Liberal 'Anti-religionism'

[Asemodeous]

Apparently Catholics here need a lesson in the difference between fact and opinion.

How Christianity is the ultimate religion

That is a lie because he is intentionally confusing opinion with fact. It is his OPINION that Christianity is the ultimate religion, and to say anything else to the contrary is being dishonest in the highest order.

Now if he said this:

How it is my opinion that Christianity is the ultimate religion.

That is true and I wouldn’t have had called him a liar for it. He is more then welcome to be self-delusional with his own opinions.

I do hope that clears things up.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

When reason is involved, standards don’t stand. Dung is dung, whether you like to smell the dung or throw it away its still dung.

well, its not my opinion. I would do away with Christianity if it were not true.
I will give you a theist, who, if you want to remain an atheist it would be wise not to read. Aquinas.
I’ll tell you what the data is, there’s the Bible, there’s a universe which is quite harmonious if you care to look, and a man who many people say was mad who divides history in half.
And for your information, I did go say ‘You, believe in Christianity or you suck’ I gave her facts, precisely because she gave false ones, when asked to prove it she changed the subject and when I proved my point. For example, when proving that the NT could not have been edited with supposed ‘Christian’ things were added.
Me:“There are thousands of New Testament manuscripts that date to before the time of Constantine. Because they are so numerous, they can be cross checked for accuracy… and they are very consistent.”

She replies: “I’ll throw yours back at you…Prove it!
And I dont care about factual data, that doesnt matter, it’s the teachings and all the ******** ceremonies and laws the church imposes that I have problems with.”

To which I reply: “There’s nothing to prove. Facts do not have to be proven, becoz they’re facts. If you want I can cite my sources and all. But if you do not believe that the New Testament is true, then you can believe that anything before Christianity was like anything you read today? Because there is less proof of such events and yet all history scholars do believe them. Its is only when the Bible is concerned that they bring out the flimsy argument that it must’ve been invented and blah blah. It doesn’t work. There are about 5,600 NT manuscripts, the closest to that is Homer with 643 manuscripts. See the difference?”

She likes Buddhism because it supports her views, she said herself ‘Mostly I follow Buddhism, but fully either.’

Anyway, i’m not here to argue with an atheist, especially since all your proofs that God does not exist aren’t real proofs and have been refuted many times.

She likes Buddhism because it is basically closer to her beliefs/worldview-----i.e., it is basically atheistic. I know some atheists who are friendly towards the religion. Can’t really understand how they square the fact that it also teaches reincarnation with their atheistic beliefs, but I leave that to them to sort out.
As to Aquinas-----I don’t think most folks would want to slog through the entire Summa Theologia, which (last time I counted) was multi-volume (60-plus books?). The best thing to do is to get an single volume work that gets the important parts and summarizes the entire Aquinian viewpoint, like I basically once did. :thumbsup:

 

[wanstronian]

Okay. The human being’s longing to be absorbed into something greater than oneself. Thats why so many people are fascinated by sex, because it brings you ‘out of your body’ in a certain sense.

More likely because it feels good!

And since Christianity teaches that God is a lover and has given Himself to us the only proper thing to do is to give ourselves back to him. No other religion teaches this and so no other religion encourages our giving ourselves to God(Islam does, but thats different in that the good Muslim submits himself to Allah, not as a good lover, but a good slave).

So it’s the ultimate religion because it teaches that God loves you? Is it the only religion to do that, do you think?

If you were really searching for the Truth you would’ve have known that.

The truth about what?

It may be my personal opinion that dung smells good and it may be yours that it doesn’t, but its still dung, personal opinion doesn’t change what it is. If its my personal opinion that all atheists are nut jobs it doesn’t mean they all are. Christianity is not a set of personal opinions, where one can pick up what he likes and throw the rest away. To quote you “Again, you don’t get to decide what is fact, based on your personal preference.”

