I just wanted to clarify something out about Atheist

[Nino]

I have had many jobs…12 years of college in various ones…taught with some characters in high school etc…and all of the so called non-believers had one thing in common…their life style.Totally PC…they did it all for they had no judge but the establishment which was and is their ‘god’…and if anyone disagrees with them they are called ‘haters’ ‘bigots’ medival…stone age…square etc etc.in this world gone crazy the easiest thing in the world is to be an “atheist” since this earth is obviously run by secular humanists…abortions on demand,no-win wars,military -industrial complex raking in the dough while the dough boys get blown to bits on some far away street corner…the flicks lampoon Jesus and all of His followers…and Israel appears to be doomed …it takes guts to be a Christian for its all uphill and against the wind…so my answer is obvious…a person is probably an atheist because its the easiest thing to be…one can smirk every holiday…Valentines day,memorial day, thanksgiving,Christmas…etc etc that the ‘believers’ celebrate…be superior and just have a good time…for now…but why would the apostles and thousands of others who saw or knew Jesus was mugged,stabbed and nailed…sealed up in an air-tight tomb…and later seen by many…why would so many die for a lie…'knowing 'its a lie…absurd…I stand with those early Christians and those in Vet.Cemeteries under that simple yet majestic white cross…amen and amen…oops sorry…

 

[Sideline]

Not arguing Jesus’ divinity here…just for God the Father, the Creator…we know from all properties of motion, an outside force had to initiate time and space.

So, wouldn’t you say that you are essentially substituting in the idea of God for outside forces? What reason do you have to think that any of those outside forces are divine?

It seems when it come right down to it, you are the one doing the substituting.

Sorry I didn’t comment on the angelic doctor. I don’t particularly like him, I certainly don’t agree with him, and I find conversations about the Summa go around and around in circles.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs
Well, I haven’t heard of “your-supposedly-all-knowingness” from the Magisterium, so I think it wise to consider you a false-god.

But it is merely your super-inflated ego and sinful pride that urges you to look for excuses when confronted with the Truth! Sideline’s omnsicience is an axiom. That you are unwilling to accept it only shows your sinful nature.

We are to bring all questions as to the meaning of “God” to the Magisterium. That very real step brings them to a “ground” which is real.

The difference between a Catholic and nearly anyone else is that there is a final authority in matters such as this for Catholics, and ony relativistic non-authority for the others.

Even sideline would have to admit that if anyone could say what sideline says that what sideline says is meaningless. Would you not agree sideline?

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by MarcoPolo
Not arguing Jesus’ divinity here…just for God the Father, the Creator…we know from all properties of motion, an outside force had to initiate time and space.

So, wouldn’t you say that you are essentially substituting in the idea of God for outside forces?

God is the ONLY outside force, if the “space” in question is “the universe”!

If there’s only one “thing” that fits into a “slot”, how can anything else “fit” into that slot?

We don’t “substitute”. We identify.

What reason do you have to think that any of those outside forces are divine?

Apparently you don’t know what “divine” means.

There are no “outside forces”, but only an “outside force” (singular).

We know God, which is the ONLY “outside force” in this subject-area, is divine because He has told us that He is what He is, which is divine.

It seems when it come right down to it, you are the one doing the substituting.

Once again, if only one thing “fits” how can it be “substituted”?

Sorry I didn’t comment on the angelic doctor. I don’t particularly like him, I certainly don’t agree with him, and I find conversations about the Summa go around and around in circles.

Of course you don’t like him! His discourses REQUIRE an agreement on various axiomatic matters to be intelligible, and you won’t conceed those.

It’s annoying for a 3-year old to discuss nuclear physics with an expert in the field.

 

[ateista]

We are to bring all questions as to the meaning of “God” to the Magisterium. That very real step brings them to a “ground” which is real.

The difference between a Catholic and nearly anyone else is that there is a final authority in matters such as this for Catholics, and ony relativistic non-authority for the others.

