And God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years.” (Genesis 1:14)
Dark green mountainsides, weary of standing sentinel throughout summer, are slowly changing hue while September pours herself out upon the landscape. As the glow of the sunset bathes the end of day in deep gold and red, so does autumn wash over summer’s green world in warm, glowing hues, signifying the end of summer’s heat. It also signifies the arrival of fall and refreshingly cooler weather.
Seasons are often thought of in terms of these external changes they bring. But if we look more closely, we recognize within them a more complex purpose.
The Real Greatest Show On Earth
The present page on the calendar is a ticket to one of the greatest productions on the planet. Nature is the troupe, earth the stage, and we the audience. These changes of the new seasons occur because they are proper to the natural order, but also because of the glory of the director. All of nature testifies to the existence of God. “Nature herself has imprinted on the minds of all the idea of God.” (Cicero, The Nature of the Gods 1:16)
While the doubtful man cries, “If it’s too good to be true, then it probably is,” our entire universe utters testimony, “Because this is good, God must be true.” No chemical reaction moves itself with its own ingredients; no big bang supplied its own gas or even the vast expanse of space that contained the big bang; and seasons do not cause the movement of earth away from or towards the sun. “The heavens are telling the glory of God; and the firmament proclaims his handiwork. “ (Psalm 19:1)
In one smooth motion, fall arrives and summer is ushered out with grand formality. Air grows thin and colder; boiling clouds blanket earth from above, leaving open windows to the last azure hues of summer’s blue sky. Marigolds and sunflowers bow their heads and drop seeds. Raging rivers now run low, and lakes lap mud instead of sand. Expiring, summer gives life to fall.
God’s Thumbprint
These things are not accidents, nor are they self-orchestrated. The concept of a Prime Mover is so simple that even young children understand there must be a God. “He changes times and seasons; he removes kings and sets up kings; he gives wisdom to the wise and knowledge to those who have understanding.” (Daniel 2:21)
It seems, in my experience, only those who have allowed the pain of heartbreak or the trauma of fear to morph into anger — and who direct that anger towards this supreme maker — insist He is not real.
It is our duty as Catholics and as creatures, to show forth, as nature does, the great glory of God. It is only in appreciating what divine power must be to bring forth this entire universe that we can submit ourselves to His will. Our finite minds limit us to these relatively cursory understandings — that God is omnipotent, omniscient, just, and merciful all at once; yet we can see how the same is true in all things natural. The Creator’s thumbprint is found woven throughout the natural world, stringing together the most unrelated and unlikely creatures and reactions.
No man would have ever imagined — let alone designed — a platypus, nor dreamt of a glowworm, nor suspended stars in the sky for millennia so we could guide our measures of time or light our way by night. Only God could see all our needs, temporal and spiritual, and create all those things to work together for our good. “He who made the Pleiades and Orion, and turns deep darkness into the morning and darkens the day into night, who calls for the waters of the sea and pours them out on the surface of the earth, the Lord is his name.” (Amos 5:8)
Created to Believe
Along the same vein, no man would have ever dared to design a plan for salvation which included the Son of God as food for our eternal souls, making him suffer for our sins. Unlikely things are these, strung together in the magnificent plan of the almighty Creator.
His proofs of His love are not wanting; and nature’s purpose is to show forth His glory to help our belief. God does not need our belief; we need to believe. We were created to believe.
So let us who profess belief not be found wanting in living our Faith. Let us not fail in our duty, perhaps while walking with a coworker during our break, or fishing with a friend on the shores, or gazing at stars with a lover, to give credit to God for His mighty works. We, too, are creatures, designed to show forth the glory of God, for the sake of leading others to eternal life and happiness.
It is not enough that we profess this belief with our tongues; or study the higher things, enjoying lofty conversation with like minds; or that we rage against errors. We are called to carry out our duty in a spirit of charity, pouring the love of God over those weary of standing sentinel over their angry hearts. We are called to bathe those lost in loneliness, fear, grief, and anger in the warmth of love’s glow.
Let’s signify the end of a season of doubt, and the arrival of the light of truth according to his command, “Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven.” (Matthew 5:16)
275 thoughts on “Season of the Doubtful Heart; the Autumn of Emotion”
Pingback: The Exodus Christian Bale Trailer Epic - BigPulpit.com
Amen! What a great article Susan Anne! Your insight about people being angry at God is just amazing, and right on target. I also loved how you compared nature with believing in God and sharing His love. Awesome!
Dear Susan Anne, Considering the paths and trails the
comments took, I decided to read your article anew. What a surprise. Your thoughts
– “It is our duty as Catholics and as creatures, to show forth, as
nature does, the great glory of God.”
“nature’s purpose is to show forth His glory to help our
belief. God does not need our belief; we need to believe. We were
created to believe.” –
echo St Paul and St Anselm (you’re in good company):
Romans 1:20 “For the invisible things of
him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the
things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity”
Prayer of Saint Anselm of
Canterbury (1033-1109)
O Lord, you are my Lord and my God, yet I have never
seen you. You have created and redeemed me, and have conferred on me all my
goods, yet I know you not. I was created in order that I might know you, but I
have not yet attained the goal of my creation. I confess, O Lord, and give you
thanks, that you have created me in your image, so that I might be mindful of
you and contemplate you and love you. I seek not to understand in order that I
may believe; rather, I believe in order that I may understand.
These last words of Anselm are – in Latin – his famous “Credo ut intelligam.”
And then what you wrote reminded me of 2 Cor which is a paraphrase of Psalms 116:
2 Cor 4:13 “But having the
same spirit of faith, as it is written: I believed, for which cause I have
spoken; we also believe, for which cause we speak also”.
Thank you for speaking His glory.
Guy McClung, San Antonio
and note well: having ten children is in its own way and in several ways, proof of the existence of a loving God
Dear BillS-Prayers for you continue; and no reason here to repeat the discussion of the limits of scientific knowledge that are in many comments for many articles of Catholic Stand from you and from me and others. God bless you and keep you [the Real God, not any fictional one]. Guy McClung ,San Antonio
By “the limits of scientific knowledge” are you saying that I, you and others lack it or that the available scientific knowledge out there is not sufficient to explain the miracles claimed by religious people?
Dear BillS-For the last time: knowledge includes more than mere scientific knowledge. If you want to limit knowledge to scientific knowledge, go ahead. And remember: scientific knowledge includes much that is simply false and the main dogma of scientific knowledge – that all meaningful propositions to be true must be scientifically verifiable-is not itself verifiable-it is scientific dogma of the religion of science that you seem to profess. There is no reason for us to go over and over and over this-So you pray for me and I will pray for you – that we both receive the love that surpasses all human knowledge and the peace that surpasses all human understanding. God bless you BillS. Guy Mcclung, San Antonio.
That is an excellent thing to pray for. We’d all be in great shape if prayers like those were answered.
And if they were I am sure you will still not believe because you have chosen not to.
There is a story in Sr Briege’s book Miracles Do Happen about a priest with gangrene and another priest who did not believe in miracles. The other priest said that perhaps if he himself witnessed a miracle he would believe. Now Sr Briege has been given the gift of healing. The non-believing priest and the one with the gangrene were in the same retreat that Sr Briege was giving. The man with the gangrene was healed. But when the other priest saw him in the morning, he said that maybe he did not have gangrene after all.
I think you are like that man. I think you are like the man that Jesus spoke about when talking about the rich man and lazarus. He said that they would not believe even if someone came back from the dead.
Your unbelief is your own choice. And it is not even an intellectual choice because your intellect does apprehend spiritual realities. It is more an act of will. That is why it is quite frightening really.
The seemingly miraculous healing of the priest is a stand alone event. It has nothing to do with the teachings of the Catholic Church being true or false. The event might call for some sort of explanation of which a sign from God that the Catholic Church is everything it claims to be would be one of many. I would say that there should be a natural explanation even if it is entirely unknown.
My point about that miraculous event is to illustrate that you are very much like that priest who when confronted with the miracle still chose to not believe, preferring to believe instead that the other priest was not ill in the first place.
You are like that. Even if you were confronted with the greatest miracle you will still not believe because you have chosen not to. You have already determined what you will believe. As I have said, yours is a truly frightening position to be in.
I don’t see why mine is a frightening position to be in. So, I don’t believe everything the Bible or the Catholic Church says. It is a perfectly sane, rational, reasonable, etc. position to take on a philosophical matter. And if I’m wrong, it isn’t the first thing and won’t be the last thing I’ve ever been wrong about. The consequences for being wrong about this consist of ridiculous fear mongering.
Is it? How do you know that for a fact?
I’m sure you would not punish me for not believing. Why would you believe in and worship a God who, instead of just letting all living things just die and no longer exist, would use the criteria of belief to separate humans who are rewarded with eternal bliss from those who are punished with eternal suffering?
The God you believe in is a dick.
What did I say? You are incredibly clueless about what the Catholic Church teaches and what the Bible teaches. This paragraph alone is a testament to that.
But instead of actually studying what the Church teaches you prefer to wallow in ignorance and carry out your strident protests in this forum. You are protesting against a myth of a God of your own making. And guess what, you want God to be like that so that you can lampoon him. That is all there is to it.
No, that’s you.
You are protesting against a myth of a God of your own making. And guess what, you want God to be like that so that you can lampoon him.
That would be a straw man fallacy that I would try hard to avoid. You find my worldview to be “frightening”. Beyond the obvious fact that I would be able to enjoy incredible mental health knowing that the god of the Catholic Church is just the way the teachings say,I find the idea that there are additional consequences associated with not believing to be a desperate attempt on the part of the Church to goad people into accepting and following its teachings. If it were ever proven that the Church has been right all along, I could live the life I am living as if it were not a facade.
And obviously you have not tried hard enough because you keep committing it over and over again from day dot.
Not just your worldview. Your situation. The unrepentant, “I am God” situation.
That is frightening because the more you resist grace the more curved in on yourself you become till in the end you are completely curved in on yourself. THAT is hell.
And that’s just it. You DON’T KNOW that. And you can’t possibly KNOW that because that is a not the God of the Catholic Church. As I said, before you are falling always into the straw man fallacy.
Do EDUCATE yourself about what the Church believes. That you are that stupid and ignorant about the true teaching of the Church can only be blamed totally and completely on you.
Whatever I say that I reject about Catholicism you try to say I am creating a straw man and that I don’t know real Catholicism. You are implying that what I reject is not what you accept and that I misunderstand what you accept. Would you agree that the Apostles Creed and the Nicene Creed clearly state the most significant tenets of Catholicism? Except for a few statements like “suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, did and was buried”, I reject these creeds in their entirety. I don’t accept the virginity of Mary, the resurrection, the ascension, the return and judgment of the living and the dead, the communion of saints, resurrection of the body and the life of the world to come.
How can you accuse me of being ignorant of the teachings of the Catholic Church when they are presented clearly and literally in the creeds?
I wish you would stop saying I am ignorant of what I am rejecting and don’t understand because I will not do more research than I have. The only thing you can tell me to do is stop my unbelief and accept Church teaching as it is clearly presented. That, I am not willing to do.