Ah, I see what you mean. You’re right, Christianity is not a set of personal opinions. Nor is it demonstrably based in any factual evidence. It’s the interpretation (with wide variation between sects) of a set of outmoded doctrines and tall stories written in a book over several centuries starting about 2,000 years ago, by persons unknown.

Yes, I’m not very experienced when it comes to talking with veteran atheists and all, I’m still young, I shall learn.

That was not my point.

But you said that any atheist who read him would not remain an atheist. How could that be, unless you consider him to be a slank-dunk for the existence of God?

Aquinas uses a system of thought, which you atheists use, in fact he formed it! And here you atheists talk about logic and reason as if it was your invention(a metaphor. Just so you don’t use that against me i don’t believe logic and reason were invented, merely dug up, like math). Christians have been using that system of thought longer than atheists!

Which system of thought? You think Aquinas was the first to use logic and reason? Socrates, Plato and Aristotle would turn in their graves.

And Aquinas’ five ways show he didn’t really have too good a grasp on these tools, in fact.

Jesus. His existence changed the world. You have to agree that if Jesus had not descended from Heaven and become man the world would have be totally different.

Actually, I don’t agree that he did descend from Heaven. We’ll never know whether the world would have been a notably different place without the Jesus legend.

It does prove that the universe was created. Everything that was created has to have a creator, deductive reasoning shows that. Imagine this(I know atheists find analogies hard to understand, but bare with me): Your in an airplane, your journey is going well and your relaxed and half asleep. Suddenly the loud speaker blares ‘Attention all passengers, our pilots have both died(don’t ask me how, use your imagination) and the plane is now on auto-pilot mode and will land at the next airport.’ Sighs all around, ‘But the auto-pilot was programmed by leaving a keyboard out in a hailstorm.’ Now, imagine yourself in that situation and ask yourself, would you trust the auto-pilot? Would you lie back in your seat, knowing your in safe hands and go back to sleep?
Now you may ask, if everything needs a creator, who created God? The answer is, No. Not everything needs a creator, only the things that were created! God is existence(if He was anything else He could not be God, for He would need to depend on something higher than Himself for His existence).

There’s no evidence that our environment is the product of a conscious creator. Therefore the use of the word “Creation” in this context is question-begging equivocation.

I don’t know why you think that atheists have trouble with analogies. Can you substantiate your allegation?

Charitable Institutions came from the Church, do you know that?

So what? Doesn’t mean charity wouldn’t have been invented otherwise.

The Code of Chivalry, from the Church.

Who got it from the middle east…

The Scientific Method, from the Church. Universities, from the Church. Scholarships, from the Church.

The Scientific Method pre-dates the church by millenia.

Almost half the hospitals in India are founded by various institutions of the church and more than half the schools. We have schools in the most remote parts of my country founded by institutions like the Sisters of the Holy Cross.

Right - so you’re saying that all the bad stuff is excusable, because they do some good stuff too?

Another thing atheists tend to overlook are demonic possessions.

Because there’s zero evidence they exist.

The Anneliese Michel case is a good example. But I have seen a person possessed, she would spit on the Holy Eucharist and eat the ones that were not consecrated. Scream when holy water was sprinkled on her and break rosaries, and we’re talking about a frail old woman of 89 here. When holy water was mixed in her food she refused to eat saying ‘They won’t let me.’ in a horrible rough voice. She was exorcised using the name of Jesus(my Mom was present for it) and is now well, thanks be to God.

Well, the brain is a complicated organ. I’ve seen several filmed “exorcisms” - in all cases the symptoms are explainable by temporary psychotic interludes. People get better. Just because a priest might be called in, that doesn’t mean anything. Cum hoc ergo procter hoc.

 

[wanstronian]

Alright, I haven’t proved it. But I had sources that did. Of the 5,600 manuscripts of the NT only a few had a few words wrong.

