by Max Barry

Latest Forum Topics

Advertisement

Search

Search

[+] Advanced...

Author:

Region:

Sort:

«12. . .145146147148149150151. . .515516»

Knights of shame wrote:So just so I am not misrepresenting your answer, you beleive that the organization who you entrust your immortal soul to, would not have made it public that members were molesting and raping children? Doesn't that bother you?

You're not reading a thing I write.
I'm out.

Knights of shame

Fransmany wrote:She (I apologize if that's wrong) was talking about the iPad, not the spell check software. The envelope full of money in Church is an insistent to sin, not the Priest.

Yes, and the software is a part of that iPad. It automatically corrects what I type. Sin is part of the church, it was created by the church, though it doesn't actually exist.

Oire wrote:You're not reading a thing I write.
I'm out.

I did, and I asked for clarification. You said "they" were the people covering it up (which all branches of the hierarchy helped in it seems).

I then asked if you thought the church would expose what happened on their own. I asked, "I want to know your opinion, if the Catholic Church could have suppressed that members of the hierarchy were molesting children and get away with it, do you think they would?" And you seemed to respond, "You asked a question. I replied 'no'. I call that an answer."

So to me it seems you are saying that you believe the church would not have said anything. Unless you thought my last 'they' referred to the people covering it up, which, once again, is the Catholic Church, who has led official documents on how to deal with claims, usually by bribes or threats of excommunication.

Isn't it time for this conversation to end for a couple of months again? It is starting to get annoying.

Knights of shame

Atrus wrote:Isn't it time for this conversation to end for a couple of months again? It is starting to get annoying.

Well someone was going to explain to me logically and rationally that God exists and that Catholocism is correct...

But if you are bored, I could step it up a notch for you.

The bibke describes things that God does,orders or allows to happen that are atrocities, let you still worship him and praise him, knowing he had a reason for what he did that you cannot understand.

Let us suppose that Adolf Hilter came back, he rose from the dead and was resurrected. He then said that he did what he did for a reason, and that he was God. He snapped his figures and another Earth appeared. He healed the sick and rose the dead. Would you fall to your knees and worship Hitler in this case?

Sorry to disappoint you, but no one is going to convince you that Catholicism is correct or give you a proof that God exists. All you are doing is parsing the words that people type out to further your own argument or make them seem like a fool. You take things that people say out of context or misapplying what people type. Based on this it seems that you are not trying to have an honest or substantive conversation with anyone. It does give the impression that all you are trying to do is trying to come off as some superiour intellect. And please I don't mean to be rude, but you are coming across as insincere. So if you want a real conversation, then listen to what people are trying to express. If you truly want to know what it means to be Catholic and what the Church teaches then talk to a priest read some theology. Read JPII's encyclical Fides et Ratio (really good Read). Read the Catechism. Don't read Richard Dawkins to learn what the Church teaches.

Also, thank you for proving Godwin's Law.

Knights of shame

Atrus wrote:Sorry to disappoint you, but no one is going to convince you that Catholicism is correct or give you a proof that God exists. All you are doing is parsing the words that people type out to further your own argument or make them seem like a fool. You take things that people say out of context or misapplying what people type. Based on this it seems that you are not trying to have an honest or substantive conversation with anyone. It does give the impression that all you are trying to do is trying to come off as some superiour intellect. And please I don't mean to be rude, but you are coming across as insincere. So if you want a real conversation, then listen to what people are trying to express. If you truly want to know what it means to be Catholic and what the Church teaches then talk to a priest read some theology. Read JPII's encyclical Fides et Ratio (really good Read). Read the Catechism. Don't read Richard Dawkins to learn what the Church teaches.

Also, thank you for proving Godwin's Law.

Are you saying that no proof that Catholicism is correct or that God is real actually exists? What reasons do you have to believe in God?

I point out bad ideas and logic, but I do not think I am making anyone look foolish. I may show that you and others believe foolish things, but that says nothing of your intellect.

I have asked what people have meant and press them on issues, but I do not think I have misrepresented them, at least not purposefully. I, nor anyone, increases in intellect from the moment they believe in God to the moment they do not believe. Perhaps you have gained knowledge since you were last a strong (ie blind faith) believer, but that happens as you live and come to new information.