No, Bill. It is not because you reject Catholicism. It is because you reject some stupid concoction in your head which you have labelled Catholicism and then proceed to demolish this stupid concoction.
From day dot, THAT is what you have done.
You are like a broken record who goes on and on and on (ad nauseam) about the evil God of the OT and about the evil this and that in the Catholic Church but all that is just something you manufactured.
And what is absolutely pathetic, is that you have probably made that argument a hundred of times and hundred of times you have been refuted and still you don’t get it. So I have come to conclude that maybe you have a learning disability.
Because any rational person by now would have learnt to at least google or research his own position and maybe learn something. But no, you are like Don Quixote valiantly (but stupidly) tilting at windmills.
How can you possibly remain that ignorant of the faith when they are in the Creed?
I know the Creed by heart. You are refusing to acknowledge that it is not that I am ignorant of the teachings contained in the Creed. I know them. I just don’t accept them. Am I ignorant for not accepting them? Not if they are wrong, I’m not.
You think that failure to agree with the teachings of the Catholic Church is some kind of disaster of cataclysmic proportions. I am trying to accept that the Church has done a lot of good for a lot of people and that there is much to be gained by those who practice the Catholic faith. You keep pushing for me to accept things that I find to be utter nonsense. I have to ignore you just in order to accept those things that make sense to me without buying into the bs.
Sorry, but your belief is very far from sane, rational or reasonable.
You do not have a philosophical take on the matter at all.
Your belief is a pure act of will based entirely on what you want to believe.
If only you did exercise and follow the intellectual conclusions of your head ( you are quite capable of it) then it would be a different matter.
But the fact is, you don’t. You don’t follow the intellectual conclusion that YOU yourself have come up with. What happens is you take this road of inquiry and you are fine until you find that the conclusions that you are getting to are inconsistent with what you have pre-determined to believe. When it gets uncomfortable, you go back to where you were and spin the same hogwash all over again.
To be quite frank, the only bs is the bs that is coming from you. And it is bs because it is devoid of intellectual honesty. What you are incapable most of all is being honest with yourself.
So. You are saying that it is not perfectly sane, rational and reasonable for someone to reject the teachings of the Catholic Church.
Even if the teachings are true, there is nothing insane, irrational or unreasonable for a person to say that the evidence is insufficient for them to believe those teachings.
Correct. That is why brilliant thinkers when they really follow the truth, all end up in the Catholic Church. The arguments against the Church are all weak.
If the teachings are true, and they cannot follow the reasonableness and the logic then obviously they are not being perfectly sane and rational. Or else, they are perfectly sane and rational, but since the Catholic Faith calls one to a higher standard (a standard they refuse to live by) then they make all sorts of excuses to reject the Catholic Church even though they have apprehended her truth. This is more an act of will rather following their reason.
I give here as an example the great C.S. Lewis. He is undoubtedly brilliant.
I read somewhere (I think it was David Armstrong who said it) that the reason CS Lewis did not become Catholic was because he was afraid that the Pope might declare a dogma and he will be forced as a Catholic to assent to this dogma. And yet he believes in the doctrines as the Church has laid trhem out so far. His position is quite ridiculous considering that if he believes that what the Church has taught so far is true, then it is only true on the basis of the Church’s authority. So, to be afraid that somehow the Church will declared in future a dogma that is untrue is just plain absurd. but that b
That is why brilliant thinkers when they really follow the truth, all end up in the Catholic Church.
Only because you consider them brilliant because they accept Catholic teaching. Einstein was arguably brilliant. It’s a circular argument if you only consider those who agree with your worldview to be brilliant and you dismiss the others as uninformed or unenlightened. I can’t believe we are even having this conversation.
No, because they are indeed brilliant. Try reading Chesterton, Pope Benedict, Aquinas, Agustin, Pope John Paul II and very many others.
Indeed he was. In the physical sciences. But so is Lemaitre (the one who proposed the Big Bang Theory) and so Stanley Jaki and many other brilliant scientists who are at the same time Catholic.
No it isn’t circular. Those I dismiss (like your idol Dawkins) I do not dismiss in their own field of expertise. I dismiss them when they venture into areas which are not their own field and have the temerity to pontificate on this field of which they are completely clueless.
Why not?
Try reading Chesterton, Pope Benedict, Aquinas, Agustin, Pope John Paul II and very many others.
You propose them as brilliant by your criteria. To me, they don’t know what they are talking about. I think Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, Hitchens, etc. are brilliant. It’s a judgement call.
Said by someone who obviously has not read anyone of them and even if you do, their work would probably just whiz past you.
Dawkins in his field of biology, yes. Beyond that, he is plain stupid. His supposedly “great” tome of the God Delusions was easily debunked by a tiny book called Answering the New Atheism. Harris and Hitchens are bad philosophers and their arguments have been debunked elsewhere.
Philosophical atheism all stem from the bankrupt nominalistic worldview.
And if you want practical applications of their worldview – all you have to do is go back to Nazi Germany, Communist Russia and China, Castro’s Cuba and Pol Pot’s Cambodia.
If we were to judge Catholicism and Atheism according to their practical applications, Catholicism might be judged to be the best thing that ever happened to the world and Atheism might be judged to be the worst thing to happen to the world (although I think that distinction will ultimately be given to radical Islam).
Based solely on which is true and which is false, I would have to say that the inconvenient truth is that atheism is true and all religions, including Catholicism, are false.
Based solely on which is true and which is false, I would have to say that the inconvenient truth is that atheism is true and all religions, including Catholicism, are false.
Brilliant! Now prove it.
You want me to prove that atheism (the belief that there are no gods) is true and religion, actually theism (the belief in one or more gods) is false?
I believe that to be the case. No one can prove it.
Well then, on what basis can you say that “Based SOLELY on which is true and which is false, atheism is true”?
How do you know that to be so?
How do I know atheism to be true and theism to be false?
That is an excellent question. Are there any gods who are not just imaginary? Zeus? Jupiter? Thor? Atheists don’t believe these gods are real, though we have no proof that they are not. Are there other gods that atheists consider to be imaginary? Yes. All the Hindu gods. Also the Jewish god, the Christian god and the Muslim god. Yes. They will tell you they all believe in the same god whether we call him Yaweh, Our Heavenly Father, Allah or, since there is only one of them, God.
Atheist don’t believe in any god, by any name. The reasoning is basically the same for all of them and it is the same as the reasoning you use to dismiss every other god but your own.
That doesn’t answer my question. Since you are saying you KNOW atheism to be true, HOW do you know?
What is the basis for your conclusion that atheism is true.
You are an atheist yourself when it comes to thousands of gods that have been worshipped by humans. You only believe in one god and I don’t believe in that one either. How do you know that your atheism, when it comes to other gods, is true?
Your god was the main character in a fictional story told over two millennia ago. How did he become a real person if he started out as a fictional character?
Sorry but that does not answer the question:
Here it is a third time:
Since you are saying you KNOW atheism to be true, HOW do you know?
What is the basis for your conclusion that atheism is true?
I can’t answer your question until you answer mine?
Ha, ha. No Bill, you simply can’t answer the question because you don’t have one.
You realized that you made a stupid and totally dumb statement and you tried to wiggle out of it by accusing me of being an atheist.
Well how dumb can you be when an atheist is one who does not believe in God/gods and I happen to believe in God.
Compared to you I CAN PROVE my position and have in fact done so (unless you are suffering from alzheimers). I actually have a foundation for my belief. You don’t. And the reason you don’t have a foundation for atheism is you don’t believe it any more than you believe you that Zeus is God.
In fact, you are a first class liar and one of the most intellectually dishonest persons I have ever conversed with. YOU KNOW that atheism is false. You said as much. You progressed from atheism, to the Cosmos being the creator, to finally realizing that the Cosmos cannot be Creator, to Deism and then to Theism.
So to claim that atheism is true means you lie big time to yourself. You are really totally pathetic because you can’t even accept your own intellectual conclusions. Get that? YOUR OWN intellectual conclusions. Totally, totally pathetic. You are a man so riven inside. No wonder you are steeped in angst.
Any inclination I ever had to turn from atheism to theism has been totally dispelled after talking to you. I am convinced now more than ever that all religion, and especially Catholicism, is bs.
Oh no, Bill. That’s just another lie you tell your self.
You may WANT to believe it is all bs, but you KNOW it isn’t.
And that is the problem you are in. What you WANT to believe, goes against what you KNOW to be true.
You’re like the man who was given a pet animal who after investigating the creature knows that it smells like a dog, barks like a dog, behaves like a dog, runs like a dog but then concludes that it’s a cat – because he so desperately wants a cat.
You may WANT to believe it is all bs, but you KNOW it isn’t.
And that is the problem you are in. What you WANT to believe, goes against what you KNOW to be true.
Actually, you have it in reverse. I would have preferred that I would come to see atheism as bs. Instead, I have come to see theism as such.
No, Bill. THAT statement is the bs. Big time bs.
and THAT is the seconde big time bs. Yes, you like telling that lie to yourself.
But sadly for you, it is all over in this website, that YOUR VERY OWN INTELLECTUAL PROCESS SAYS OTHERWISE. I just want tor re-itereate that: YOUR VERY OWN INTELLECTUAL PROCESS SAYS OTHERWISE.
You would be credible if you somehow you are able to debunk YOUR OWN INTELLECTUAL CONCLUSIONS. But you can’t. I’ve asked several time and you couldn’t. So what does that say about you except that you are a person that lies to himself all the time. And you are trying to lie to us but unfortunately for you, we know you are lying because of your own posts. So, you really have no place to retreat.
YOUR VERY OWN INTELLECTUAL PROCESS SAYS OTHERWISE.
An intellectual process is a moving target. It is constantly evolving. You want to establish a conclusion as set in stone. It doesn’t work that way.
Great. Fair enough. But you are going back to debunked conclusion when you haven’t even continued the inquiry to arrive at a more accurate and better one.
Because if you have you would have presented it by now.
Let me put it this way.
You have come to the conclusion that A=B is false and that A=C is true.
If A=B is false, then you can’t make it unfalse.
Now A “may” also be D, E and F and that inquiry you can certainly undertake. But to go back to claiming that what you have determined to be false is now true again even without one iota of support is just terribly laughable. And YOU KNOW it is laughable. That is why I have been asking you to present proof or even some kind of argumentation. But you couldn’t.
If A=B is false, then you can’t make it unfalse.
If I concluded that A=B (atheism) is false, I can’t change my conclusion until I check all other possibilities?
I don’t live like that. A=B is true now.
No, you can change your conclusion if you can prove to yourself that after a thorough use of reason and facts, you have come to conclude that the original is false. But reason and fact being absent, the first conclusion holds.
But that is just it. IT ISN’T and YOU KNOW it isn’t. You cannot proffer any support for this revised conclusion because there isn’t any. You are going back to it blind and handcuffed.
This is why I say you keep insisting on eating poo.
This is why I keep saying to you that you like lying to yourself and you know that you are lying to yourself.
Hey, if you like lying to yourself and you think lying to yourself is great, then if that is the way you want to live that is all up to you. It is self-destructive but to each his own poison. I will leave you to your poison, since you are hell bent on drinking it.