Your argument of the inconsistency of the Bible proves nothing. If it does prove anything, it proves that the NT wasn’t the invention of a group of people because if it was all the four gospels would have all been the same. The account of Christ was written down by four different people, who got the information from sometimes first hand and at other times second had information. If i say “I saw Harry going to the bathroom and then eat lunch.” and you say “I saw Harry eat lunch and then go to the bathroom.” would that mean he didn’t go to the bathroom, or didn’t have lunch? All the four Gospels say that Jesus rose from the dead, it doesn’t matter if there were two angels or just one.

The point, which I’m surprised I have to point out, is that if one person invents such a story, and tells it round a campfire, then these are exactly the sort of discrepancies that creep in as it’s retold around other campfires.

We have evidence that people often lie. We have evidence that people often like to sensationalise stories. We have evidence that people often mis-hear things. We have evidence that people often have political or financial motives. We have evidence that people often love a good gossip.

We have no evidence of *anybody **ever ***coming back to life after being dead for three days.

My knowledge is second hand, i know. She asked me to prove that there 5,600 manuscripts and that they were consistent. How is one supposed to prove that? I got my information from books and they showed proofs, if you really doubt it then go learn Greek and study the manuscripts for yourself.
How do you know that there’s a place called India(i’m assuming you have not been here), you know because you’ve seen images and read stuff about it and met people from here, but thats all second hand knowledge, isn’t it?

I got virtually the exact same fluff from a Jehovah’s Witness when I was about 12 (he used the example of a plane crash). It was a stupid argument then, it’s a stupid argument now.

No, the 5,600 copies show that it was not edited.

It makes it far less likely. But again, so what? Can my cat fly, if I print 6,000 copies of a document that says it can?

She’s my friend. Tell me, if you saw your friend walking on a road thats gonna be bombed soon would you let him be? okay, imagine if he’s your son, would you let him be? Oh its entirely his choice if he wants to walk that road. But he doesn’t know its gonna be bombed, he thinks it leads to his uncle’s house and he wants to go to his uncle’s house. His choice wouldn’t really be a free choice because he does not know that this road does not go to his uncle’s house and that its gonna be bombed soon. Once he knows that its gonna be bombed and that it does not lead to his uncle’s house, he can really choose whether to continue on that road or go back.

Well, if I saw one of my friends walking down a quiet country lane that shows no evidence of ever having been bombed, no evidence that anybody wants to bomb it, and no evidence that any kind of war or conflict is due, is occurring or has ever occurred, then I’d be pretty relaxed about it. On the other hand, if despite this utter lack of evidence I was still delusionally convinced that a bomb was going to fall out of nowhere and kill my friend, then I guess yes - I’d probably try and talk him out of his stroll. He would be absolutely justified in dismissing my concerns as the nonsense they surely would be.

Is this where you try and justify your comment that atheists don’t like analogies? Maybe it’s just that we don’t like awful analogies like the one you just presented!

But I do understand your motivation. You truly believe in what you’re trying to do, and your intentions are honourable, if misguided.

Yes, and even that cannot be done properly. The line in bold script shows how stupid you are. The probability of a planet being just enough distance from the Sun for it to support life and for that life to actually appear and evolve into so complex a creature as the human being are also quite low. But here we are.

Well, actually I think it casts far more doubt on your intellect than on mine. Not only do you misunderstand the Anthropic Principle, you also imply that it’s in some way equivalent to the existence of God, just because they’re both unlikely occurrences! The difference, of course is, as you say, “here we are.”

The existence of human life is an improbably occurrence, but we have evidence that it happened, and a good theory as to how it happened. With God, we have a set of ascribed properties that make him a logical contradiction; the almost certain knowledge that he is unnecessary to explain anything; the absolute knowledge that nothing is explained only by his potential existence; an abundance of scientific explanations for phenomena that were previously attributed to God (and other gods); lots of different religions all purporting to be right and true yet all preaching a different brand of deity; and a complete lack of evidence for his existence.

It’s another horribly weak analogy on your part, and you’re right, most atheists won’t be swayed by it. Not because they have trouble understanding it, but because it’s wrong.