Even sideline would have to admit that if anyone could say what sideline says that what sideline says is meaningless. Would you not agree sideline?

So you put your “faith” into the hands of a bunch of fallible human beings over clear revelation? How sad! When confronted with a true revelation of Truth, you close your eyes and ears and trust some fallible human “authority”? That does not bode well for your soul… but it is your choice. All I can do is to urge you to drop your foolish pride, and accept the revelation.

(Disclaimer as before!)

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs
We are to bring all questions as to the meaning of “God” to the Magisterium. That very real step brings them to a “ground” which is real.

The difference between a Catholic and nearly anyone else is that there is a final authority in matters such as this for Catholics, and ony relativistic non-authority for the others.

Even sideline would have to admit that if anyone could say what sideline says that what sideline says is meaningless. Would you not agree sideline?

So you put your “faith” into the hands of a bunch of fallible human beings over clear revelation? How sad!

Once again, you apparently don’t know what “the Magisterium” is.

Yet another thing for you to learn.

When confronted with a true revelation of Truth, you close your eyes and ears and trust some fallible human “authority”? That does not bode well for your soul… but it is your choice. All I can do is to urge you to drop your foolish pride, and accept the revelation.

(Disclaimer as before!)

So, apparently, atheista and sideline are the same “person behind the curtain”?

Isn’t that a forum rules violation? Perhaps not. Actually, it doesn’t make a bit of difference to me. I just answer questions. I don’t much care where they come from.

Relativists, such as yourself and sideline, can posit that since any number of people CAN say anything they like and call it “divine revelation” that ANY claim of “divine revelation” is bogus.

The problem with that is that while it’s say-able, it’s not provable…

…and FOR YOU, as stated constantly as one of your BASIC PRINCIPLES, unless something is PROVABLE it isn’t REAL.

Under your own principles then, any “divine revelation” claimed by yourself is UNREAL, and not to be taken seriously.

It has been proven to me that the Magisterium is the singular authority for matters of faith and morals (a portion of divine revelation). That I can’t prove that to you is simply a fact, and leaves it to you to get it yourself, if you want it (it’s FREE!).

That you have proved, with your own words, that you are utterly bogus as “divine revealers” is your own doing.

 

[ateista]

So, apparently, atheista and sideline are the same “person behind the curtain”?

Nope, two different posters.

Isn’t that a forum rules violation? Perhaps not.

Yes, it would be. It would be punished by banishment, and rightfully so.

Relativists, such as yourself and sideline, can posit that since any number of people CAN say anything they like and call it “divine revelation” that ANY claim of “divine revelation” is bogus.

It is probably bogus.

Under your own principles then, any “divine revelation” claimed by yourself is UNREAL, and not to be taken seriously.

Not to be taken seriously by me. But by you? You are accustomed to accept anything and everything if a self-proclaimed “authority” says so. In this case it Sideline who is that self-proclaimed authority. You have no grounds to declare a particular “divine” revelation to be bogus, just because you happen not to like it.

Sideline’s revelation is precisely as well founded as yours - that is unfounded. But for you that should not be problematic. You have to face it: if you deny his revelation, but accept others - both of which are unfounded - then you engage in “cherry-picking”.

 

[Sideline]

Even sideline would have to admit that if anyone could say what sideline says that what sideline says is meaningless. Would you not agree sideline?

If you asked the question in such a way that I could follow what you were trying to say, I might agree.

That just seems like gibberish to me.

 

[Sideline]

God is the ONLY outside force, if the “space” in question is “the universe”!

If there’s only one “thing” that fits into a “slot”, how can anything else “fit” into that slot?

We don’t “substitute”. We identify.

Sure, but I know you are wrong. So… you are.

Don’t you see how futile this whole, “we’re right because we are” argument is?

There are no “outside forces”, but only an “outside force” (singular).

This is why people start comparing your faith to that of unicorns. You are merely saying you are right without any evidence that you are.

We know God, which is the ONLY “outside force” in this subject-area, is divine because He has told us that He is what He is, which is divine.