This is why I keep saying to you that you like lying to yourself and you know that you are lying to yourself.
It is true that I have been lying to myself. But the lying has more to do with going through the motions of faith, such as daily rosary and weekly mass, knowing it is all imaginary than it is in saying that there are no gods.
Yes, indeed, that too. Praying when you don’t believe the rosary is a lie.
But praying to God is not because YOU KNOW He is real. That much, YOU KNOW. So the greater lie is saying you are an atheist when your intellect tells you, you are not.
So it seems lying is the normal state of things for you.
So the greater lie is saying you are an atheist when your intellect tells you, you are not.
So it seems lying is the normal state of things for you.
When a believer begins to have doubts but is surrounded by other believers, it is difficult to express that doubt. There is not a clear cut point where a switch can be flipped and it becomes a lie not to flip the switch. It Is more gradual. I am having a hard time coming out of the closet because any way you look at it, saying I believe when I don’t is a lie and saying I dont believe begs the question as to just when did I stop believing. So, at some point or another I am a liar. The only way for me not to lie is to truly believe. That, I can’t do.
But that is not the big lie.
The big lie is saying you don’t believe when in fact you do – at least as far as your intellect is concerned.
The problem is not that you don’t believe, it’s that you do. But you don’t want to admit that to yourself because you are afraid of what you think that might mean for you.
You need to ask yourself why you are afraid to follow what your head knows to be the truth.
The big lie is saying you don’t believe when in fact you do – at least as far as your intellect is concerned
That is the position of every believer in whom I have confided, including my wife. They can’t accept my position because it makes theirs wrong. It’s a no win situation.
Actually it is more like: you can’t accept your intellectual position because you prefer to be wrong. Which is clearly a no win situation.
Just so we are clear on this. I know what my intellectual position is and you don’t. Please don’t try to portray it as the other way around. It is I who have my intellectual position. Not you. My intellectual position is that atheism is true and theism is false. You have every right to dispute my intellectual position but you are not entitled to tell me what it is. My wife often tells me that I know in my heart that she is right. You could try to say that, even though you would be wrong there as well. At least then you would be referring to my subconscious. That, however, is different than my intellectual position, of which I am totally cognitive.
Wrong again. I know your intellectual position the same way you do. The difference between us that I am calling you to follow you intellectual position and you are running away from it to the point that you are willing to eat poo: that intellectual position that you have shown to be poo yourself.
The difference between me and your wife is she goes by what women call “intuition” whereas I go by proof. You wrote it, I read, everyone who was in that thread read it.
that intellectual position that you have shown to be poo yourself.
Admittedly, you had me following a line of reasoning leading away from atheism. However, I have seen the error of my ways.
What does it mean to ” believe the rosary”? Is it some kind of god?
No it isn’t. The rosary is a devotional prayer that helps one meditate on the mysteries of our salvation. It goes from Annunciation, to his Life, to His Passion, Resurrection and glorification in heaven.
To believe in the rosary is to believe in the power of this kind of prayer.
And it is a powerful prayer.
So, you really have no place to retreat.
Marc, the place for me to retreat would be to go back to my concept of the Cosmos and Carl Sagan’s opening line to the series:
“The Cosmos is all there is, all there ever was and all there ever will be.”
I would much rather build my worldview on that concept than follow the path on which you have led me. The more I conceded to your concepts, the more dogmatic and defensive you became. While I appreciate the guidance you have provided on some personal matters, I resent the adversarial approach you have been taking toward me because I don’t buy your apologetics. You managed to convince me to call the Cosmos the Creator and the Creator God. But then you tried to ram Catholicism down my throat, even though you know that I am already Catholic and am having serious doubts that any of it even makes any sense, let alone is true.
But IS IT a place for you to retreat when you already know it is false?
That would be like someone who not knowing it was poo ate the thing. That would be understandable. But once he has realized it was poo but now insists on eating it? That is demented.
And no Bill, it is not adversarial.
It looks adversarial because you insist on eating poo even after realizing it is poo. If you knew someone like that you would be committed to making them see what a self-destructive stupid activity that is.
If you knew someone like that you would be committed to making them see what a self-destructive stupid activity that is.
Do you think Carl Sagan lived a self-destructive life? Do you think the Cosmos TV series (both old and new) were “poo”? Do you think the only worldviews that make any sense are those centered on Catholicism?
Oh no, I am not talking about Carl Sagan.
I am talking about your idea that somehow atheism is true. That is so terribly laughable Bill and YOU KNOW it too. You know it. You know it is poo.
And the idea that the Cosmos is a different variant of poo.
Why would you go back to something you have already concluded is poo? That is what is self-destructive. Because you have been gifted to know the truth and you yourself arrived at this truth and yet here you are wanting to go back to the lie? Why in the world would you do that?
Why would you persist in lying to yourself? I so totally do not get why you would lie to yourself. You have no idea what a sad picture of yourself your paint when you do that.
You really, really do need to do some soul searching why you would do that.
I am talking about your idea that somehow atheism is true.
So. I assume it is fine not to believe in gods and be an atheist just as it concerns every other god but yours.
So, when an atheist says there are no gods, he is right that all the other gods are just figments of people’s imaginations. It is only when he says that the god of the Jews, Christians and Muslims is made up that he is wrong. Otherwise, atheism is true.
I have wrestled with this idea for a long time. I have been on both sides of the argument. It is time to poop or get off the pot.
I have to go with there being no gods. Therefore, I have to commit to a worldview that is based on that belief and say that atheism is true. Sorry.
Sorry, but can’t help laughing at this convoluted reasoning.
The atheist is one who does not believe in any diety. Do you at least understand that? It is not a case of believing in one or many. It means not believing in any at all.
So if you believe in gods, you are not an atheist. You are a theist, but just not Christian or Muslim or Jew. Does that explain it a bit for you?
But the point is you are going with something that goes AGAINST YOUR OWN INTELLECTUAL CONCLUSIONS. You have already PROVED TO YOURSELF that there is a God, and He is not the Cosmos, and He is not uninterested. YOU HAVE PROVED TO YOURSELF THAT AS FAR AS YOUR OWN INTELLECTUAL PROCESSES GO, YOU ARE A THEIST.
So why would you go back to eating poo when you already know it is poo?
And why be sorry. Be sorry for yourself. You are the one who insists on eating poo.
Nature is the troupe, earth the stage, and we the audience. These changes of the new seasons occur because they are proper to the natural order, but also because of the glory of the director.
People should meditate on this and form their own conclusions. They shouldn’t allow this meditation to be disrupted by ideas posed by ancient religions. If there is a creator, or an intelligence behind all this, it should be studied using the scientific method, not ancient texts.
I would just as soon as call it Mother Nature or the Cosmos or anything but “God” because that name is taken. That name has come to represent the main fictional character in a collection of writings that have somehow been elevated to the status of “Sacred Scripture”.
“People should meditate on this and form their own conclusions,” and I agree. Further, this meditation should be without qualifiers, without limitations. A man in pursuit of the truth will have no problem keeping all available resources open to those who might be meditating on these truths.
You speak of truth but what you present as “The Truth” is in fact not true.
Do you doubt that people can be brought back to life, Bill? There are numerous accounts of such things in the modern and natural world. If mere mortals can do such things, of course God could raise up the dead from even more advanced stages of decay.
Yes. I doubt that a dead person could ever be brought back to life once decomposition has begun. The stories of this happening are just stories. Are any of them true? There isn’t any evidence supporting a single claim of a decomposing body ever coming back to life.
Firstly, this is a great place for Phil Dzialo to comment, if he is willing. He has reported many times that his son was dead and brought back to life after a drowning – but not before some of his poor child’s brain had begun to deteriorate. Secondly, Saint Catherine of Siena prayed for her mother, Lapa, to be brought back to life after her death – and she was – after many days of lying dead. Thirdly, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of news reports from around the world of people coming back to life well after death was declared. A cursory internet search reveals many samples. Fourthly and finally, with respect, I am coming to believe that any evidence I would offer you would fall prey to your apparent cynicism. This would be a ridiculous cycle to engage in, so I challenge you to prove that my claims are false rather than resort to a my-word-versus-your-word style of argument, if you care to continue this discussion.
https://www.google.com/search?q=NEWS+back+to+life&rlz=1CAHPZY_enUS599US599&oq=NEWS++back+to+life&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i60l3j0l2.4256j0j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8#q=miracles+back+to+life
I’m in no position to prove that no one has come back to life after dying. Death is permanent though. So being proclaimed dead and even being issued a death certificate is not dying unless it is permanent.
Regardless, the probability of the account in the Gospel of John has to be just about as close to zero as can be imagined. Yes, I know. That is what makes it so miraculous.
You are right about me being cynical. I’m sorry if that annoys you.
And yet you are stupid enough to say that it is only a story when you have no proof.
And once again there you are pontificating without proof.
I suggest that you limit yourself to what you know for sure rather than pontificating on things you don’t know because it just comes out really stupid.
You are beginning to sound more and more like your idol Dawkins.
The Catholic faith is based on believing stories. To you, they are true stories but you can’t prove that they are. We must accept them on faith.
To me, they are just stories that anyone could sit down and write. In fact, that’s what the Bible is, a collection of stories that anyone could sit down and write. Of course, I can’t prove that. It is just what I choose to believe. And I’m good with that.
Perhaps. But it is a much more reasonable to accept them than to say they are not true when you have not one iota of proof for its falsehood. The Church does have proof, it is just proof that you will not accept and proof that you cannot understand because of your ignorance.
I mean take that broken record you keep playing of the God of the old testament being a vengeful God that has been superseded by the loving God of the New Testament. That kind of tripe is the by product of a mind that is completely ignorant of what the Bible is all about. And the sad thing is that mind is so closed that it will not even attempt to find out the truth. It just like spitting out this kind of dumb and totally stupid statements and won’t exercise it’s capacity to actually find out the truth.
And so would any science book. Anyone could sit and write these things. So many so called scientific findings have been proved false and yet you are enthral to science as if it is capable of answering everything.
And yes, you like believing what you can’t prove and yet here you are telling people off for believing something they can actually prove. There is historical fact surrounding this but you are solidified in your desire to be ignorant while at the same time pontificating on what you are ignorant about. That is a really pathetic state to be in.
You are like a pre-schooler telling Einstein he is wrong about the theory of relativity.
For the most part, yes, the Old Testament God seems to be very vengeful and totally tyrannical. But the Jews accept him so who am I to question what they believe? I don’t accept that God, but that’s just my personal opinion.
The analogy of the preschooler questioning Einstein is based on you comparing the teachers of your religion, including thinkers like Augustine and Thomas Aquinas, to Einstein. In my estimation, that is not a fair comparison.
Only because you are totally stupid when it comes to scripture. It is condition that you can remedy but you prefer to remain in this stupid condition.
Oh yes it is. You are so very much like a tot when it comes to the Catholic Faith but you have the temerity to blabber on.
You really have no idea how stupid you sound when you say things like the one above.
