The "right" to... whatever!

[guanophore]

That is no problem. Do you have any evidence that God declared and enforced some rights?

Of course, but none that you will accept. PR nailed it - you want evidence that God has declared something, yet you reject anything that He has declared.

Which I reciprocate. But, you see, we are on a private forum. In the “outside world” the “right” of freedom of conscience, or free practice of religion is very “volatile”, and can be suspended any moment.

I will stipulate that creating and maintaining a society where everyone’s freedoms are protected is not an easy task. Human beings have a tendency to be intolerant.

Please elaborate.

YOu have drawn a conclusion from an unrelated premise.

 We are all potential victims of such overzealous agencies.

Yes. Our best use of energy is to manage what is in our control, specifically, how we conduct ourselves with one another.

 

[guanophore]

You mean that God is unable to provide evidence acceptable to atheists?

God has fashioned humankind in such a manner that we are able to apprehend divine revelation. When that is rejected, we are left to our own human devices, which are insufficient for the taskl.

What you have done is eliminate the primary source of knowledge about such things.

 

[guanophore]

I hope I understand you correctly… The only reason that Catholicism must be respected is that we are in your “territory”.

No, Pallas, you are again making illogical conclusions.

You stated that your rights on CAF can only be exercised within the boundaries provided you by the host. Members of the forum are allowed to post their disagreements with our faith, so long as they are civil and courteous.

Whether and how you disrespect our faith outside of CAF is your own “right”.

Your views cannot command “respect” on their own, the only reason that they should be respected is that we are in a Catholic territory. Is this what you expressed?

I get the feeling that you have little respect for any views except your own.

Certainly Catholicism does not “command respect” from you, because it is all based on divine revleation, which you reject.

By the way, expressing my disagreement is NOT an “insult” and should not be taken as an “insult”.

I suppose that all depends upon how you express it. PR posted a photograph that serves as a very good example of how one can express their disagreement in a very insulting manner.

So you would have no actual rebuttal of his views, except that he tries to "intrude" onto your territory?

I don’t try havng dialogue with atheists. I find it unproductive. Perhaps it is just not my particular calling. To me it seems a very foolish mindset. However, you are welcome here, along with our disagreeable ideas.

Even when I am ASKING and BEGGING him to provide those arguments?

No, you are not. You have created an impossible set of qualifiers.

I am also a "gentleman", who humbly asks for actual evidence... which would convince even a staunch skeptic.

On the contrary, your position and requirements reveal the epitome of hubris.

There isn’t? I was under the impression that God can do anything and everything except logical contradictions. Maybe God is not much of an omnipotent…

By your standards, I think not.

When and where?

Since the beginning of humanity, within and without your soul.

The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” Pssalm 14:1

Why is this foolish? Because the very concept of God resides within our psyche, and to make the statement, one must deny oneself.

 

[frangiuliano115]

There are no questions. The OP is simply an analysis.

I suspect that you are not acquainted with the Treaty of Tripoli, signed and ratified by the US Senate in 1797. As it says in the Article 11:
Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen (Muslims); and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan (Mohammedan) nation,** it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.**

Oh really P.A.! The Treaty of Tripoli. Wait. I’ll spend today reading up and studying it. Do you realize what’s going on in the Middle East TODAY?? We were so naive in 1797, don’t you think? Al Quada and isis didn’t exist back then. Well, maybe in their hearts they did - as in the ravaging wars of the middle ages. Have you been to Spain? Did you catch all that Middle Eastern architecture? Seems almost like Europe might have been overrun with them back then. So we signed a treaty. Know how many treaties have been signed between Israel and the Palistinians? A lot of good those did too.

To me it seems like the treaty is saying that as a nation the U.S. was NOT founded on any religion - true, this is what they were leaving Europe for! - and there is no OFFICIAL, state sanctioned, enmity between christianity and the religion of muslims. And then it says:

it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

This needs commenting? Which harmony exists, pray tell?

And since there IS NO HARMONY right now in 2015 I guess we should not interrupt this harmony???

Wha? Have you been watching the news lately??

---

You mean that people should be free to profess and practice any and all religions, but they should NOT be allowed to be free of religions? Not too long ago this was the attitude in numerous states (South Carolina was one of them), and it was part of the law that people who do not declare that they are religious were not allowed to hold public office - not even a notary public. (Mind you, it was fine to LIE about their religion… but to be honest about the LACK of religion was not.)

Fortunately this ridiculous law was abolished. Freedom OF religion must include freedom FROM religion.

Let me post guanophore’s comment again:

**It certainly seems as though we have very quickly lost the underpinnings of the United States, upon which this country was founded. I think the modern concept of freedom “from” religion as opposed to freedom “of” religion would be very problematic to our founders.
**

You doubt the U.S. was founded by christians who had christian ideals and were being persecuted in England?

Would you suppose that the reason they waned freedom OF religion was because they knew what persecution was all about and were trying to avoid it for others?