Repetition doesn’t make a good argument. Scanning down…nope, nothing new. Just all just the same thing repeated with slightly different words.

I get that you think you are right. You haven’t given any reason for me to share that opinion.

 

[Sideline]

So, apparently, atheista and sideline are the same “person behind the curtain”?

What makes you think that?

Relativists, such as yourself and sideline, can posit that since any number of people CAN say anything they like and call it “divine revelation” that ANY claim of “divine revelation” is bogus.

That’s not what I say. I say that if your claim is really divine revelation, you should be able to back it up.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs
Under your own principles then, any “divine revelation” claimed by yourself is UNREAL, and not to be taken seriously.

Not to be taken seriously by me. But by you?

You are accustomed to accept anything and everything if a self-proclaimed “authority” says so.

Once again your ignorance of Catholics is profound.

The Magisterium is not “a” self-proclaimed authority. It is THE single God-insured-for-truth authority in it’s area of expertise (faith and morals).

We accept NOTHING that comes out of the Magisterium uncritically. We are DEATHLY fearful, as is the Magisterium itself, that the Magisterium will make fools of us and make some hideous error in it’s area of expertise, that of faith and morals.

We scrutinize every last letter of everything said as an infallible proclamation.

We have yet to be disappointed, though, as they have never made a mistake in their area of expertise. Thank God.

In this case it Sideline who is that self-proclaimed authority. You have no grounds to declare a particular “divine” revelation to be bogus, just because you happen not to like it.

Once again, just because you think there are no truths because people are free to SAY untruths are true does not make truths untrue.

You are free to say you are the creator of the universe. God is free to say that He is the Creator of the universe. How does the fact that your proclamation is bogus mean that God’s proclamation is bogus?

Sideline’s revelation is precisely as well founded as yours - that is unfounded.

No it’s not because his “revelation” is not from a reliable source. God’s revelation is from a reliable source. That you don’t accept the reliability of that source (God) is evidence only that you think God is unreliable. No one can convince you of the error in that, because the verification of God as a reliable source can only come from God, whom you refuse to do what is necessary to “hear from”.

I have no problem with that reality, though I must feel sorry for you in your sin of sloth which will drag you to hell if clung to.

But for you that should not be problematic. You have to face it: if you deny his revelation, but accept others - both of which are unfounded - then you engage in “cherry-picking”.

So, you admit that sideline’s “revelation” is unfounded! How refreshing to see an atheist call honestly himself a fraud. or at least call a fellow atheist a fraud.

Why should I admit that God’s revelation is unfounded just because sideline’s revelation is admittedly unfounded? I can SAY that 2=1 but that doesn’t make 1=1 untrue!

I am cherry-picking! And I can tell a bit of raccoon dung from a luscious fruit! You could too if you’d educate your palate, but as you’d rather “think that all is dung” your stuck with eating sh*t as a way of life.

Bon Appetit!

 

[Starwynd]

I don’t deny the existence of spirit, I just don’t assume it is something supernatural.

I vehemently disagree.

Why would you say there is no such thing as a supernatural being?

Some people have had eprsonal exoeriences with demonic forces. I don’t see how you can not call that supernatural.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs
Even sideline would have to admit that if anyone could say what sideline says that what sideline says is meaningless. Would you not agree sideline?

If you asked the question in such a way that I could follow what you were trying to say, I might agree.

That just seems like gibberish to me.

Language skills a bit on the fritz today, sideline?

Let’s try this:
If truth is just “what someone says”, then truth has no meaning.

Would you agree, sideline?

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs
God is the ONLY outside force, if the “space” in question is “the universe”!

If there’s only one “thing” that fits into a “slot”, how can anything else “fit” into that slot?

We don’t “substitute”. We identify.

Sure, but I know you are wrong. So… you are.

If I’m wrong, prove it. You are so fond of proofs, let’s see your proof that I’m wrong in this matter?

Don’t you see how futile this whole, “we’re right because we are” argument is?