I hope realize that you’ve just made a statement similar to: I believe in Unicorns. Of course I can’t prove that. It is just what I choose to believe.
So, I just ran across this reference to my son and was how he was dead and brought back to life. Adam, in 1998, at 12 years old was trapped in white water rapids at a summer camp and was under water for 25 minutes without oxygen. When he was rescued, he had no heat beat, no pulse, no respiration….but he was NOT dead and brought back to life. My son was no Lazarus. He is now, 16 years later, totally unable to communicate, immobile, spastic quad, etc.
He did not die, so he could not be a case for being risen from the dead. His survival, not really unique among young non-fatal near drowns, was a gift from the process of human evolution. He had a reflex kick in called the “mammalian diving reflex.” In youngsters when this reflex is triggered by a sudden immersion into cold water…the trachea closes, the body metabolism slows very significantly, and the body directs oxygen to the most centrally important organ which is why he had no water in his lungs, organs we ok except extensive damage to the basal ganglia. The last 16 years is another long story, but if he died we would have buried him…no miracles, but simply a remnant of evolution, a reflex which is still maintained by most animals. Declaring someone dead does not mean they are dead…my son is an example. Evolutionary reflex, not the hand of God in fact I once wrote a long blog post on the alleged words of a survivor of Shoah “If there is a God, He will have to beg me for forgiveness.” Applies to Adam and I, buddies for the past 28 years and many more to come.
Phil,
I just came across your post about your son. That is heart breaking. When my cousin’s 20 year old son died, my atheist brother whispered to me at the funeral “See, this just proves there is no God.” His cancer had brought me back to the Church and I had attended mass daily to pray for his healing. Mindful of that, I replied that it proved just the opposite to me. Eventually, I came around to my brother’s point of view. Just as Obama said: “No God condones this terror (by ISIL)”, I would say that no god had anything to do with what happened to your son. This is a double edge sword though. My cousin is comforted that his son is in a better place but that makes him have to believe in a god that allowed this to happen for a higher purpose. My brother just saw it as something that just happens with no god causing it or failing to keep it from happening. I saw it at the time as having brought me back to my faith which brought me much comfort and joy. I have since lost that. I do believe that if God is real, his ways are not easily explained. May you have peace and strength to endure your cross. I forget who knows this, but I am grieving from the loss of a son who has hit me with a restraining order, has told me how much he hates me and will likely refuse to see me again or let me see my grand kids if he ever marries and has any.
Thanks for the kind words and I don’t view it as a cross, just something bad which happened. My sole goal in life is to live a worthy life because I want to and feel it’s the right thing to do…my comfort comes from providing care for him till I die and learning about the nature of unrequited, unconditional love. An anthropomorphic god only complicates my life and would not be a source of comfort…the only comfort is living a worthy life. I join you in grieving the loss of your son; there are some wound which which never heal; more akin to a “chronic sorrow.”
My sole goal in life is to live a worthy life because I want to and feel it’s the right thing to do.
There you go. Well said. I wish you the best.
Sans God, what is a worthy life?
Sans God, why would life need to be worthy?
Because I am a human being in relation to other human beings, I am a father who exudes unrequited unconditional love for a totally disabled son, I am a grandfather who helps care for his grand daughter…I am a disability advocate and join in community with other parents of non-fatal near drowns. I give directly to the poor. I do not need am anthropomorphic representation of a God to be good person. He may or not exist, it does not change my life or make it more relevant or worthy. Life is worth because I choose it…simple.Religion does not support me because I have no need for it…
But if there is no God, why would all that matter and make you worthy? So you are a human being. So what, if you are a mere by product of evolution in the same way the dung beetle is?
A dung beetle has worth as long as it is true to it’s nature…..
But why should it have worth? Why should being true to nature have worth?
You will notice, if you follow my thread closely and follow not simply to rebut, that I said that “I”, emphasize “I”, do not need the notion of a God to live a worthy and good life…I am not imposing MY belief on anyone, I am not saying a god does not exist, I do reject the notion of an anthropomorphic god. I can and do live a good, worthy life without dependence upon a God to motivate me. I do not fear death, I do not fear God, if he exists, … I cannot afford to live a fear based, externally rules imposed life. Any by the way, evolution is not mindless … evolution is cosmic evolving to noogenesis. As Father Pierre Tiellard de Chardin SJ, in 1955, wrote in The Phenomenon of Man, “We are not human beings having a spiritual experience, we are spiritual beings on a human experience.”
But the question rears its head again. If there is no God, what does worthy mean? Why would your life be worth anything? Why would doing all the “good” things mean your life is “worthy”? You may not need the notion of a God to live a worthy life, but without God “worthy” and “good” does not make sense. They are mere labels that we apply to ourselves to make us feel good and stave off the reality that it really all means nothing.
I never said you were.
But that is really only so much words if you factor out God.
But how do you know we are spiritual beings if there is no God?
Here are the grounds that I eject an anthropomorphic god. RCC believe that God is God, that the God of the old Testament is the same God as the God of New Testament, but that Jesus came to fulfill the prophets. But God is unchangeable and so are his teaching. the RCC believes that the Bible is the Word of God and the inspired Truth.
So let me ask, do you accept these words of God?
Numbers 31:17-19 “Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man intimately. 18″But all the girls who have not known man intimately, spare for yourselves. 19″And you, camp outside the camp seven days; whoever has killed any person and whoever has touched any slain, purify yourselves, you and your captives, on the third day and on the seventh day.…”
So let me ask you do you accept these words of God?
Leviticus 20:9 If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death.”
So let me ask you do you accept these words of God?
“Exodus 35:2 For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the LORD. Whoever does any work on it must be put to death.
So do you believe these words of God?
Exodus 21:20-21 If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.”
And this:
Leviticus 25:44-45 “Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property.”
Now, do you see why I reject an anthropomorphic god? Or do you believe that a god really said this stuff? Yes nor no…either way you lose.
So let me ask you, do you understand the context of these texts? Do you understand the background? Do you understand how the Church understands these texts? You know what, I doubt very much that you do or you will not be using them as a “gotcha”.
I highly recommend that you find a parish or agroup that is doing the Great Adventure Bible Timeline by Ascension Press.
Barring that, get a copy of the Walking with God by Jeff Cavins and Tim Gray. It is a very accessible exposition of salvation history.
Okay, if it is the “anthropomorphic” God that you disagree with, then do you believe in God and if so, what sort of God do you believe in?
1.Yes, I understand the context of these quotes quite well and they were explained to me by Talmudic scholars who understood the Jewish culture and writings of the times.
2.As a former member of a Catholic religious order for 8 years, I know scripture quite well
3.Of course, I believe in a God…One God for all humanity which is a vast incomprehensive field of sacred energy that permeates every living thing. I unite myself to this God at all times and share in his work of creation and liberation. I use “him” but pure energy has no gender.
Then it really boggles the mind how you can possibly think that that makes your case against an anthropomorphic God.
Which makes your quoting those verses as a way to shore up your arguments even more perplexing. Obviously being in a religious order does not ensure for a good grounding on scripture. And I can attest to that. I have heard so many dumb homilies.
Sacred Energy. Ah so now you make a distinction between ordinary and sacred Energy. Can you explain the difference? I suppose you have support for this belief that God is sacred energy? Please don’t tell me Madam Blavatsky and all her derivatives.
As for one God for all humanity, did you think the Christian God is only for Christians? That Christ is somehow only for Christians? That the God of the OT is only for the Jews? Seriously?
Dismiss my beliefs…it’s really OK. I explain what I believe and you tell me I’m wrong. So should I make my vulnerability a target for your orthodoxy? It’s ok
Dismiss your beliefs? If I have done that I would not even be writing.
I am showing you the errors in your thinking and the errors in the tenets of your belief. It is a hodge podge of Christianity and paganism. One moment you are claiming that the Bible is false then in the next vein quoting the NT.
If you have written that Santa Claus is real (I mean here the Coca Cola Santa Claus), my only comment would have been LOL. That would be dismissing THAT belief.
Also, how is my comment making a target of your vulnerability? Vulnerable in what way?
Firstly, St. Thomas Aquinas would say that God does not change but He can will change. So Christ came to perfect the law for man and not to perfect it for God. Not because God had changed but because man had changed or rather needed to. So we can accept harsh words and deeds from the Old Testament as appropriate at the time. Or as Lincoln said (alluding to the Psalms) “the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.”
Secondly, to call God anthropomorphic is to have it backwards. Similar to saying that the man is the likeness of his portrait instead of saying the portrait is the likeness of the man. (Note too that the portrait is *not* the man, missing an almost infinite number of essentials.) Aquinas also consistently allowed that human speech is a flawed instrument for speaking about God, but that it is the best we can do so we remind ourselves that we are ultimately speaking of a mystery. Hence the Church says “The Mystery of the Most Holy Trinity,” “the mystery of the Eucharist.”
I think you would enjoy a deeper encounter with the Church and more particularly St. Thomas.
I know Thomas and his Summa, etc well. We can never accept the words of the OT as simply harsh and appropriate…there has never never been a cultural justification for genocide, filicide, levitrate marriage, killing, revenge, slaughter of tribes, commands to kill nomadic tribes but keep young virgins as concubines, rules about selling your daughters to others etc. No one who is a human can accept violence based upon religion, no matter the context.
God is….man has endowed God with many unjustified and unproven qualities which is what I mean ny anthropomorphic. The more human’s attempt to define God and his will, the more we are wrong; He simply IS.
As for Aquinas, remember he wrote that a person only got a soul if make after 40 days and if female after 80 days. Almost sounds Singer-esque and quite misogynist….I would prefer no to encounter Aquinas any more than I have.
Sorry but that is a rather dumb statement.
Firstly, to say that would be to say that we are incapable at all of knowing who God is. That would include the statement that “He simply IS”.
If we can’t know God, then how do you know that the anthropomorphic qualities we give him is unjustified? I am sure that you want to think of God as loving, merciful, etc. etc. But these are all anthropomorphisms as well.
You said in a previous post that God is energy. Well how do you know that to be true when you just said that God cannot be known. If God simply IS, then He can’t be energy because energy is NOT simply iS.
As for anthropomorphism, don’t you think that it just might possibly be the other way around? That in apprehending our qualities, we are in fact perceiving in ourselves qualities that are in fact perfected in Him. That in fact when we describe someone as being loving and merciful we might in fact be Deimorphing that person
I would prefer no to encounter Aquinas any more than I have.
Which is a real pity because you would probably learn to reason better if you do.
Sorry but that is a rather dumb statement.
You really should stop being so denigrating with people with different worldviews than your own. It is unbecoming of you.
Bill (x3). You really crack me up.
You just said there is no God. So there is no such thing as “unbecoming” of me.
If you are sure you are atheist, you sure are not thinking like one.
And yes, the statement I said is dumb is dumb. And I showed as well why it is so.
You just said there is no God. So there is no such thing as “unbecoming” of me.
So my saying there is no God thereby justifies you calling me stupid, dumb or anything you want? I can see clearly what you are all about.
Sigh! Wrong again.
Someone who believes in God can say what you said: “You really should stop being so denigrating with people with different worldviews than your own. It is unbecoming of you” because that is an appeal to morality (you know good, bad and all that).