 

[JRKH]

I see. Her point is that Jesus could not teach ‘high’ subjectivist thinking to mere fisherfolk and the Pharisees were also of an anti-subjectivist mindset, if I’m right in my assumption. Yes, I think thats her point. But if Jesus really was a subjectivist(this is me speculating_ then why was didn’t He choose to be born in India? It couldn’t have been to educated the Jews, because He did not teach anything about subjectivism but exactly the opposite. How was that?

Subjectivism…hhmmmm…Is that anything like Relativism??

Jesus did not teach such things. Jesus taught absolute Truths starting with LOVE

Of course you already know that - - I wonder if she does?

Peace
James

 

[eagle_eye222001]

More likely …because it’s wrong.

This thread was not created to prove or disprove Christianity. It was created to provide Catholic advice on dealing with a liberal. Start another thread.

 

[AntiTheist]

This is a Catholic forum, I’m free to assume or presume that my Catholic religion is true on a Catholic forum.

Well, of course you are, but if you’re looking to convince someone who doesn’t already agree with you – or to convince someone that it’s the “ultimate religion,” which presumably means that it has to be true – then it’s not going to be convincing at all to start from the assumption that you’re right. If you want to be convincing to someone who doesn’t already agree with you, then you have to demonstrate your claims, not merely assume them.

For this reason, getting feedback on your arguments from people who don’t agree with you can only help you revise your arguments to be more convincing to your friend.

It can’t be a natural manifestation of the sex-instinct because sex doesn’t satisfy it.

I could certainly object to this claim on the grounds that sex does temporarily satisfy it, just like eating temporarily satisfies hunger (you would never argue that “eating is a flimsy solution to hunger because you’re just going to get hungry again!”). But even if you were right and it’s not a manifestation of the sex instinct, that still wouldn’t demonstrate that your religion is true.

You have to – and there’s a theme here – demonstrate that your religion is true if you want to convince someone who doesn’t already agree with you.

If you’re just looking for people to pat you on the back and agree with you, then feel free to ignore what I’m saying, but if you’re actually interested in improving your arguments, you would do well to heed my advice.

 

[John21652]

Eh? Asemodeous asked by which standard you judge Christianity to be the “Ultimate Religion.” It’s a fair question. Muslims doubtless think that Islam is the ultimate religion. To make such a statement, you must be able to substantiate it. Your personal opinion might be that Christianity is the ultimate religion. What you mean is, it works for you. You don’t get to make that decision for anybody else.So Asemodeous asked a reasonable question, and you start prattling on about dung? What are you talking about?

Asemodeous began by calling him a liar and in that context I thought he answered quite reasonably. Obviously your manners are as atrocious as the atheist.

Well, this amounts to a bare assertion. How do you know it’s true? A muslim thinks that Islam is true. What makes you right and them wrong?

History.

Again, you don’t get to decide what is fact, based on your personal preference. (I’m starting to understand the source for your first statement now, if not its rationale. Reason appears to be something with which you’re not well acquainted.)

My my, such invective. Did you realise that you jump to conclusions when you get wound up?

Give me a break. Nothing Aquinas says provides any validity of the truth claims of Christianity.

Oh, too funny. And here you are criticising someone for ‘personal opinions’.

A book of unknown but varied word-of-mouth authorship, which is internally contradictory and jeopardises even the reasonable claims it makes, by peppering impossibilities and proven errors throughout.

Now the paucity of your intellectual capabilities are surfacing. Since you’re quite the Biblical scholar, why don’t you start your own thread on the topic. I’d love to see how long you last.

Which proves nothing regarding the existence of God or the validity of Christianity.

A conjectural rant and factually invalid.

Er, what…?

I know, it’s confusing when you just don’t ‘get it’.

Only they’re not. Even the story of the resurrection is inconsistent between the NT gospels that discuss it. The consistency of the gospels - where their stories intersect at all, that is, is at the level of consistency one might expect from campfire story propagation.

