Hello Athiests!

[happilycatholic]

Well, I think it was Josie L. who started a thread in the “Non-catholic religions” forum asking atheists to talk about the reasons why they believe what they believe.

So atheists (not necessarily you, but the ones who are the subject of my rant) believe in nothing because Christians are unintelligent, fantasy-believing, dellusional people who believe in ancient myths?

Josie didn’t start a “let’s bash Christians” thread. Josie gave atheists a chance to use their vocabulary to point to why they believe or don’t believe. It doesn’t take calling someone dellusional to do that, does it?

I mean, you can tell us what you believe without even going into our beliefs can’t you? Or do I have this all wrong?

 

[AFormerCatholic]

You forgot to mention that you also have an anti-Catholic blog. So obviously you feel your “rational mind” demands be to heard by others as well.

Unlike the Roman Catholic Church, which demands obedience, I make no such demands on my fellow Netizens.

My blog is free for people to read or to ignore.

By not reading my blog, I do not hold the threat of eternal damnation over your head.

 

[josie_L]

Unlike the Roman Catholic Church, which demands obedience, I make no such demands on my fellow Netizens.

My blog is free for people to read or to ignore.

By not reading my blog, I do not hold the threat of eternal damnation over your head.

You are not allowed to proselytize, one of CAFs rules. But you are more than welcomed to debate and discuss.

P.S. So you better get rid of your blog cite.

 

[AFormerCatholic]

You are not allowed to proselytize, one of CAFs rules. But you are more than welcomed to debate and discuss.

P.S. So you better get rid of your blog cite.

If you consider a link to my blog, a Recovering Catholic, as proselytizing. I’m then left with the distinct impression, that my even being here as a self admitted unbeliever and a former Catholic, is in fact proselytizing.

Which of course it is not, just as a link to my blog is not.

Are you so afraid of former Catholics, that you consider access to their uncensored thoughts, to be worthy of a report to a mod?

If yes, how utterly tragic and sad.

 

[jam070406]

You are not allowed to proselytize, one of CAFs rules. But you are more than welcomed to debate and discuss.

P.S. So you better get rid of your blog cite.

Don’t click on it. It’s full of blasphemy and hatred for the Church. It may be best to just ignore this person.

 

[jam070406]

If you consider a link to my blog, a Recovering Catholic, as proselytizing. I’m then left with the distinct impression, that my even being here as a self admitted unbeliever and a former Catholic, is in fact proselytizing.

Which of course it is not, just as a link to my blog is not.

Are you so afraid of former Catholics, that you consider access to their uncensored thoughts, to be worthy of a report to a mod?

If yes, how utterly tragic and sad.

No, but if you wanna get your jollies by attacking the Church and people of Faith you are barking up the wrong tree. It will not be tolerated. Good day.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

I’m not sure why one has to think any particular church (or religion generally) is evil simply because they don’t believe its claims? In other words I don’t view the RCC (or most other religions) as having bad intentions; I just think they’re wrong. I do concede that I think it’s a bad idea for society to operate from a faulty premise (religiosity) & religion needs to be challenged or else we’ll wind up basing our decisions as a society on an irrational premise.

However, none of this means I think religion is evil or religious people are bad (of course they’re not). I just think they put the blinders on & I blame superstition and fear.

 

[PennitentMan]

I’m not sure why one has to think any particular church (or religion generally) is evil simply because they don’t believe its claims?

The folks who think that the church is evil are also the folks that have been hurt the most by it. Some de-convert on a purely intellectual level. Others de-convert because of intellect, but they were nudged because they got hurt trying to follow certain rules.
I think how evil one thinks the church is, is directionally proportionate to how badly you were hurt by it.

 

[Nebogipfel]

Holy straw man! Nice diversion, but the topic was the Tilma, no? It’s not something that’s just “the next supernatural claim” It’s been around for almost 500 years and has yet to be explained. Not by you. Not by your skeptics.

Well, I’m still trying to get to the bottom of what, exactly, there is to explain. So far, all I can find is a lot of legends and stories about there being unidentified substances on the tilma, or it having unusual optical properties, or the stars being a diagram of the sky on a particular date. However, the actual evidence that there is, in fact, anything unusal about the tilma (as opposed to people just repeating anecdotes and hearsay about there being something unusual about the tilma) would appear to be zip.

 

[Nebogipfel]

Are you saying that you know everything

No, just that I try not to let the identity of the person making an argument influence how I evaluate that argument. I may not always succeed in this, of course. I’m only human, and I have hopes, fears, likes, dislikes and prejudices which will inevitably colour how I see the world. But I do try to be aware of this, and take it into account.

 

[Nebogipfel]

And this is the classical B.S. fallacy of comparing a man completely devoid of credibility with that of Dr. Callahan who has established himself within the scientific community.

P.S. Have you proven some theory on the basis of one example . . .

So again, I have to ask, in which peer-reviewed scientific journal did Callahan write up his investigation of the tilma? If he found something truly unprecedented there, why was there no follow up from the scientific community? It’s like the case of the dog that didn’t bark.

By the way, Von Daniken’s lack of scientific credibility did not stop millions of people believing what he wrote. This is another reason why I am skeptical of things which are based on people just repeating unverified information to each other.