Since you don’t believe in God, you have no business appealing to morality.
Huh? People who don’t believe in God are not entitled to be treated with dignity and respect? Are you on medicinal marijuana?
Will you please STOP calling anything I say dumb, stupid, hogwash…Now I know why you refuse to have a skype discussion…it’s easier and more comfortable to call people names on a com box, then to their face…you are very insulting, rude and a coward!
I am NOT calling ANYTHING you say dumb, stupid, hogwash. Only those parts that are dumb, stupid and hogwash. If you look back to my posts, I specifically highlight the dumb parts.
So what shall I call it? Painfully wrong, false, ill-thought?
Rude? No. Just telling it like it is.
Insulting? Merely calling a statement what it is. If I said something like: The Earth is the biggest object in the universe and someone said that was a stupid and dumb statement, why they would have every right to say so. And they should say so.
Coward? Well, which one of us is NOT willing to debate right here and now on this board? That’s the person who stares right back at you when you look in the mirror.
Coward? where do you read that? I asked you not to engage me further…now it’s harassment….
So I see, you edited your original post.
And sorry but no. I cannot promise to not comment on your post if I see something wrong in it.
Okay, if you think that is the reason I refuse to speak to you face to face (I do say that a statement is dumb when a statement is dumb to the person’s face), how about this: if I promise to not call any of your statements dumb, stupid or hogwash, will you then debate your idea of God with me in this forum? If you are for real, you will.
You may not need the notion of a God to live a worthy life, but without God “worthy” and “good” does not make sense.
Really??? If someone does something to make the world a better place, that is not a good thing in the eyes of you, me and others? It is not worthy of our praise and admiration? What’s God got to do with it?
Without God, (if we are nothing more than by products of random chemical reactions) what classifies as good?
Take Hitler. He wanted to eliminate anyone and everyone he thought is a misfit, someone not good enough because he wanted to make a better world. In his eyes, he was doing a “good” thing.
A pregnant woman who wants to further her career decides to abort every child she conceives and she thinks that is a good thing to do because furthering the career is a good thing.
What does it mean for the world to be a better place. A fervent Muslim will think it is one where every single person is a Muslim so he believes that if you don’t become one the best thing to do is to kill you.
See what I am getting at here?
Without God (which means we are nothing more than products of random chemical reactions) worthy loses it’s meaning. You are no more worthy (of value) than the dung bettle. You are as useful as the Ebola Virus. I don’t see anyone admiring the Ebola Virus except for its capacity to kill with great efficacy.
Your point is well taken, Marc. Only problem is that we are without God. You are right. We are at the mercy of those who think what they are doing is good when it really isn’t. Hitler thought he was doing a good thing creating a master race.The feminist thinks she is doing a good thing by aborting unwanted fetuses. The Muslim thinks he is doing a good thing trying to convert everyone to Islam and threatening to kill them if they don’t covert.
So, welcome to a world without God. It’s the world we live in.
Bill, Bill, Bill. You are truly hilarious. You must have
been giving yourself a pat on the back for how intelligent you think that post
was. Excuse me for pulling the rug under
your feet so drop smack down on your face.
Here it is: If there is no God, there is NO “when
IT REALLY ISN’T”. Without God, Hitler is good until someone more
powerful than him destroys him and declares him bad. Without God there is NO
GOOD OR EVIL.
If there is no God, torturing you and your sons and your
wife will be “good” to the one who has the power and the sadistic pleasure of
doing it.
No, Bill. That is not the
world we live in because if someone cheats you, you will instantly cry foul. If
someone murders your children, you will think the murderer is bad and wrong.
And the sad thing is you are too dumb to see that.
You are in such denial. The world we live and doesn’t have a god. You have an imaginary one. Right and wrong is determined through natural selection with the one that is most effective being passed on and the one that doesn’t work falling to the wayside. Take the two great religions, Christianity and Islam. They are memes. They both have a great ability to make copies of themselves. They both appeal to newcomers and they both use a carrot and stick Pro it’s
Said so forcefully by the master of self-denial. You are a hoot.
Really? You must have proof of that. Ooops! I forgot that you don’t because you said there is one before 🙂
But your’s isn’t is it. Your’s is real. It says so right there in your post. LOL
All that says is might is right. So as far as natural selection is concerned Hitler was a perfectly moral man. In fact, he was simply helping natural selection along.
Are you back on your stupid arguments again? Been there done that.
You mean like the way your dumb comments seem to be replicating and multiplying ? I see, they must be great religions!
I can always tell when you are desperately holding on to your untenable beliefs. You get really sarcastic and insulting. God forbid that you ever wake up one day and find out that you’ve been wrong.
Ha, ha. Said by someone who is trying to appeal to morality when at the same time saying there is no God. Hilarious.
And yes, the kind of posts you have been writing deserves sarcasm.
And stop claiming to be insulted. You have no right to be insulted. You are a mere by product of random chemical reactions same as a dung beetle. Does a dung beetle protest at having to eat dung?
Welcome to your world view (queue twilight zone music).
Ha, ha. Said by someone who is trying to appeal to morality when at the same time saying there is no God. Hilarious.
If what you are saying is what you truly believe, you’ve got a serious disconnect with reality. You are basically saying that if God does not exist, all bets are off. You are saying that if you realized tomorrow that your God is imaginary, you could do anything you want. And, judging by what you think would be ok to do, such as insulting people like Phil and myself and comparing us to dung beetles, you’re kind of an ahole. No one wants to know anyone like that. You are hiding behind religion to keep people from knowing what you would be like if you stopped believing. By all means, keep believing in your imaginary friend. Don’t stop now. Peace.
No my friend. YOU are the one who have serious disconnect with reality. What I posted there is the consequences of YOUR WORLD VIEW. That is why I said, welcome to YOUR WORLD VIEW. It ain’t so pretty is it?
Aaah! Finally he gets it! Touch down!
For a moment there I thought you actually got it.
No my dear. I am saying that if IS REALLY ONLY IMAGINARY, that is if we are here as some by product of random chemical reactions. IF THAT IS TRUE, then indeed you can do anything you want. The only thing that determines what gets done is might. Hitler is the poster boy for this worldview which HAPPENS TO BE YOUR WORLDVIEW.
Correction. It would not be insulting to compare you and Phil to dung beetles because without God, you are nothing more than a better evolved dung bettle. Think about, about the Big Bang and all those forces converging and the earth coolihg and the bacteria appearing. Visualize this as nothing more than just random by products of forces and chemical. Why would you be any more special than them? Like them you are nothing more than a soup of matter and chemical reactions. That’s what atheism is all about. If I remember correctly either Hitchens or Nietzche said it much more eloquently but it boils down to the same thing.
Hey, but that is not me. That is you. THAT IS YOUR WORLDVIEW. And now you are really confronted by the reality of the kind of world view you have and suddenly you realize how terribly ugly it is. But you like this ugly world view. You’ve been telling me over and over and over again that you are an atheist. So what’s your problem You have your world view and there it is in all it’s depraved ugliness.
Like I said. What I described is the very logical and rational conclusion that flows from your world view. What’s the matter? You’re not finding it so pretty now? Aah yes, that failure to connect the dots is a bummer.
First of all, your taunting is more amusing than anything else and your attempts to make it seem that you are somehow angering or frustrating me are laughable.
Even if my worldview does lead to a world like we are seeing now, that doesn’t mean that it is inaccurate in any way. Actually, it kind of confirms the accuracy of it because this world operates in a way that is consistent with my worldview, more so than yours. I never said the world would be a better place if everyone had my worldview. Your worldview might make us all love one another and behave better (although I’m not seeing that in you). But it could still be inaccurate. It is consistent with the way the world is today that Jesus never rose from the dead and does not become physically present in consecrated bread and wine. There is nothing going on in this world that is any indication of that being the case.
Is it? Do you really want to stick by that? You realize of course that your posts are visible to all.
I had to highlight that because I want that indelibly fixed in your head.
So your world view (the one you thought was sick – to the point that you said I needed to see a priest or a mental health practitioner, the one that you are so upset about to the point that you would not hire me because I wrote them) is accurate?
Are you for real. You really, really, really, believe you are as useful as the Ebola Virus?
I wonder sometime whether you think before you post. And after wondering my conclusion is No.
Does it really? Oh boy you really are in denial.
You said just a while ago, that I was a terrible person for writing it (that is before you realized that it is in fact your world view). Why were you angry and upset if you really live by that?
Furthermore, if someone were to kill your children, would you go shrug and say” Oh well there goes one more process of natural selection”?
Then why in the world were you upset with me? Why were you angry with me for saying that you are nothing more than a better version of the dung beetle?
If your world view does not make the world a better place, then you must love depravity and ugliness a lot to hold to this world view. And if you do love depravity and ugliness then you are one sick wacko.
You are the most pathetique man I have ever conversed with.
First you were shocked and repulsed by what you see in my post. But when it finally dawned on you that I was describing your worldview, just so you can salvage your pride, you change your tune and affirm that this is an okay world view? You are a very, very sick person.
Never wrestle with a pig because you both get muddy and the pig likes it.
I see what you did there. It’s fine. I see how despicable Christian apologists are and I am more atheistic now than I have ever been. And your faith is still firmly intact. I need to get to the gym.
Ahh Bill, In denial as ever.
Despicable Christian apologist? We’re terrible aren’t we? We hold up a mirror to you and show you all that ugliness of your world view. At first you are repulsed. It’s ugly. You cringe. It’s grotesque. Then you realize, hey that’s my worldview. It’s not ugly. It’s great. It’s wonderful. I embrace it even more.
Suppose there were two microcosms of the real world. In one microcosm everyone believes in Santa Claus. And the other they don’t. Christmas comes along and as you can well imagine the microcosm where everyone believes in Santa Claus has a great time and the other microcosm does not. Based on this small sample size, should we be convinced that Santa Claus does indeed exist?
So the world sucks under my worldview. And it would be much better if everyone adopted your worldview. I agree. That is the case.
Just like the example with Santa Claus, that does not prove anything.
blockquote> Suppose there were two microcosms of the real
world. In one microcosm everyone believes in Santa Claus. And the other they
don’t. Christmas comes along and as you can well imagine the microcosm where
everyone believes in Santa Claus has a great time and the other microcosm does
not. Based on this small sample size, should we be convinced that Santa Claus
does indeed exist? Santa not existing makes no difference. But God not existing makes a lot of difference because if there is not First Cause, no Prime Mover there would be no created world to speak of. So on every single count, Atheism is bunkum.
Not quite. Because Santa is not real. Even if you use logic, you will not come up with Santa. But God, He is real. We can prove that.
And the biggest disconnect with you, is that you live as if there is God. You appeal to right and wrong. You love. You think you matter. You think your son matters. If you really live your worldview, you will live out the ugliness I just exposed to you.
This is the hypocricy of atheists. In fact, all atheists are hypocrites. The nicer and good they are, the more of a hypocrite they are. The only atheists who are not hypocrites are people like Hitler and Pol Pot and Mao and Stalin. These atheist really LIVED and PRACTICED atheism.