Their concept was freedom OF religion. You could choose whatever religion you wish to adhere to without being oppressed from the government. And without the government outlawing your religion.

Isn’t interesting that it is christianity ITSELF THAT IS BEING OUTLAWED in the U.S. in this, the year of the Lord 2015?

Because liberals want to free us FROM religion. Isn’t that sweet of them?? And thusly, they are removing from visible sight our christian heritage. But heritage doesn’t mean a whole lot to some people.

And let me also say, that ANY religion cannot be outlawed until it begins to physically affect ME. If I have to step over someone, or go into the street, because they’re talking up the entire sidewalk for their 5 pm prayers, it AFFECTS ME physically. If mosques are being used to promote hate and foster terrorist idealisms and train terrorists, then YES, I say they should be closed down - since that is NOT a religion but a declaration of war.

And what about this psychological nonsense of the damage that christianity causes to people. Yeah. That cross hanging on the wall over there will just let me loose so much sleep tonight! Gosh. It might make me so mad I might just have to beat somebody up over this. And the nativity scene is offensive to you? Well, maybe you shouldn’t be living in a christian nation - or maybe you should learn how to live with it.

Interesting that you found the treaty of Tripoli from 1797 to post but don’t seem too concerned with what’s going on in 2015. Shows where your heart is.

Remember this, if christian freedoms are being taken away, one day YOURS will be too.
And you know I don’t mean religious freedoms in your case, but if one can be taken away, all can.

Fran

 

[PRmerger]

God has provided a multitude of proofs for his existence.

When and where?

For starters, here’s 20.

peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm

 

[PRmerger]

I hope I understand you correctly… The only reason that Catholicism must be respected is that we are in your “territory”.

I have heard that most false views are started by inserting a fundamentalist type of “ONLY” thinking where none is required.

Science ONLY.
Reason ONLY.
English ONLY.
The Bible ONLY.
Jesus is man ONLY.
Latin ONLY.
Faith ONLY.

So, no, I didn’t say that the ONLY reason Catholicism must be respected is because you are in our territory.

Your views cannot command “respect” on their own, the only reason that they should be respected is that we are in a Catholic territory. Is this what you expressed?

Don’t conflate 2 different concepts, PA.

There’s respectful dialogue and then there’s contemptuous dialogue.

You are permitted the former.

You are banned or suspended for the latter.

By the way, expressing my disagreement is NOT an “insult” and should not be taken as an “insult”.

Of course.

That is why you have been permitted to stay in our house. This time.

(And I think you understand the difference now between disagreement and contempt for Catholicism due to your prior banning.)

So you would have no actual rebuttal of his views, except that he tries to “intrude” onto your territory?

What an illogical conclusion, PA.

The fact that I have no respect for the views of a man who calls homosexuals by a vile pejorative doesn’t, in any way, result in: therefore I have no actual rebuttal of his views.

 

[davidv]

You mean that God is unable to provide evidence acceptable to atheists?

How does this make him not god? Sounds like an unreasonable conclusion, non sequiteur.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

So God is able to provide evidence for “rights”, which is acceptable for atheists. Where is that evidence? After all God is supposed to be able to talk to atheists, and make his arguments to be impossible to ignore.

"To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible.” Thomas Aquinas

Anyone who wears blinders is going to ignore God, and is free to do so.

Any God who makes it impossible to ignore evidence of him is a tyrant.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

…life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, health care, free education, food, drink, shelter, clothing… whatever? Where are these “rights” codified, into which law book? Who enforces these “rights”?

Anyone can declare a “right to whatever”, but such a declaration is worthless, unless it is enforced. There are no “natural” rights, “nature” does not grant anyone anything. “Rights” are social constructs, granted by the strongest bully on the block… usually the nation states. But even those entities cannot enforce these so-called “rights”. Sometimes they are able to punish those who violate these declared “rights”, but such a retribution is worthless to those whose life was taken by some other party, which does NOT respect those “rights”.

Just think about it.

I am thinking you have confused what is with what ought to be.

Ethics (including human rights) is the science of how we ought to behave, not how we do behave.

So there are natural rights that we ought to have; among them, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Yes, the biggest bully on the block can frustrate those rights, but his ability to do so only explains how he behaves, not how he ought to behave.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Of course, but none that you will accept. PR nailed it - you want evidence that God has declared something, yet you reject anything that He has declared.

The operating word is: allegedly declared. This is the major problem around here. You keep on asserting that God speaks through YOUR mouth. There is no evidence for that claim.

You keep on asserting that there was a “divine revelation” - and there is no evidence for that claim either. Neither you (personally) nor anyone else (the pope included), not even the church can claim that God speaks through their mouth. This would be the pinnacle of pride, supposedly a mortal sin.

Sure, you claim that God (Jesus) founded the church… but claims are dime a dozen. Where is the evidence for it? The Bible? It is a human concoction created by simple people. The humans who selected which writs will be included were fallible humans (and they VOTED on the selections). Sure they claim that they were “guided” by the holy spirit, but that is just another unfounded claim. The “sacred tradition”? Yet another unfounded claim.