If I read this, I would be presented with why the church thinks it is right and what it teaches, I would not be presented with any better evidence than if I read the teachings of any other religion (though I am told the Koran is so perfect in Arabic that only Allah could have written it). I find it sad that believers cannot better defend what they stake their salvation on in a better way. I do not hold a PHD in evolutionary biology, but I could walk someone through the reasons why evolution is true and how it works, even if it is simplistic. I can provide evidence for it. This is not something you can do with God. No evidence that any deity is real exists. You are forced to believe some thing without evidence. I simply cannot do that. I cannot believe in something without evidence. All the study in the world cannot make be believe something without evidence. I can also not overlook the criminal activities of the Catholic Church.

Godwin's law applies only if I compare you to Hitler. I also didn't actually compare God to Hitler, I said God has done, condoned, or allowed atrocities. I then asked that if Hitler proved to you he was God and that he did what he did for a reason, would you bow to him? You didn't answer me.

But is can say a similar thing in a different way. Children die from starvation, diseases, and abuse every day. Sure, you may be able to say it was original sin that causes suffer in the world, but that doesn't explain Cystic Fibrosis, childhood leukemia, or bone cancer. I would, as I am sure each and everyone of you would, give my life to end all of these things happening to children, hell, even if we could save a single child most people would give their lives, especially if you were a parent of that sick child. God has the power and ability to instantly end all this suffering. Instantly. It wouldn't be any problem for God. So, my question to you is, why are you more moral than the God you worship? Why are flawed sinful humans willing to trade places or sacrifice themselves to save a child's life, but God is unwilling?

1. Godwin's Law definition
usenet, humour
"As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." There is a tradition in many groups that, once this occurs, that thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress. Godwin's Law thus practically guarantees the existence of an upper bound on thread length in those groups. However there is also a widely recognised codicil that any intentional triggering of Godwin's Law in order to invoke its thread-ending effects will be unsuccessful.
[ Jargon].
(2003-10-06) - Dictionary.com :P

2. I posit that you hypothetically compared an uber-Hitler's actions to that of God. I further posit that the one who invokes Hitler in a message board to make a point loses the argument, due to Godwin's law. Therefore you lost the argument, QED.

3. Ultimately, what I am saying is that you are not looking for truth. I have given two specific things you can read to help you understand where we are coming from but you will not read them. You are not looking for understanding, so why bother continuing the discussion?

Knights of shame

Atrus wrote:1. Godwin's Law definition
usenet, humour
"As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." There is a tradition in many groups that, once this occurs, that thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress. Godwin's Law thus practically guarantees the existence of an upper bound on thread length in those groups. However there is also a widely recognised codicil that any intentional triggering of Godwin's Law in order to invoke its thread-ending effects will be unsuccessful.
[ Jargon].
(2003-10-06) - Dictionary.com :P

2. I posit that you hypothetically compared an uber-Hitler's actions to that of God. I further posit that the one who invokes Hitler in a message board to make a point loses the argument, due to Godwin's law. Therefore you lost the argument, QED.

3. Ultimately, what I am saying is that you are not looking for truth. I have given two specific things you can read to help you understand where we are coming from but you will not read them. You are not looking for understanding, so why bother continuing the discussion?

1) Again, I am using Hitler as an example more than a comparison. You still haven't answered.

2) Why are you refusing to answer? "While falling foul of Godwin's law tends to cause the individual making the comparison to lose his argument or credibility, Godwin's law itself can be abused as a distraction, diversion or even as censorship, fallaciously miscasting an opponent's argument as hyperbole when the comparisons made by the argument are actually appropriate."

See Argument from Fallacy: the formal fallacy of analyzing an argument and inferring that, since it contains a fallacy, its conclusion must be false.

You also ignored me when I asked why you were more moral than your god.

3) Neither of those provide evidence for God. Saying God exists is a knowledge claim, not a philosophical one. Faith, despite what John Paul II may say, is pretending to know things you don't know, so faith and reason are not compatible since faith in the religious context means to believe without evidence. I lack faith, and I still use reason, still have hope, and am not a moral relativist. It is insulting to say that because I do not pretend to know things I don't know that I do not have reason.