So if you are really an Atheist, how come you are not living according to your worlview?
This is why Christianity is true. It is philosophically sound and even on the practical level it is harmonious and life giving.
Atheism is not only dumb and philosophically untenable, it is ugly, false, bad. The exact opposite of the Good, the True and the Beautiful– God.
This is the hypocricy of atheists. In fact, all atheists are hypocrites. The nicer and good they are, the more of a hypocrite they are. The only atheists who are not hypocrites are people like Hitler and Pol Pot and Mao and Stalin. These atheist really LIVED and PRACTICED atheism.
I’m not sure of just how much of this nonsense I should indulge you in by continuing to respond. So. When atheists act in what you see as a God-like or Christian-like manner, they are hypocrites. But when they act like dicks, they are just showing the way atheists are. Come on man!
Aaah, finally you comprehended perfectly what I wrote. It will help if you exercise that kind of clarity all the time.
If you look back at my post, I also gave a reason as to why this is so. Then you would not have had to write “Come on man!”
And no, Bill. You are not indulging me. I am indulging you. Or more to the point, I am responding to your posts because they are so stupid someone has to correct them.
You are a quack of Biblical proportions. You really believe what you have said about atheists being hypocrites when they don’t act like complete aholes. You really believe that and that is what makes you a quack. A super quack.
Hhhmmm. Ran out of intelligent arguments like you always do?
And yes, I really do believe that because THAT IS A FACT.
What is a hypocrite? A pretender. One who does not live by what one believes.
That is why Christians who act badly are hypocrites. They believe in God but live their lives as if God has no say in their lives whatsoever. They kill, lie, sodomize, etc, etc.
That kind of activity is more in keeping with the atheist world view. In the atheist world view such activities are normal – because such a world view cannot admit right and wrong.
So an atheist who acts according to the tenets of good and bad are hypocrites. That is why people like Hitler and Mao are the perfect atheists. They actually LIVED OUT their world
view.
If you are not getting that, think a little harder and you will catch up.
See my admission to being a hypocrite. I admit it. I wish you would admit that you are a quack. Look it up if you don’t know what it means.
I would admit I am a quack if I am one. I admit to being a sinner.
But if you are convinced I am quack, then as I said in an earlier, please feel free to explain why I am one.
You are a quack because you say strange things like atheists are just being hypocrites when they show common decency and the only atheists who are not hypocrites are the mass murderers. That is being a quack.
Naaah. That’s not being a quack. That’s merely stating a fact. And YOU KNOW it’s a fact. It’s just one of those truths that is hard to swallow.
So yes, I reiterate, atheists who are good are not living out the full extent of their atheism. Hitler and Mao and Stalin, that is what it means to live according to atheism.
So maybe you’d like to try again and tell me why I am quack. This time, think longer before you reply.
For you to believe what you are saying truly makes you a quack. There is no better word for it. I don’t believe that you truly believe it. You are just saying it to piss me off and I have taken the bait. Shame on me.
Sigh! Wrong again. It makes me a truth teller and that grates with the lie that you swallow from the father of lies.
NOPE! I am saying it because it is true. We must always speak the truth. But you would not know what that is even if it hit you in the face.
BTW, I am beginning to think you enjoy being “tormented” because you keep responding. ROL
In my qwest for real truth, I’ve run into a lot of people who think they know it all when it comes to gods and religions. You are one of those people.
But you are not in a quest for truth. If you are you will find Truth. Or rather Truth will find you. And that is the reality. Truth is after you, but you are frantically running away.
See, wrong again. I do however know a fair bit. Definitely more than you because I actually bothered, spent time and money and effort to understand my faith. You on the other hand have done zilch on this matter. You have spent time, money and effort to shore up yourself and your atheism. So no wonder you know so little about your faith and God.
But that is all so very easy to remedy. It is a matter of will. But you have CHOSEN to WILL ignorance.
But one day you will come to know God’s love and mercy towards you and you will kick yourself for having called Him the devil. That is the depth of your abasement – that you will go that far just to make a post.
Your “Truth” is not true. Painful as that is to know. It is an inconvenient truth.
And like usual, if I ask you to substantiate that you will not be able to, like every single utterance you have made in this boards.
You are like a machine on auto parrot – a human being reduced to a sad caricature by your ugly beliefs.
It’s not like: “hey, guess what I just found out? God is imaginary and the Catholic Faith to which I devoted a good portion of my life is hogwash”. It truly is an inconvenient truth.
More a case of: hey, guess what you DID NOT find out and will NEVER find out.
In fact, so far in our “discussion”, what YOU have FOUND OUT is that atheism (which you insist on clinging to despite your mind rejecting it) is ugly, false and leads only misery (this you can vouch for). And THAT is supported by your posts. So there is no hiding from it.
Inconvenient is far too mild a word to describe the despair that that truth brings.
I say “inconvenient” as Al Gore refers to Global Warming. It is not the way I want it to be but I am convinced that it is accurate. I can’t choose to believe something just because it would give meaning and purpose to life. I have to know it is really what they say it is and that they are not just saying it because it makes them feel good.
Do you really honestly believe that ugliness is the only reality in the world? Because to believe in atheism is to believe in that because beauty goes with Truth.
So for you, the only reality is ugliness and depravity.
No. For you, the only reality in a world without a god is ugliness and depravity. I can see that that clearly is not so.
Actually, you DON’T clearly see that that is not so.
In fact, when I showed you what atheism really looks like you were revolted because you saw how ugly it was. Until you realized it was atheist and after that you though it good. Your very own self, betrays you.
That you see beauty and hope in this world is precisely BECAUSE THERE IS A GOD.
You didn’t show me REAL atheism. You showed me your biased perception of what atheism is. There is a vast difference and that is what makes you the quack that you are. I doubt you could find a confessor or spiritual director who would agree with what you have been saying about the atheist worldview and your invention, atheist hypocrites.
Wrong again. I did show you what REAL atheism is. You on the other hand is like this stupid teenager who struts about claiming to be atheist when he has no clue as to what atheism entails.
So you were shocked to find out that once you go down that road, that’s where it leads.
If you think my conclusions about atheism is wrong, then do go ahead and show me where it is wrong.
Atheism is true. Where it leads is not my problem.
I’m not really tormented so much as bewildered by the bizarre things you are saying. There really is no way for you to be able to get up every morning and function without you believing in God. If you ever came to the realization that God is imaginary, you would see what a horse’s arse you have been calling those who know God is imaginary dumb and stupid and incapable of knowing right from wrong and hypocrites for not being evil.
But IS IT bizarre? To date you have not been able to extend one argument to vindicate your conclusions that I am “quack” and now you are saying it is bizarre and yet no matter how hard you try you will never be able to explain why it is bizarre.
Furthermore, after telling me to “find someone else to torment” now you are saying I am not tormenting you at all.
This characterizes very well the kind of schizophrenic thinking that you have exhibited from day dot.
I gave you an explanation of why good atheists are hypocrites and bad Christians are hypocrites. If you have still an iota of rationality left, maybe you would care to put that to good use and address that.
“Good atheists are hypocrites”. Knowing that there is no God, no Last Judgement, no Heaven, no Hell, no Purgatory, no objective morality, etc., an atheist should do what so as not to be a hypocrite? Why can’t an atheist be altruistic without being a hypocrite.
And I will take back two things I said. You don’t torment me. I enjoy our conversations. And your worldview is not dysfunctional. Catholicism works as a world view. But you are still a quack.
Now that, I like. I thought you’d never ask.
Imagine that there really is no God and matter just popped from nowhere. No design, no purpose. Nothing. Everything was random and by chance. So very living thing from bacteria to human beings are just by products of random chemical reactions. Everything happened by chance. There is no reason for your existence, you have no purpose whatsoever, just as everything else has no purpose and there was no reason for them existing.
In such a reality, how do you get altruism? How do you derived the deepest things that we know, and take for granted about the human being – like love, kindness, intelligence, free will – from a mere soup of random chemical reactions? If atheism is true, then you are not much better than the Ebola Virus. Would you ascribe altruism to the Ebola Virus? To excrement?
And yet we know that love, kindness, intelligence, free will are real. We experience it. If this cannot be derived from mere matter, then this has to come from Somewhere Else or Something Else. Random chemical reactions cannot account for this.
There was a book that I recommended to you before which you could not be bothered reading. It was written by a very intelligent atheist (Jen Fulwiller) who when she started to open her mind to the possibility that there might be a God, she decided ask Christians to debate her in her blog.
A guy by the name of Steve G, wrote this to her regarding the non-existence of free will in an atheistic world view: (page 98 – 99, Something Other Than God)
Under atheistic materialism, the universe is by necessity strictly deterministic because every “decision” you make is completely the result of previous brain states combined with current sensory and somatic input.
In a classical physics based model, all inputs are processed in the brain in a deterministic manner. Every step of the processing is completely determined by the sensory input and the previous brain states, which in turn have been determined by sensory/somatic input, genetics, and environmental factors.
In order to deviate from a strictly deterministic outcome at any of these decision points, some source of information other than the strictly physical is required. By this very definition, the source of the required additional information must be supernatural. So we have free will if there is a supernatural information source that can inform our decision outside of the dictates of natural law.
To follow on from there, if the atheistic world view is true, then there is no such thing as free will, which means that love, intelligence and therefore
altruism will also be non-existent because altruism presupposes free will.
You are correct that some atheists do not believe that we have free will. Sam Harris wrote a book about it. I have read excerpts from Jen’s book and have followed her blogs at times.
I believe that once you immerse yourself in Catholicism as a worldview, changes for the better snowball and you just get more fully immersed in it. I don’t want to do that. Doing that would lead me away from the inconvenient truth which is what I see as being reality. People like Jen have their own perception of reality which differs from mine. It works for her so she defends it and isn’t going to change it.
If atheism is true then Sam Harris is right. That is the part that you do not get.
If you are correct that atheism is true, then indeed we do not have free will. All your activities are nothing more than by products of chemical reactions in the same manner as the digestive process.
So the fact that you have free will means that atheism is false. The fact that you can actually choose to be stupid means that atheism is false.
No Bill, Doing that would lead you from the convenient falsehood that you are addicted to.
You are too dumb to see that the fact that you can wilfully choose to be an atheist proves that atheism is false.
It doesn’t matter anyway. It is getting me nowhere. I feel that we can experience separation from God simply by learning that he does not exist. That is just as painful a separation as believing but somehow being denied access to him. Learning the real truth can be a hell unto itself.
Your attitude toward atheism and atheists can only be characterized as desperate. Saying that good atheists are hypocrites resolves the issue of what to do with the fact that most atheists are respectful of their neighbors and want the same basic things for themselves and their children as everybody else. To you, they are faking their goodness if they are truly atheists or faking their atheism if they are truly good. It can’t be that they are both truly good and truly atheist. That would be an oxymoron to you.
Your other big issue is that there can be no right or wrong, good or bad, moral or immoral, etc. if the god in whom you believe is imaginary. You hanging on to these beliefs and throwing everything but the kitchen sink at any argument that challenges these hardcore beliefs, even to the point of calling me stupid and dumb.