It IS futile if you accept that because you can simply contradict God then God is wrong.

Simple contradiction is not negation of the truth of that being contradicted. It is simply SAYING that it is untrue, regardless of it’s actual truth value.

And of course that is ALL that atheists DO in the area of faith and morals, which is our area of expertise under discussion. They simply spout contradiction to contradict, and do nothing to refute.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
There are no “outside forces”, but only an “outside force” (singular).

This is why people start comparing your faith to that of unicorns. You are merely saying you are right without any evidence that you are.

What you would need to believe God is God is for God to prove himself to you, as you would surely not accept any person’s “proof”.

Now, since only God is an acceptable “prover”, which in fact we both agree is true, why would I try to do what we both KNOW is impossible?

For you to insist upon something that you KNOW is impossible for me to give you, aren’t you being a bit IRRATIONAL?

I thought you HATED irrationality? Why do you promulgate it?

Quote:
We know God, which is the ONLY “outside force” in this subject-area, is divine because He has told us that He is what He is, which is divine.

Repetition doesn’t make a good argument. Scanning down…nope, nothing new. Just all just the same thing repeated with slightly different words.

I don’t ARGUE! It is senseless to try to convince people through argument of things that it is impossible for me to convince them of.

I can only present truths to you, and hope you investigate how they are true, what their being true means, and the consequences of acting as if they are untrue.

You have yet to present any “counter-truths” which make more sense than the truths I have been informed of by the Magisterium.

Are “unicorns” really a good “counter-truth” to God, and do unicorms really fill the “slot” that God fills?

I get that you think you are right. You haven’t given any reason for me to share that opinion.

Here’s a reason for you to share my belief in God:

It will give you solid ground from which to act rightly, which is impossible without belief in God.

That is a reason to believe in God. It is NOT a reason that God exists. In fact, it doesn’t even make sense until you understand WHY God needs to be believed in, and as such it is perfectly circular reasoning to the atheistic mind.

Yes, you must believe in God to have a reason to believe in God. God gives you reasons to believe in Him AFTER you believe in Him, and the more you have believed in Him the more reason there is to believe in Him.

There are any number of reasons to believe in God. What you need is a reason to START to believe in God, which is what you are really asking for.

That reason is found ONLY within you, and is most likely not “conceptionalizable” BY you. Even YOU can’t really verbalize it.

But the sign that that reason has been found is when you “give yourself over fully” to the fact that you can’t be God and that He is infinitely worthy of your gift of yourself. When that dam breaks, you’ll know it, and it’s nobody’s business that it has broken but yours.

We all want that dam to break for you. We must be patient that it will, or won’t, break when it is supposed to. We do pray, though, that it doesn’t take too much suffering on your part, or those whom you affect, for it to break. We also pray that it does in fact break, because if it doesn’t all your suffering will have gone to waste for your benefit, though it will not have been wasted for the betterment of those you’ve affected.

 

[Sideline]

If I post any more on this thread I’m just going to start insulting one of the members.

So I’m not, but with one exception. Jim, I’m interested in what you have to say to my response to your comment.

Other than that, take care everyone.

 

[JesuXPIPassio]

I think in such cases people like that actually avoid facing the evidence. They claim they’re open to it, but they often aren’t.

One thing they’d demand as evidence for God is miracles. They act as if miracles never happen, but that isn’t true. We have as prominent examples causes for canonisations of saints. Miracles attributed to those saints need to be examined by doctors who are not informed of the nature of what they are examining. The doctors validate that those cures are miraculous. Even after those medical examinations, the Vatican often rejects them as being insufficient. They do not try to push for the canonisations; they actually take on the stance of skeptics themselves and try to find reasons not to claim it’s a miracle.

