God.

 

[Eleve]

The atheist believes truth is fact; a summary of a cause/effect relationship. The theist believes truth is being. Since being is self-evident, it precedes all cause/effect relationships, no matter how you slice them up.

This is exactly what the OP is pointing to: the atheist has no ground to stand on… he or she can make no affirmative statement about reality, leading him or her into logical fallacy.

As I said in the previous post, my faith is that Truth (the Logos) is Being. From there, I can proceed to understand what Truth is, through both reason and revelation.

This gentleman might have something to say about all that… though, by the looks of him, he’d just as soon eat your soul:

[i117.photobucket.com/albums/o69/chagr(name removed by moderator)roductions/d_jaques_derrida.jpg](http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o69/chagr(name removed by moderator)roductions/d_jaques_derrida.jpg)

From that day on I knew God was taking care of me in the way He said he would. He is teaching his children to love one another. We are the ones that fall short of proving ourselves to God. Not the other way around.

How did this convince you? To me it sounds like nothing changed in your (physical) life, which seems like the opposite of evidence for divine care.

 

[happilycatholic]

How did this convince you? To me it sounds like nothing changed in your (physical) life, which seems like the opposite of evidence for divine care.

Well, I actually thought about this a little after I posted it. I always wanted to believe God was there’ so I suppose it wasn’t that much of a stretch for me. I went to church (Baptist faith) with my parents and later in life started studying the catholic faith. I truly wanted to believe, I just couldn’t find a way. Still I think it’s a choice, maybe one we close ourselves off from. I chose not to believe until I was convinced to believe and then chose not to ignore it.

What convinced me? Well, I don’t know that it is a “what” that convinced me. It’s more like something I can’t really explain. I guess that’s different for every believer. Maybe that’s the essence of one’s personal relationship with God. For me, I had a HUGE question answered in my mind, maybe that was the ‘what’. I really don’t know if it’s that simple. The only way I can explain it is in a moment, I felt God. Maybe I was open in that moment. It was not an intellectual revelation, but a moment of awareness of something that had always been there.

God is not about the physical, but the Spiritual. Not only did I understand that the outcome of that situation was the fault of my mom and the man that didn’t turn her in and who knows who else that might have known, but I also had the occasion to forgive. That would be a bad situation if not for the latter. Just knowing that what happened to me had everything to do with worldly choices people were making and not something God wasn’t doing, made all the difference in the world. It opened my heart to things I hadn’t experienced on quite that level, like forgiveness.

I really believe it’s us who fail, not God. We fail to believe, God doesn’t fail to provide.

 

[djeter]

This is just an argument by assertion that belief is a choice. You can’t really convince me of that just by restating your own opinion. But we’ll come back to that.

My answer is that Pacal’s Wager is many-times fallacious:

1. It assumes the absolute certainty that God will reward people in positive correlation to their commitment to religion, blatantly disregarding the idea that God might reward people for pursuing, e.g, human rights or knowledge unrestrained by religious taboo.
2. It assumes that a binary of [faith in God, disbelief in God] is even claimed to be the condition of salvation by any major faith. In reality, practically every monotheistic religion claims that its own path to God is the correct one, and that others generally lead to damnation. Therefore, Pascal’s Wager has nothing to say to the possibility of Christians going to a Muslim hell, or vice versa.
3. As we were discussing above, Pascal’s Wager is based on the notion that beliefs can be freely chosen, independent of evidence. This is clearly fallacious: suppose, in a rough analogy to the Wager, I held a gun to your head and told you to believe in fairies. Clearly, it would be in your best interest to believe, and especially if I had the power to read minds. But could you genuinely change from your disbelief in fairies by the “evidence” or “persuasion” that you would be killed for not recanting? A realistic view of what it means “to believe” simply does not permit this.

There is so much more to Pascal than the wager. I chose 12 things from Peter Kreeft’s book:

payingattentiontothesky.com/pascal-the-first-modern-christian-by-edward-t-oakes/twelve-from-blaise-pascal/

Also a great essay on Pascal highlighting his contrasts with Descartes.