I made it to the first part of Catechism of the Catholic Church, even ignoring the prologue referring Jesus, I made it about a sentence in. "God, infinitely perfect and blessed in himself, in a plan of sheer goodness freely created man to make him share in his own blessed life." Citation needed. They are claiming that there is an God and making about that God. They are making baseless assumptions. Reading on, I see this over and over again, and if I get a citation, it seems to be the book itself or other Catholic writings.

Faith is not a virtue, there is nothing noble about believing with all of your being claims that you would not believe today even if they were video taped.

Knights of shame

It is not that I do not want the truth (I do, if a god exists, I want to know about it) it is that you do not have truth. You didn't give me evidence to believe, you gave me supposed consequences if I don't believe. You gave me assertions based on the bible and the assumption Catholicism is correct. I made assumptions for over 20 years, I prefer not to do that anymore.

You make a knowledge claim but do not back it up. How can you believe something you have no evidence for?

The nunnish nations

Knights of shame wrote:It is not that I do not want the truth (I do, if a god exists, I want to know about it) it is that you do not have truth.

Indeed, you want the Truth, in another sense of the word. You certainly need the Truth.

Knights of shame wrote:How can you believe something you have no evidence for?

That's almost the definition of belief.

Knights of shame

The nunnish nations wrote:Indeed, you want the Truth, in another sense of the word. You certainly need the Truth.

That's almost the definition of belief.

You just do not have it.

I have two questions for you all. Let us suppose that I read all about Catholocism and study what you believe. I get to where I know the teachings better than you and most priests yet still do not find it convincing. 1) Would this in anyway disprove God to you? 2) What would you have me do at that point?

So to you, belief is something you take as true where there is no evidence? If so, why would that be something you would want? Why not believe with evidence? If you believed all claims until they were proven false, you would believe all manner of contradictory things.

Help me Jesus!!!!!!

Huh he isn't here that might of actually worked....

The nunnish nations

Knights of shame wrote:I have two questions for you all.

Thank you for saving us the trouble by answering them for us.

Christian Democrats is ranked 1st in Catholic and 29th in the world for Most Devout, scoring 852 on the Paradise-Perdition Likelihood Rating.

Knights of shame

The nunnish nations wrote:Thank you for saving us the trouble by answering them for us.

I didn't answer them. I had asked if being an expert in your faith would farm it if I was still an atheist and what I should do next.

Post self-deleted by Atrus.

Knights of shame wrote:I didn't answer them. I had asked if being an expert in your faith would farm it if I was still an atheist and what I should do next.

You seem to be under the impression that Faith is just about knowledge and facts. It is not. It is about a relationship and love. Things difficult to put into words on a forum. It would be like me asking you to prove that you love your mother. You can put some things down, but most of it would be subjective and difficult to put into words.

Knights of shame

Atrus wrote:You seem to be under the impression that Faith is just about knowledge and facts. It is not. It is about a relationship and love. Things difficult to put into words on a forum. It would be like me asking you to prove that you love your mother. You can put some things down, but most of it would be subjective and difficult to put into words.

Well, I buy gifts for my mom, remember birthdays, give hugs, and say I love you. You could also hook me up to a machine and gage my brain response. I can provide evidence of my love for my mom, but the most important thing is that I can provide evidence that I have a mom. You cannot do that for God.

Faith is a knowledge claim. You do not hope a God exists, you have faith a God exists. If you cannot show it, you don't know it.

Post self-deleted by Christian pacific.

Knights of shame

Why do you think people become atheists?

Knights of shame wrote:Why do you think people become atheists?

Because the idea "God" seems too restrictive to them.

Christian pacific

Knights of shame wrote:Why do you think people become atheists?

I'm hoping you don't mean anti-theist because that mostly describes a lot of the "atheists" I meet today. An example would be the so-called "New Atheists."

Knights of shame

Christian Democrats wrote:Because the idea "God" seems too restrictive to them.

Could you elaborate?

Christian pacific wrote:I'm hoping you don't mean anti-theist because that mostly describes a lot of the "atheists" I meet today. An example would be the so-called "New Atheists."

By atheist, I meat not believing in God or gods.

Knights of shame wrote:Could you elaborate?

I don't think I need to elaborate. Do you find the idea "God" more restrictive or more liberating?

«12. . .145146147148149150151. . .515516»

Advertisement