And all the learned men down through the ages who have studied this are mere campers enjoying a campfire yarn. Oh, to have such wisdom as you! The trouble has always been to convince ignoramuses that the Bible is full of history and life experiences, lessons for living and the true wisdom of the ages.

She makes a fair point. Regardless of the truth of the bible, the RC church is hardly a paragon of virtue and reason. It holds billions of dollars of wealth, but gives a mere fraction of it to those in need. It preaches divisive and life-threatening doctrines; oppresses people by various means; invests people with an innate sense of guilt just for being alive; preaches witless bronze-age morality to the masses when most of the rest of us have grown up and moved on; and actively encourages people to believe in wacky, unproven superstition, in defiance of reason. I could go on, actually, but I’m out of space.

You sure know how to make up a whole lot of nonsense and write it invectively. Obviously you had a difficult childhood. Never mind, people here will be patient with you. One day even you will come to understand just how much you owe the catholic Church.

So you think that sheer numbers of manuscripts makes something true? If I enter “My cat can fly” into a word processor and print 6,000 copies, does that make my cat able to fly?

Try it and find out. I’d love to know.

All your argumentum ad populum does is suggest that lots of people wrote down the same story. Doesn’t make the story true.

Fair chance it does, actually.

And isn’t that entirely her choice? What business is it of yours what she chooses to believe, unless she tries to make you accept unfounded truth claims, or attempts to force you to live your life according to her religious values?

No harm in showing someone the eror of their ways. A lifetime or two should let us get even you right.

Another fallacy - there are no proofs that God does not exist.

That’s true. Despite all the silly atheist reasoning.

The best we can do is show that all of the theist “proofs” are fallacious and weak, show that the concept of God is logically contradictory (so if he does exist, he’s not the god you claim he is), and show that the probability of God existing at all is very low.

Better men than you have tried. And all failed, which is why theism is alive and well and why your illogical rants count for nought.

You’re clearly a very enthusiastic theist, but it’s equally clear that you don’t know your subject matter at all. No wonder you’re getting a beating at the hands of your liberal acquaintance!

And you are a very enthusiastic atheist. It actually intrigues me how anyone can be so enthusiastic about nothing.

 

[Red_Paladin]

The point, which I’m surprised I have to point out, is that if one person invents such a story, and tells it round a campfire, then these are exactly the sort of discrepancies that creep in as it’s retold around other campfires.

We have evidence that people often lie. We have evidence that people often like to sensationalise stories. We have evidence that people often mis-hear things. We have evidence that people often have political or financial motives. We have evidence that people often love a good gossip.

We have no evidence of anybody ever coming back to life after being dead for three days.

So, if in fact the apostles did invent this fantasy do you think they would die for it? All four of the Gospels were written before 70 AD and if anybody did invent some nonsense whackjob story, Jesus’s apostles would have brought him down. That did not happen, if the apostles thought, ‘Oh, thats a nice story, we know its not true but at least it gives us more publicity.’ So, the Aztecs died for what they thought was true, but what your suggesting is that the apostles died(freely, they could have denied Jesus’s divinity) for what they KNEW was false. Its like you dying for saying you believe in Santa Clause when you really don’t.

No, i’m sorry for saying that atheist don’t understand analogies, i’ll tell you why i said that, because instead of getting the point you’ll take some nonsense little thing(like a keyboard left out in a hailstorm) and go say, ‘why would a keyboard by kept out in a hailstorm.’ which is a gross over exaggeration but many a times true. You’ll don’t for once take the theist point of view because you’ll are afraid that you might be convinced then.

I could certainly object to this claim on the grounds that sex does temporarily satisfy it, just like eating temporarily satisfies hunger (you would never argue that “eating is a flimsy solution to hunger because you’re just going to get hungry again!”). But even if you were right and it’s not a manifestation of the sex instinct, that still wouldn’t demonstrate that your religion is true.