DJ

 

[authenticity]

The reason this argument is popular among atheists is because it is true. That just happens to be the same reason you don’t like it. You theists are the ones making unbelievable claims.

Interesting that we are making “unbelievable” claims. Obviously, they are quite believable.

The logical fallacy (burden of proof) that atheists are referring to actually puts them on the wrong side of the argument.

To use an example, a person says they believe in Santa Claus. Their proof is the gifts under the Christmas tree.

You, being a person who disagrees, says, “I don’t believe in Santa Claus.”

This is a fallacy because you are making a claim in the negative. You aren’t countering with anything, so you are making a rhetorical statement.

A logical counter-argument would be, “There is no Santa Claus because I put the gifts under the Christmas tree.” That is an opposing claim.

It doesn’t bother me that people don’t believe in God. It bothers me when people use rhetoric to defend their beliefs or to offend what other people believe.

Atheists simply see these claims for what they are. The basis for your religion is an unrealistic fantasy created by a bronze age citistate trying to justify their inflated view of their place in the world.

The Hebrews established that their God was a living God unlike the ones made of stone. Their proof was that God said his name is “I am who am”, in other words, being itself is God.

Worshiping rocks or other things may be refuted, but it is difficult to refute being. Being is what justifies all claims or renders them all null. So I would say that these primitive people’s God became the foundation of Western civilization because of who their God is, not because of their inflated view of themselves. Pretty much every “bronze age city state” thought they were the center of the world.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

Atheists claim that God doesn’t exist. That they have found no proof of the existence of God. From what they can determine, God just isn’t there.

So, how can they speak authoritatively on the subject.

They have no evidence from which to base their case.

that’s not true … we have plenty of circumstantial evidence to refute theism with. For starters doesn’t it seem odd that a god who is all powerful, present everywhere in the universe at all times, and stands outside of time (but can traverse freely through all dimensions of time) couldn’t find a better way to communicate with mankind besides copies upon copies of ancient manuscripts that no can agree on (because there is no objective way to find a semblance of consistency in the bible). Indeed the manuscripts we do have were written centuries after the events it depicts.

Isn’t it also peculiar that this god who you claim spit the red sea, turned the Nile into blood, destroyed Sodom, created the universe, flooded the earth, etc. hasn’t appeared to mankind in an objectively verifiable way ever in human history? All we have are ancient accounts, which from an empirical standpoint can only be viewed as a collection of old folklore and myths.

The vast majority of people through out history have felt the need to describe something they experience as the supernatural - they have a desire to be connected with it. Many people have experiences of the divine which stand for them as personal proof that God is real.

Psychological delusion is not proof of anything … except for psychological delusion.

The Bible says that all we have to do is look at nature and we will see that God is real.

and the bible is wrong.

I’d say, at best, an atheist must leave theological and/or religious discussions to people who believe in something and they can move forward in their discussion. People who believe in nothing have nothing - where is there to go from nothing?

people who refuse to believe in ancient mythology with no basis in fact do have something … in fact we have the best thing anyone can have: a grasp of REALITY.

I think a conversation with a **devout **atheist can only be a short one.

only if you’re not educated enough to have a stimulating conversation with someone whose intellectually honest and brave enough to question the status quo.

I was talking with an atheist recently. He said, “I’ve been looking for many years for God, but I haven’t found Him.”

and he never will … unless he deludes himself.

I told him he should pray and ask God to reveal Himself. The atheist responded, “No, I’ve tried that and it doesn’t work.” He continued on and I realized that a bitterness was in him to the point that he no longer wants to see God. If God is there to be seen, this atheist has shut his eyes and has become uninterested.

why not consider our perspective. I think you’ve shut your eyes & become brainwashed.

Many Christians I know believe that there is more - they believe God is mysterious and every unfolding Himself to us, that we can know Him and that He leads us into the unknown in both our personal lives and into the future. In a sense, many Christians I know are **open **in a way that a devout atheist may never be.

and there’s actually people out there who subscribe to the Jedi religion (whatever that is). So what’s your point?