Now, atheists usually overlook some facts when re-telling things about miracles. Take, for example, Our Lady of Guadalupe. On some documentary on TV, one skeptic guy said that they claim the image isn’t painted, yet you can see paint strokes when you look at the image. While that part is true, it overlooks other facts. Certain parts of the image were added on, embellishments that people piously put on. Those parts are cracking and fading; those parts show the brush strokes. But the same cannot be said of the entire image. Scientists have studied and studied the cloth and there is a lot of evidence that it really is a miraculous item. For example, the cloth has been around for almost 500 years now; those things normally decay in ten years. It has survived intact even when a bomb was detonated beneath it, destroying everything else in the vicinity. Close-ups of the the image’s eyes actually have images in them like a normal human pupil does. That’s just not possible, particularly with the (lack of) technology five centuries ago.

Another example is the blood of Saint Januarius. There are relics of his blood that bubble and liquify. Another documentary I saw made the guess that it was like ketchup – it seems solid, but shake it enough and it’ll liquify. That doesn’t prove or disprove anything. They didn’t demonstrate that blood can have those sorts of properties. They didn’t demonstrate that it isn’t blood. All they demonstrated was that they could make a glass ketchup bottle sort of kind of do the same thing.

And again, it conveniently ignores other scientific studies from the blood. Scientists have been given the chance to really look at the blood, using their advanced technological means, and noticed things that are nothing short of strange. I read recently that one thing the blood does is actually increase in volume when it liquifies.

They don’t truly look for evidence. What we have here are people who choose not to believe and ignore facts that aren’t convenient to them. Funny how a lot of atheists and anti-Catholics claim Catholics are propagandists, yet look at what they do. Who are the real propagandists here? They say that science disproves everything we believe, which just isn’t true. We depend on scientists too. We really aren’t bizarre medieval weirdos. One of the pioneers in studying genetics was, in fact, a Catholic priest.

Tensions between science and religion may be true for some Christians, but it is not true for us. Christian Fundamentalists may deny using scientific methods to prove that the world isn’t 6000 years old, but Catholics do not. We know that those parts of the Bible were not literal and that its authors did not intend it to be read literal. Fundamentalists may deny evolution, but again, we do not. We have no problem with it at all. This Science vs. Religion thing is just a bizarre myth that came out from Fundamentalists.

In the case, I would happen to agree that Religious Fundamentalists cause tensions with science. But those seem to only be limited to Fundamentalists. The vast majority of Christians do not believe as such. If anything, we appreciate science because it helps us appreciate God’s Creation more. We learn how complex the human body is and it only goes to make us more greatful that God went through the hassle to create it. We learn how vast the universe is, and it only makes us wonder in awe about God creating all of it. Science will never disprove that God is there. Never. That’s just impossible. How can it? God created everything; like studying a murder scene, all the clues would point back up to God. It’s like reading a book written by someone anonymously and figuring out who its author was by using our logic and sence.

Science has, in fact, already proved that God does exist. It’s a scientific law that life only comes from other life. Ergo, life in the universe could not have just spontaneously generated.

Atheists use science as their reasoning. But has science actually proved that God does not exist? I’m still waiting to hear back from them on that one… Meanwhile we’ve given many reasons why God does exist, and those reasons use much intellect, extensive rational thought and very little emotion (we argue using intellectual things rather than just saying that God exists because the world is beautiful; while that thing is true, we know it won’t get us anywhere debating with atheists, so we use our sensical and logical arguments).

 

[CatsAndDogs]

If I post any more on this thread I’m just going to start insulting one of the members.

So I’m not, but with one exception. Jim, I’m interested in what you have to say to my response to your comment.

Other than that, take care everyone.

I’m sure you’re not incapable of not being insulting!

Then again, is that REALLY true of atheists? I think atheists ARE capable of not being insulting, but it does put a severe strain on their abilities to masquerade their disgust with being brought back to having to face their own irrational axioms.

They HATE having to face the unfoundedness of their “foundations” of thought, and inevitably become violent (thus the insults) when trapped into being slapped around with them by people WITH firm foundations in God.

…and perhaps running away is better than getting continually slapped about?

 

[Jean_Anthony]

This thread is closed. Thank you all.