Of course it doesn’t, but it does prove that there is something more than just the material in this world. Because for each and every one of our needs there is something that satisfy it, and if there is this unknown need and nothing in nature that satisfies it, then it must mean that there is something bigger than nature. Sex satisfies the sexual desire but it doesn’t satisfy the need to awe at something bigger than oneself. We look for it in many different places movies, books, money, sex etc. But only the saints(a saint is someone who’s in Heaven) really found it. St. Therese, for example, she never had sex but she was extremely happy with her life in the convent and happier than you or I. Why?

We have no evidence of anybody ever coming back to life after being dead for three days.

Well, obviously you weren’t alive 2,000 years ago and I wasn’t either. But to disregard the Bible as evidence would be a foolish and irrational thing to do.

But I do understand your motivation. You truly believe in what you’re trying to do, and your intentions are honourable, if misguided.

So why are you arguing with me then? Why should an atheist care if the world is wrong, nobody’s going to hell from you point of view. What is your motivation? Why should everybody become atheist? If believing God keeps me good why should and my actions honourable, why should you care whether I believe in Him or not?

Well, actually I think it casts far more doubt on your intellect than on mine. Not only do you misunderstand the Anthropic Principle, you also imply that it’s in some way equivalent to the existence of God, just because they’re both unlikely occurrences! The difference, of course is, as you say, “here we are.”

Thats not my point. Your finding the existence of God something hard to believe when you believe something like the Universe just came into being by accident? Catholics don’t find either hard to believe because they both support each other. While you throw away one pillar and try to hold the roof from caving in with your own strength. God supports the Universe’s existence while the Universe provides proof of God’s existence. Both beliefs require faith, but yours is blinder.

If you have a watch, you might know how it was made but if you didn’t understand the concept of time the watch’s existence would be meaningless(to you at least).

But all religions do preach a deity. How did they all come to the conclusion that there had to be gods? We never find a tribe of atheist or a civilization that was built upon the principles of atheism because it has no principles, if there is no God then we’re no different from a dog and when we kill each other you shouldn’t get mad because its just life we’re ending, nothing big.

You cannot hope to understand God. What you call a logical contradiction(I still don’t know what your talking about) we call a paradox. Your infinitely inferior to God and you attempts to understand Him will be as futile as an ant trying to understand human…more so actually. Only when you truly look for Him will you find Him or rather He will show Himself to you.

 

[Red_Paladin]

I’ll give you a more simple analogy since you prolly skipped the one i wrote before.

One day, your driving your car and you come across a railway track with a train running. You look to the left and you see an infinite line of boxcars and then you look to your right and you see the same thing. You arrived when the train was already in motion so you didn’t see the engine. But you would probably infer that there had to be an engine(unless your logic is warped) or the train would not be moving. Now lets apply this to the universe which is the train, but you say that there isn’t an engine but that doesn’t solve the problem, in fact it multiplies it…infinitely! If you deny the existence of an engine you’ve enlarged the need to find a much bigger and extraordinary cause for the motion of such a long line of boxcars.

I got virtually the exact same fluff from a Jehovah’s Witness when I was about 12 (he used the example of a plane crash). It was a stupid argument then, it’s a stupid argument now.

Its not an argument, I’m merely explaining what each and everyone of us do. You know that there are things called atoms, but have you seen them? Have you seen the things that constitute an atom? Most likely u have not. You’ve read it from textbooks and other sources, its second hand how do you know that your sources are honest?

 

[Red_Paladin]

Subjectivism…hhmmmm…Is that anything like Relativism??

Jesus did not teach such things. Jesus taught absolute Truths starting with LOVE

Of course you already know that - - I wonder if she does?

No its not a real ‘ism’. What it teaches is that truth is subjective, not objective. I say the ball is blue and you say its red, both are true in the pantheistic view but not to Christians, since truth is objective and the ball is blue.

Yes and He said He is the Truth. wonderful!

 

[Rachel_Malloy]

This thread is closed. Thanks to all who have participated.