You really should discuss these beliefs with a priest. I doubt that one would agree with you. I don’t think you represent the mainstream faith.
No Bill, it is the attitude of atheists that is desperate because atheism breeds despair. YOU know that.
Precisely why I said that his hypocrisy, this not living out what they actually believe, is a good thing. Because if you did live out what you believe, you will be a heinous and evil man. But that evil will only be perceived by us Theists. You will think that as normal.
No Bill. That is not what I said. I said IF IT WERE TRUE, that there is no God, then there is no right or wrong. I have explained that a few times because you kept getting that wrong and even now you still get that wrong.
IF IT WERE TRUE, that there is no sun, then our physical world will be in darkness and there will not be life to speak of. That is the equivalent of what I am saying about God. If the first proposition is true (there is no God), then the second proposition is also true (there is no morality). There is only what we attach to feelings. Killing, adultery, cheating will all be amoral activities, it would be neither be right or wrong.
This is why I say you are a hypocrite because to a little extent, you are moral.
You say that if it is true that there is no God…
I say that if the god you believe in is imaginary…
I am saying what you are saying so how am I not understanding what you are saying?
I can agree to a certain extent with what you are saying about desperation and despair.
Oh really? With every breath you take you put a lie to that.
When you tell people you love your son you put a lie to that.
The people around you who help other people, care for the sick, love their neighbour put a lie to that.
The fact that the world exists today and so many people still hope and love and do good to each other put a lie to that.
If your world view is really the accurate description of how the world is now, we would be annihilated by now.
But yes, there are many things happening in the world that is so terrible today. And all those terrible and ugly things will be just normal, for people with a world view like yours.
So you see, you’ve just confirmed it again. Right there is
your world view. Natural selection.
Human beings nothing more than better evolved dung beetles. So what are
you complaining about? Why are you so upset?
But why not? In terms of your world view, why would you (a better evolved Staphylococcus bacteria) not hire me (another better evolved Staphylococcus bacteria)?
But hey, the ideas that you are very angry about right now are not my ideas but YOURS. Their yours Bill. From the no God, to the by product of natural selection to nothing more than better versions of the Ebola Virus, THAT’S YOUR IDEA. Perfectly consonant with Atheism. And yes, ugly and extreme. But hey, that’s atheism for you. And you love proclaiming to everyone that you are an atheist.
So if you do something wrong to me, without a God, it’s just tough shit. I get it.
Oh for badness/goodness sake Bill. You still don’t get it.
If I do something WRONG? to you?
If there is no God there would be no such thing as wrong. If I kill you and torture you it will just be another random chemical process same as what brought about the evolution of the pig. It will be neither wrong nor right. It just is. Just another instance of natural selection.
Seriously, you need to talk to a priest or a mental health provider. I’m sure what you are saying is not the position of Pope Francis. He would be flabbergasted if he read your posts to both Phil and myself. Totally appalled.
Sigh! Of course it isn’t Pope Francis’s position. He believes in God. So of course he can say that that this or that is bad or good.
But you keep saying that you don’t believe in God and yet here you are telling me off for doing something “bad”.
Since according to you there is no God, your worth is about the worth of the Staphylococcus Bacteria. You know what we do to them. We take anti-biotics to kill them. And we don’t blink an eye. So what right have you to complain- you better evolved cousin of the Staphylococcus?
Heelooo! I am just letting you live your worldview.
Not that I care, but I am pretty sure that what you are saying would be considered heretical if it were evaluated by experts on Catholicism. You are saying that the infidels have no rights, much in the same way that your religious fanatic islamist counterparts say about you. You think that my worldview is frightening? Yours is wacko. I didn’t realize until now that you are a quack!
I promised my self that I will not use the word dumb anymore but this post of yours deserve dumb, stupid and idiotic big time.
OF COURSE it is heretical. What I have been writing there is the atheistic world view. What I have been showing you is that IF ATHEISM IS TRUE, THAT IS WHAT YOU GET. ALL THAT UGLINESS that you find so repulsive.
But why do you find it repulsive when you have been proclaiming all over this thread that you are an atheist. These are the perfectly logical conclusions to your atheistic belief.
What I have been writing there is YOUR WORL VIEW. So of course it is heretical. But from your perspective (being atheist and all that) I don’t’ understand why you are complaining because that is your thinking. That is your philosophy. The problem here is that you had a nice tidy idea of atheism and not realizing that the ugliness I have been painting is precisely just that – your world view.
The heresy would be saying that people who do not believe in God are incapable of distinguishing right from wrong. Any priest worth his salt would disabuse you of that misunderstanding. What you have been saying, assuming you are not just being hypothetical, makes you a heretic. Richard Dawkins has a much better sense of right and wrong than you or any other zealot.
You think I am being a heretic because as usual, you are too stupid to understand what I am saying.
I did not say that people who do not believe in God are incapable of distinguishing right from wrong. People who don’t believe in God have no basis for distinguishing right from wrong because if there is no God, there is no right or wrong. Those two statements are different.
The mere fact that people are able to distinguish right from wrong just goes to show that across the board, across different cultures, there is an objective morality that people refer to. If there is no God, there would be no basis for such an objective morality.
Before you reply, it will help if you will at least try to understand first what I am saying.
“You think I am being a heretic because as usual, you are too stupid to understand.”
It’s not worth it for me to keep arguing with you. You think that if there is no God, there is no right or wrong. Fine. As long as you keep believing in God, we should all be able to sleep at night. And I’m the one who doesn’t get it. Fine. Whatever.
No, Bill. I don’t THINK. I KNOW.
If you know otherwise, you would have shown by now how you
can derive morality from random chemical reactions.
Highly illogical. I don’t know how my believing in God will somehow put everyone out like Stillnox.
Quite the contrary. YOU DO GET IT. Your post before show that YOU DO GET IT. So the issue here is not whether you get it or not. As I said before, you know that atheism is poo but you still insist on eating it. So it is not that you do not understand that the belief that you want to cling thing is excrement. It’s that you know it’s excrement but you still want to wallow in
it. THAT is the one the defies comprehension.
You remind me of this show that chronicles people with strange addictions.
See my comment about you being a quack. You need help.
No Bill. You’re the one who needs help. You’re the one who prays when you don’t believe there is a god.More than that you pray the rosary of all things and every chance you get, you
lambast the Church for her doctrines about Mary.
That would be like me saying Mohammad is a false prophet then invoking his intercession. So Bill, you really, seriously need help. Spiritually and psychologically.
If you want to say that I am a hypocrite for practicing Catholicism even though I know it is all imaginary, you have every right to do so. Otherwise, you do need help. I am getting help since it has been traumatic for me to go from a devout Catholic to a confirmed atheist. I see more clearly than you.
And I wonder why that is? Sanity to lunacy is indeed a steep descent.
Actually, you should talk to a secular psychologist. Too much religious extremism is having an adverse effect on your sanity.
I am by no means extremist. If I am an extreme Christian, I would be nicer to you. :-). But I am a work in progress. So do “pray” 🙂 that I become an extreme Christian.
You see, that just shows you the difference between Christians and atheists. Extreme atheists (those who really live out their atheism and are not hypocrites) are the likes of Hitler and Mao and Stalin and Pol Pot. Extreme Christians (those who really live out their Christianity and are not hypocrites ) are the likes of St Francis of Assisi, St Benedict of Nursia, St Therese of Avila, St Therese of Lisieux, Mother Teresa of Calcutta, St Ignatius of Loyola, and so on and so forth.
You are a Catholic extremist and Catholicism is wrong. You can’t be more wrong about reality than that.
No I’m not. But I do aspire to such lofty heights and join the company of the great saints. But sadly, I doubt I will get that extreme.
So what do you aspire to? Live life atheism to the full? You’re halfway there.
If I am going to Boston from my house and I take I-95 north to NH. What I have done is wrong. I have gone the wrong way. Right and wrong is all around us and in everything we do. Why you think there is no right and wrong without God is beyond me. What if a man is wrongfully convicted for a crime he didn’t commit? Are you saying that no wrong has been done if there is no God. What if a blocker holds on a punt return and negates a TD return. Is there no wrong in what he did if there is no God? Get real.
Only because you know the destination is Boston. But what if the destination is not Boston?
So as you can see, we have to know first what is the correct destination. The decision which way to proceed is determined by that.
But for the atheist, there is no destination. So therefore, there is no right and wrong. The atheist answer to the question “Why am I here”, “why do I exist” is nothing. A destination of nothing, has no right or wrong way.
Atheists have goals, hopes, aspirations and moral standards of their own. The concept of right and wrong is well within their grasp. They have no destination in any afterlife but so what?
Which just goes to show how deluded they are.
Please explain how a better evolved dung beetle can have goals and hopes.
I mean how do you extract hopes and goals from a soup of matter and chemical reactions. Seriously, that’s just really like nothing more than bile secretions and you somehow think that you can label that aspirations and hope?
If atheism is true, they no destination period. Everything lofty is only valid in theistic worldview.
Before you pound on those keys, I urge you to please read the above carefully because I can just imagine what stupid conclusions are running in your head right now.
“which just goes to show how deluded they (atheists) are.”
Not if their goals are realistic. My atheist brother’s daughter just got married in a ceremony where God was mentioned once (either inadvertently or for the sake of the groom’s parents). In the ceremony, he stated his hopes for them to have a happy marriage and children of their own. What is wrong with that?
If atheism is true, there would not be such a thing as a goal, let alone a perception of what realistic is.
He may call himself an atheist, but all he is doing is making a statement that is contrary to how he is living his life. In short, being a hypocrite.
If he truly believes in atheism, he would not even be planning, setting goals, etc, etc, because robots do not do that sort of thing. Mere by products of chemical reactions don’t do that sort of thing.
I can see that if I want to find a more rosy picture of a world without God, I will have to look elsewhere. I saw it this weekend at my niece’s wedding. He is most definitely an atheist and totally shatters your whole image of what atheists are.
If by that you mean because he was nice, all that does is simply prove my point that he is a hypocrite.
He professes to be an atheist and yet lives out the theistic life. Lunacy.
However, that is precisely the kind of atheist we want. The hypocrite atheist. Because a faithful atheist would be like Hitler and Mao.
So, it is a blessing that most atheists are hypocrites.
OK. I give. So we have a new category. People who claim to be atheists but who live a good life thereby showing their real colors, which is they are really theists deep down inside. So they are atheist hypocrites just like theists who don’t live good lives are theist hypocrites. Got it.
Do you really?
I doubt that because sometime next week or even tomorrow, you will write a post that show that you don’t get it. That has been your track record so far.
That is the sad thing about you. One moment you seem to get it, till you open your mouth again. Then again, that may just be a case of your memory going so you can’t rememer what you “got” and believed a moment ago.
I was being sarcastic. What I said is what you believe, not what I believe. I was hoping you would see the absurdity of what you are saying by repeating it to you. Dah.
If there is no God there would be no such thing as wrong. If I kill you and torture you it will just be another random chemical process same as what brought about the evolution of the pig. It will be neither wrong nor right. It just is. Just another instance of natural selection.