Of course God could come down and support your claims. But he does not. So all you have is a bunch of claims and no evidence for them. Not an enviable position to be in.

I will stipulate that creating and maintaining a society where everyone’s freedoms are protected is not an easy task. Human beings have a tendency to be intolerant.

For us it would be. But God is supposed to be able to do anything and everything except logically contradictory states of affairs.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

For starters, here’s 20.

peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm

Come on. I asked where did God provide evidence for his existence. Kreeft simply does not qualify as “God” or even as a spokesperson for God.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Ethics (including human rights) is the science of how we ought to behave, not how we do behave.

Ethics is NOT a science.

And how one should behave is contingent upon the circumstances of the action and the goal that this person wishes to achieve.

"To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible.” Thomas Aquinas

This only shows that even Aquinas made really incorrect observations. And the second part od his utterance is as insulting as it could be.

 

[PRmerger]

Come on. I asked where did God provide evidence for his existence. Kreeft simply does not qualify as “God” or even as a spokesperson for God.

Fair enough.

How about with his resurrection from the dead?

 

[PRmerger]

Even when I am ASKING and BEGGING him to provide those arguments?

Really?

How do you do this?

What do you say?

 

[PRmerger]

I am also a “gentleman”, who humbly asks for actual evidence… which would convince even a staunch skeptic.

Give an example of what evidence would convince a staunch skeptic.

 

[PRmerger]

Ethics is NOT a science.

There’s about 74,000 sites that seem to disagree with you, PA.

google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=%22ethics%20is%20the%20science%20of%22

And how one should behave is contingent upon the circumstances of the action and the goal that this person wishes to achieve.

You are very Catholic when you say this.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Fair enough.
How about with his resurrection from the dead?

Just a story, without evidence. It is not a good idea to bring up stories which cannot be verified.

Really?
How do you do this?
What do you say?

Simple. I prayed to God to manifest himself to help me to get rid of my growing disbelief. I tried that before my faith completely disappeared. It was a long, drawn out process, not something that happened from one instant to the next.

Give an example of what evidence would convince a staunch skeptic.

At your service. Lots of possible scenarios. A true miracle, like the following one. On the night sky the stars are well known (and have been known for millennia). We also know that it is impossible for any macro-object to move faster than the speed of light. But God is supposed to be able to override the laws of physics. So he could simply rearrange the stars and display a few verses from the Bible. First day in one language (say Hebrew) and then on consecutive nights using different languages. It might take a few years to go through the whole Bible, but that is no problem. The longer the process would take, the more convincing it would become.

And in the meantime, he could manifest himself on the TV-s, overriding the scheduled programming, and using unplugged and inoperational screens. He could even conduct conversations with us, answering pressing questions, like “what was the reason he allowed the Holocaust”… lots of things like that.

It is possible that a few people could not endure such a procedure and would escape into insanity, but that is a small price to pay to get rid of “faith” and substitute it with “knowledge”. Because “faith” is not a “virtue”, it like the “sour grapes” cop-out in the tale about the fox in the vineyard.

He could also organize guided tours of heaven and hell, so we would have first hand knowledge of the two possible “afterlives”. Also give a clear, unambiguous, impossible to misunderstand “law-book”, which would spell out the requirements to get to heaven and avoid hell.

Lots of possible venues of evidence.

 

[PRmerger]

TYou keep on asserting that there was a “divine revelation” - and there is no evidence for that claim either. Neither you (personally) nor anyone else (the pope included), not even the church can claim that God speaks through their mouth.

Jesus said exactly the opposite of this.

See Luke 10:16

Sure, you claim that God (Jesus) founded the church… but claims are dime a dozen. Where is the evidence for it?

You stand in a very short line of fundamentalists here, PA.

Nary a single academic disputes that Jesus established a church.

That’s simply incontrovertible historically.

 

[PRmerger]

Just a story, without evidence. It is not a good idea to bring up stories which cannot be verified.

Are you saying that the alleged witnesses lied? Why would they do that?

Or were they mistaken? All of them?

Or the writers of the narratives lied? Why would they do that?

Simple. I prayed to God to manifest himself to help me to get rid of my growing disbelief. I tried that before my faith completely disappeared. It was a long, drawn out process, not something that happened from one instant to the next.

And what would have sufficed to bring you back to your faith?

Is there something that could not have been explained away by a skeptic as a hallucination?

 

[PRmerger]

At your service. Lots of possible scenarios. A true miracle, like the following one. On the night sky the stars are well known (and have been known for millennia). We also know that it is impossible for any macro-object to move faster than the speed of light. But God is supposed to be able to override the laws of physics. So he could simply rearrange the stars and display a few verses from the Bible.

And how would you know you weren’t hallucinating?

Or that aliens hadn’t hijacked the skies and put up a screen with a movie of the stars rearranging?