The paradox of atheism is that atheism claims that they have no proof that God exists, their hands are empty, they see nothing to point us toward God and they claim this with authority, but authority cannot be claimed when a person has no proof.

no paradox … except when we stare in amazement at the gullibility of the human race. It’s not only that we lack proof of the existence of a god … we know the weight of circumstantial evidence debunks every religion practiced in the world today.

At best they can say that they have doubt, but they are in no position to make conclusions… and if they do make conclusions, then the conversation has no where to go.

Thoughts?

We do make conclusions … that’s the distinction between agnostics and atheists. Agnostics say they don’t know … atheists make a judgment regarding theism (at least theism as expressed by the various world religions). As far as where the conversation goes … who cares (we’re right and you’re wrong … what more really needs to be said).

 

[Eleve]

This is a fallacy because you are making a claim in the negative. You aren’t countering with anything, so you are making a rhetorical statement.

Because you’re not obligated to counter every silly belief or argument that you hear. I hear stupid things all the time, whether concerning soteriology or sales tax, and there’s no fallacy in both not accepting the ridiculous conclusions and not voicing or forming a refutation.

The Hebrews established that their God was a living God unlike the ones made of stone. Their proof was that God said his name is “I am who am”, in other words, being itself is God.

I would think that if God (or anyone else) said anything at all it would establish his/her vitality. And I certainly hope you realize that atheists reject that God ever actually made this statement to any Hebrew.

Worshiping rocks or other things may be refuted, but it is difficult to refute being.

I don’t see how it would be particularly easier to refute worship of a rock, but anyway, practically atheist refutes “being.” Generally we refute the idea that being is an entity, or that this entity is a God.

So I would say that these primitive people’s God became the foundation of Western civilization because of who their God is, not because of their inflated view of themselves.

You’re really into this whole “being as God” thing, so I’m wondering how much you’ve read about it. That scary Frenchman I showed you wrote a fair bit about how the worship of “being” relates to power. But I don’t think he goes anywhere near the conclusion that the worship is correct. Quite the opposite, really.

 

[authenticity]

I am just a Christian, neither Catholic or Protestant (though I am probably closer to protestant). I believe the Word is Jesus. Often times scripture refers to the word and it means message. The Bible is the word of God in terms of it being his message to us. I think I also receive the word through the Holy Spirit which speaks to me through prayer, other Christians, books I read and through worship. I don’t disagree with what you’ve said above.

I know very few protestants who believe that the Bible is the Word. I know a few. I know a few who believe that the Bible is Jesus because both are the Word - they believe the book is Jesus. (blink, blink, blink… “what?!!”)… not many, but some.

I think you are pointing at the idea that when we enter into attempting to understand the supernatural, we are looking at mystery. Our minds cannot fully fathom it at once. It requires time and process… but it materializes in a very real way.

I appreciate your kind response because I think my statements about Protestants was a bit rash and one dimensional. Also, Catholics do believe that the Bible is written by God, so my statement is in error there as well.

I was just reading about interpretation in the Catholic encyclopedia. This would sum up the point I was trying to make as far as the Word of God is concerned:

Consequences flowing from inerrancy

It follows from what has been said that there can be no contradictions in the Bible, an that there can be no real opposition between Biblical statements and the truths of philosophy, science, or history.

I do not see that Protestants hold this second point to be true. For example, many Protestants believe the world was created in 7 days and deny any form of evolution. I think this kind of literal interpretation of the Bible, where all scientific or philosophical notions are completely ignored, has led to some erroneous conclusions about Christianity and pushed away many intelligent people from the Church.

 

[authenticity]

Because you’re not obligated to counter every silly belief or argument that you hear. I hear stupid things all the time, whether concerning soteriology or sales tax, and there’s no fallacy in both not accepting the ridiculous conclusions and not voicing or forming a refutation.

There is a false sense of security in relativism. The security is that you are never wrong because you never have to claim anything, so you can never be opposed. That neutrality is false, however, because you do not exist in a zero-sum world. If you look deep enough into this line of thinking, you come to intellectual pride as the source of your own distress. And it is a distress.