 

[josie_L]

I’m not sure why one has to think any particular church (or religion generally) is evil simply because they don’t believe its claims? In other words I don’t view the RCC (or most other religions) as having bad intentions; I just think they’re wrong. I do concede that I think it’s a bad idea for society to operate from a faulty premise (religiosity) & religion needs to be challenged or else we’ll wind up basing our decisions as a society on an irrational premise.

However, none of this means I think religion is evil or religious people are bad (of course they’re not). I just think they put the blinders on & I blame superstition and fear.

Francis, I’m going to say this one last time, my faith (and the faith of many others on this Forum) is not based on FEAR, got it. And furthermore, if it was nothing more than superstition that kept us from seeing the “truth” than I could hardly engage you in rational discourse to defend that faith. Or have I failed to be rational, Francis? Oh yes, of course I have. stupid irrational me!

GOD BLESS

 

[jam070406]

Well, I’m still trying to get to the bottom of what, exactly, there is to explain. So far, all I can find is a lot of legends and stories about there being unidentified substances on the tilma, or it having unusual optical properties, or the stars being a diagram of the sky on a particular date. However, the actual evidence that there is, in fact, anything unusal about the tilma (as opposed to people just repeating anecdotes and hearsay about there being something unusual about the tilma) would appear to be zip.

Well, the fact that there is a 500 year old tilma with the imagine of virgin Mary on it, perfectly intact, preserved and still in existence for the world to see would seem a bit unusual in itself wouldn’t you say? But wait, I probably know your answer. You don’t believe this either. So, yeah, it’s pointless.

 

[josie_L]

So again, I have to ask, in which peer-reviewed scientific journal did Callahan write up his investigation of the tilma? If he found something truly unprecedented there, why was there no follow up from the scientific community? It’s like the case of the dog that didn’t bark.

By the way, Von Daniken’s lack of scientific credibility did not stop millions of people believing what he wrote. This is another reason why I am skeptical of things which are based on people just repeating unverified information to each other.

Well, Nebogifel since you’ve already concluded that the Tilma is a fake, do you really think I want to waste my precious time answering your questions?

 

[Eleve]

Well, the fact that there is a 500 year old tilma with the imagine of virgin Mary on it, perfectly intact, preserved and still in existence for the world to see would seem a bit unusual in itself wouldn’t you say?

What’s so unusual about that? We have a lot of really old stuff in good condition — for example, various Gutenberg Bibles, which are probably more fragile for being made of (in many cases) paper. It seems even more likely that a particularly treasured artifact, such as the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe, would be particularly well-preserved.

 

[Nebogipfel]

Well, the fact that there is a 500 year old tilma with the imagine of virgin Mary on it, perfectly intact, preserved and still in existence for the world to see would seem a bit unusual in itself wouldn’t you say? But wait, I probably know your answer. You don’t believe this either. So, yeah, it’s pointless.

The Bayeux Tapestry and the Book of Kells are both far older than the tilma, but they are still in good shape. So are many mediaeval paintings and artefacts. Were there supernatural effects involved there? Is it perfectly intact and preserved? Is it really impossible that a human being could have painted it?

If a muslim made supernatural claims for a 500 year old cloak with a verse from the Koran emblazoned on it, and justified it with vague references to tests by elusive NASA scientists, websites which just repeated or embellished the same stories without any kind of indication as to where they were getting their information from, and an out-of-print book, would *you * find that at all convincing?

 

[josie_L]

If you consider a link to my blog, a Recovering Catholic, as proselytizing. I’m then left with the distinct impression, that my even being here as a self admitted unbeliever and a former Catholic, is in fact proselytizing.

Which of course it is not, just as a link to my blog is not.

Are you so afraid of former Catholics, that you consider access to their uncensored thoughts, to be worthy of a report to a mod?

If yes, how utterly tragic and sad.

Yes, I think your blog cite worthy of a report to a mod.

P.S. So how’s the “recovery” going, are you seeking “therapy”?

 

[Nebogipfel]

Well, Nebogifel since you’ve already concluded that the Tilma is a fake, do you really think I want to waste my precious time answering your questions?

sigh

I’m not saying it’s a fake. There’s certainly nothing extraordinary about saying that it’s a genuine 16th century artefact. I’'m just saying I can’t see any reason to think that there is anything *supernatural * about it.

If that’s not how it looks from where you stand, that’s fine by me.

 

[josie_L]

What’s so unusual about that? We have a lot of really old stuff in good condition — for example, various Gutenberg Bibles, which are probably more fragile for being made of (in many cases) paper. It seems even more likely that a particularly treasured artifact, such as the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe, would be particularly well-preserved.

Just read up on the history of the Tilma. God bless.

 

[jam070406]

The Bayeux Tapestry and the Book of Kells are both far older than the tilma, but they are still in good shape. So are many mediaeval paintings and artefacts. Were there supernatural effects involved there? Is it perfectly intact and preserved? Is it really impossible that a human being could have painted it?

If a muslim made supernatural claims for a 500 year old cloak with a verse from the Koran emblazoned on it, and justified it with vague references to tests by elusive NASA scientists, websites which just repeated or embellished the same stories without any kind of indication as to where they were getting their information from, and an out-of-print book, would *you * find that at all convincing?

I would venture to say that the material of the tilma is far more delicate then your other examples.

Based on the reflection in the eyes, yes, it’s probably impossible that a human painted it.