I don’t mean you personally, by the way.

I would think that if God (or anyone else) said anything at all it would establish his/her vitality. And I certainly hope you realize that atheists reject that God ever actually made this statement to any Hebrew.

Since the Word of God is life itself, that which animates all things, God has spoken and is the very definition of vitality.

Pretty much everyone except Moses could refute God making that statement. Oddly enough, I was just reading that particular part of Exodus last night. I could relate to Moses. He sounded like everyone else that doubts. Show me. Direct me. Stay with me. I am lost in a desert.

I don’t see how it would be particularly easier to refute worship of a rock, but anyway, practically atheist refutes “being.” Generally we refute the idea that being is an entity, or that this entity is a God.

The only thing you don’t refute is refutation itself. And on what basis do you do that?

From the Catholic Encyclopedia, ala St. Thomas:

The fact that contingent beings exist, i.e. beings whose non-existence is recognized as possible, implies the existence of a necessary being, who is God.

You’re really into this whole “being as God” thing, so I’m wondering how much you’ve read about it. That scary Frenchman I showed you wrote a fair bit about how the worship of “being” relates to power. But I don’t think he goes anywhere near the conclusion that the worship is correct. Quite the opposite, really.

Yea, I am really into this whole being is Truth/Logos/God thing because it is the entry point of faith. I don’t know what you consider well-read. I would say I am more educated than the average bear on these things. What I have relayed so far here is from Pope Benedict.

And are you talking about Pascal? I don’t know much about him beyond what I just read. Could you quote something specific, either in this thread or from his writings, as to what you mean by worship of God relating to power?

 

[humble_in_doubt]

There is a false sense of security in relativism. The security is that you are never wrong because you never have to claim anything, so you can never be opposed. That neutrality is false, however, because you do not exist in a zero-sum world. If you look deep enough into this line of thinking, you come to intellectual pride as the source of your own distress. And it is a distress.

moral relativism is a separate issue – not relevant to the question of whether or not god exists (or exists in the form you claim he does). Frankly your assertions here amount to conjecture; unless you can cite some studies showing them to be true. How do you know atheism equates to relativism? I bet I can make a pretty good case that religion is relativistic – to spite the claim of being guided by an unchanging word.

Is Christian morality the same today as it was in the 12th century? Obviously not … so the irony is I can actually show that views of morality among Christians have shifted over time, while you’ll be hard pressed to find similar examples pertaining to atheists (although I would argue that views of morality shift over time for society at large)

 

[happilycatholic]

Psychological delusion is not proof of anything … except for psychological delusion.

and the bible is wrong.

 

[Eleve]

The only thing you don’t refute is refutation itself. And on what basis do you do that?

Sorry; I meant to say that “practically no atheist refutes ‘being.’”

The fact that contingent beings exist, i.e. beings whose non-existence is recognized as possible, implies the existence of a necessary being, who is God.

It implies nothing of the sort.

And are you talking about Pascal? I don’t know much about him beyond what I just read. Could you quote something specific, either in this thread or from his writings, as to what you mean by worship of God relating to power?

I’m talking about Jacques Derrida. Most of his academic career was built around criticism of the idea that God is Being, and the philosophies that flow from it.

 

[authenticity]

Sorry; I meant to say that “practically no atheist refutes ‘being.’”

Ok.

It implies nothing of the sort.

What is your being contingent upon?

I’m talking about Jacques Derrida. Most of his academic career was built around criticism of the idea that God is Being, and the philosophies that flow from it.

Oh, that scary frenchman. I thought you were going to ask me about why Pascal liked to cut himself. That is scary.

Yes, I’m familiar with Derrida. While I could restate the argument, Marcello Pera in “Without Roots” does a decent job of refuting deconstructionism.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

I’m always entertained by the resentful atheist who believes he’s making a case for atheism, when in reality he’s only proving the need for therapists.

Can we say, “unresolved resentment”?

Why do you think I’m resentful? Even if I did harbor resentment (I would frame it as condescension perhaps, not resentment … but anyway) why would I require therapy?

Think about it this way … who would you describe as crazy. The people who walked into the compound with David Koresh – or their friends and family members who pleaded with them & I’m sure emphatically appealed to logic and common sense to steer them away from his cult? I’d be willing to bet in occasional frustration they accused the cult members of being brainwashed, gullible, stupid, and dragged along like hapless sheep.

Did those friends and family members require therapy? I certainly don’t think so

Christians and Muslims (and to a lesser extent Jews) ascribe to a religion that imagines an end of the world apocalypse – and frankly from some of the insane rhetoric I hear from political and religious leaders it seems like it might become a self-promulgating prophecy. This sort of stuff has all the qualities of a cult, just on a larger scale. So yes I (and my counterparts) try to be a voice of reason in a confused and ignorant world.

I say if you want hope then place your hope in mankind and what we can potentially achieve. Religious fables and myths are great to inspire our imagination – but when we start to think it’s real and it’s something worth dying or killing for; it can become dangerous.

 

[swplan76]

…For example, many Protestants believe the world was created in 7 days and deny any form of evolution. I think this kind of literal interpretation of the Bible, where all scientific or philosophical notions are completely ignored, has led to some erroneous conclusions about Christianity and pushed away many intelligent people from the Church.

Sometimes we only see the people who end up in the spotlight and imagine them to be representative of an entire group. I think the Protestants that ignore scientific and/or philosophical perspectives is a relatively small group. In the neighborhood I grew up in the only Catholics I knew were the ones that made noise. I witnessed Catholic adults and kids doing all kinds of ridiculous things. I began to imagine that they represented the vast majority. To this day, I still have no idea what the numbers might be on how many were corrupt and just going through the motions of religion, but I am sure that the numbers are much smaller than I imagined as I viewed them from a distance as an outsider.

I think there are a lot of things that turn people away based on poor assumptions based on skewed information.

 

[happilycatholic]

Why do you think I’m resentful? Even if I did harbor resentment (I would frame it as condescension perhaps, not resentment … but anyway) why would I require therapy?

Think about it this way … who would you describe as crazy. The people who walked into the compound with David Koresh – or their friends and family members who pleaded with them & I’m sure emphatically appealed to logic and common sense to steer them away from his cult? I’d be willing to bet in occasional frustration they accused the cult members of being brainwashed, gullible, stupid, and dragged along like hapless sheep.

Did those friends and family members require therapy? I certainly don’t think so

Christians and Muslims (and to a lesser extent Jews) ascribe to a religion that imagines an end of the world apocalypse – and frankly from some of the insane rhetoric I hear from political and religious leaders it seems like it might become a self-promulgating prophecy. This sort of stuff has all the qualities of a cult, just on a larger scale. So yes I (and my counterparts) try to be a voice of reason in a confused and ignorant world.

I say if you want hope then place your hope in mankind and what we can potentially achieve. Religious fables and myths are great to inspire our imagination – but when we start to think it’s real and it’s something worth dying or killing for; it can become dangerous.

Wow. Awesome. You just stay with that.

K, bye, bye now.

Edit:

I can’t restrain myself. I’m going to respond to this drivel.

Okay, David Karesh…hmmmm you take a guy who thought he was going to save the world (from the world) so he appoints himself a “savior”. Afterall, in his mind he’s got the inside trac on “the truth”. This is a guy who has delusions of having the one truth that will save the population (anyone willing to follow him) from themselves and whatever false faith they ascribe to. Then he proceeds to spew his rhetoric all over the place while assaulting mainstream Christianity and those that lead and follow that system of beliefs. And I suppose he really had nothing ‘good’ to say about mainstream Christianity and probably called them delusional, fantastic and all sorts of other insults in order to get his followers to think he was the ‘smart one’ with all the ‘correct’ answers.

He was no more a Christian than you or I. He chose the one thing that he knew people would ascribe to in order to get them to follow him because he was narcissistic.

Wow, kinda sounds like you humble.

Word of advice: You may want to dial down the insults if you want people to take you seriously. You come off as a mad catholic who has an ax to grind, nothing more.