Eventually natural selection will weed out people like you. If I were looking to hire someone and I managed to read what they say in blogs such as this one, I would not hire you. Eventually, your ideas will be recognized as misguided religious fanaticism and will be replaced with more socially acceptable ideas as people become more aware of the evils of religious extremism.
Okay, fair enough.
Then what are you doing in a religious website?
Because what you call God, I call a higher energetic force in which I participate, am in union with, and communicate with intimately to foster healing. You never seem to understand, my issue is with an anthropomorphic god…do you need me to explain that ideation?
So your God is like Starwars?
Your God is just force? No intelligence, nothing other than force like an electronic field?
But if God is just “force” how do you communicate with Him? Or in your case how do you communicate with IT?
Star Wars is a bit snarky…John 10:34 “Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods”‘?
Energy is intelligence and is consciousness. Anyone who looks and meditates deeply into his self can find God and unite themselves with God. “I am who AM.” Sounds like God and his kingdom is in each of us. I do not define my self by any category.neither does God.;;we are defined by God’s presence in each of us and by the way we express our Christ-consciousness.
Star Wars is a bit snarky? Hey you are the one who said “what you call God, I call a higher energetic force. May the Force be with you?
Oh really? So the power going through your house and enabling me to communicate with you via the internet “IS” intelligence and consciousness?
Can one indeed? But I doubt very much if I meditate enough that I can someone tap into the power that causing my screen to glow and the modem to work. Perhaps you are able to do that?
Yes indeed there is the indwelling of the Trinity. But if this God is merely force, then that aint much. The Atomic Bomb releases energy. The Sun is energy. Should we now be into falling into submission to Ra?
Christ-consciousness? What sort of new-age hogwash is that?
Are we all Christs? If you are saying we are gods. then do walk on water and post it on you tube. And while you are at it, I wouldn’t mind a multiplication of loaves and fishes. And yes, rising from the dead would just about clinch it.
Oh, and one more thing. To say that God is intelligence and consciousness, isn’t that anthromorphism just to the nth degree?
I replied to you with my honest and sincere beliefs..and you consider my beliefs hogwash…quite dismissive, no?
Phil, new-age is hogwash. I know you believe it (and find it very sad that you do) and I am sure some enticing marketer has somehow convinced you of it’s truth. But the reality is, it is hogwash.
They come up with God is energy and all that stuff and if you press them to explain a foundation for it they won’t be able to.
They have sort of married pseudo-science with a bit of Gnosticism, some excerpts from the Bible, merging it with Hinduism and voila you have the ever moving new age soup.
I find it very sad that someone who was a Catholic religious for 8 years has fallen that badly into error. But you’re not alone. So many nuns are into this hogwash. I have attended retreats conducted by nuns which have veered into this false ideas.
How did you come to fall so far? I must say I cannot blame you entirely. The Church has failed in its mission of evangelization and she is now just trying to pick up the pieces.
Let’s see..there’s me…..liberal clergy….the Leadership Conference of Major Women’s Religious Superiors…perhaps Oscar Romero who is being pushed for sainthood (liberation theology)….Pierre Teilllhard de Chardin (oops! liberal Jesuit)…Hans Kung…anyone else on the list ? maybe Muller?
Hmm, I was right then. You sounded very much like the LWCR who have moved beyond Jesus. The stupid thing is they insist on remaining in the Church. They should just pack up and leave. They are worse than Protestants. At least, the Protestants still believe in Christ.
Oscar Romero believed that God is energy? Are you serious? Are you claiming here and now that Oscar Romero is a New-Ager?
Well their writings certainly bordered on the heretical.
But let’s put that aside.
I put several questions to you in my previous post. I actually took apart your post one by one and posted questions there and counter arguments.
How about you think about it and give me a reply. I mean if you believe it, it must be true, musn’t it? So it should pass critical inquiry?
My friend, this is not an inquisition. I am in good company with the people on your “black list.” I want to share my beliefs and not have them picked apart by someone who does not understand them, as I am sure you do not want your beliefs questioned as I have no doubt that you sincerely believe them. I am open to dialogue with you on skype: philip.dzialo….face to face? You appear to believe that a blog is a kumbaya session, I believe it is a forum for exhcange of ideas. Send me a skype request?
If you are in company with those people then you are in terrible company. And no you are not in Oscar Romero’s company. He definitely was not a new-ager.
I doubt very much that you understand them either. You believe them alright but if you ask yourself how there is sacred energy and there is ordinary energy and how come despite having Christ consciousness and being a god you are unable to perform a single miracle (even one that you terribly desire), then does that not give you pause and think hey, this is probably all hogwash.
But I do welcome people questioning Catholicism. That is the only way that you can present the truth about the Catholic faith to them. The good thing about the Catholic faith is it stands up to scrutiny. It is not a hodge podge of science and different beliefs. New-age is only appealing to people because it promises diety on call and does not require anything of them.
Sorry, but I don’t do Skype. My sister has been bugging me to get an account and I refuse. If you are open to dialogue, then why not answer the points I raised?
How so?
Indeed, it is. And I have questioned your ideas.
A proper forum is where ideas get taken apart, exposed and hopefully we arrive at the truth. You seem to have the idea that exchanging ideas is a mere presentation of what you believe and that is that. What purpose will that serve? So you believe God is energy and I believe God is Three Persons in one. So what? The only meaningful exchange is one that attempts to arrive at the truth. Otherwise it is just useless yadda, yadda.
My only offer will be face to face….
And my only mode is Disqus.
If you are sure of your belief, you will not be afraid to explain it here.
I did expect that answer.
Interesting. So therefore, you proposed skype because you knew I would decline. Which means that you really do not want to discuss, it was all pretend.
Very subtle and cunning.
I was thinking about it last night and I thanked God that I did not have skype. The New-age is of the devil so I wondered why were you so insistent that it be face to face? What were you hoping to do? Some of your new-age hocus pocus?
I proposed skype because I believe in face to face dialogue and throwing out random comments repeatedly on a blog. I believe in looking at someone in the eye and having a free flowing conversation. I believe that in looking someone in the eyes, especially when you are a world-view odds, is the honorable thing to do. I also believe that the eyes are windows to the soul….Stop making up stuff. I expected the response because you hide and avoid face to face dialogue and I was hoping and offering an opportunity for you to change your behavior and speak as one man to another in a more real presence. It wasn’t a game…it was an offer to change the dialogue to something more real.
The New Age is not the new age and you know that…many of the practices and beliefs of your so called “New Age” were in existence tens of thousands of years ago, long before the OT was even a dream in someone’s brain. The New Age is really nothing more than Old Age. I am sorry that you refused to step up to the plate, perhaps you should look deeply and deal with you reluctance and fear to face someone whom who vehemently disagree with. Every offer to talk face to face is not made of conspiracy theory.
Sorry, but I don’t buy that because you said that you were expecting my answer. So why would you propose something when you know that I would say No? Rather disingenuous don’t you think?
Posting a well thought out response is hardly repeated random comments. If a comment has to be repeated then that means the other did not get it the first time.
Then why in the world are you in this blog where you can’t see all those people who respond to you? I assume you also comment on other blogs. If face to face is really so important to you, then why post here at all?
Making up what stuff? About the evil behind new age?
I burst out laughing at that one. You were typing that while you post? You have a serious disconnect somewhere.
My behaviour? So your behaviour is so much better? How? You keep forgetting that you yourself are blogging.
I do face to face when I want a tete a tete with friends. This is a discussion forum.
What makes you think this is not real?
The new age is a hodge podge of old paganism, bits and pieces of Christianity, pseudo science and eastern religion. Some of it is new, some old.
That again is hilarious. I must tell my sister that you said that in refusing to skype I am in fact afraid to speak to her face to face.
Let me tell you something about myself. Apart from the fact that I don’t skype, I don’t facebook, tweet, Instagram or do any social media.
I am not into touchy feely stuff. I only care about ideas and the fact that we can arrive at the truth.
I know people around the world that I have met through discussion boards and you know what, none of them ever asked if we could skype. Of the many people I have met in these boards, I am only in email correspondence with three of them.
I am not here to socialize. I am here to discuss.
The one thing different about them though, is that they were willing to write a defence of their beliefs and their views. They are not afraid to put what they believe out there.
Perhaps not. But you are the only one who has ever asked me that in the time that I have been in discussion boards. Every single one was ready to discuss and debate right there on the board.
So if you are for real, then why are you afraid to discuss right here and now on the board.
“Most people do not listen with the intent to understand; they listen with the intent to reply.”
― Stephen R. Covey, The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People: Powerful Lessons in Personal Change
Some people have no intention to discuss but pretend that they do.
-Marc Alcan.
Because what you call God, I call a higher energetic force in which I participate, am in union with, and communicate with intimately to foster healing.
That is interesting. If we use the word “God” for that sort of thing, we become heretics. The problem is that the word is really being used for something else altogether. I prefer to use the Cosmos, Mother Nature, the Force…anything but God.
OK with me, I like Gaia!
I call it the intelligence behind all this that really doesn’t have any other name. I think that is what Carl Sagan had in mind when he called it the Cosmos.
Came across this excellent response. I’m with you.
Ya made my day…I thought I was the only people who was going to burn in hell alone……
I love Marc. He has the orthodoxy down pat. He is a great source for learning the true position of the Church. I responded to one of his comments to you below.
And finally, you actually said something true, sensible and rational.
And if he is just a remnant of evolution, then really his worth is no more than that of a bacteria. And you know what we do to bacteria.
Did I say my son was a remnant of evolution? I said and meant that he survived 25 minutes under water because of a remnant of evolution…the “mammalian diving reflex” ….this is not a miracle but an evolutionary reflex present in lower species and retained by young people. Because we evolved from lower species, many of their survival adaptations are retained in humans and extinguished early in life, first 6 months, ie Moro, ATNR, etc. Thankfully, tghe mammalian diving reflex persists into early teens. Yes, we nurture a relationship with bacteria which can be beneficial..for example, probiotics are taken to supplement gut bacteria which supports the immune system.
If so, then we would expect that everyone should survive 25 minutes under water?
Indeed, as such should really expect nothing more than how we treat bacteria?
Oh boy…. I am a member of several group of parents of non-fatal near drowns. Some children have survived up to 45 minutes under water without O2. It depends upon if the “mammalian diving reflex” kicks in, it depends on the temperature of the water, it depends on the child’s body strength and immunity, it depends if the airway closes upon hitting cold water, it depends of a defib machine is nearby….so given conditions, yes younger children should and do survive. Fall into murky, warm, bacteria infested water and you will last 3 minutes.
Bacteria, right on! Anything treated properly and with respect will thrive…you do know that the bulk of your immune system resides in your gut and immunity is a function of fostering the needed bacteria. We live in a symbiotic relationship with bacteria …
So not all.
Indeed we live in a symbiotic with some types of bacteria.
But we do aim to eliminate the deadly types. So what makes us anymore special than that?
We hardly blink an eye and spare a thought for them when antibiotic kicks in, do we?
Furthermore, why would we need to treat with respect a mere by product of evolution?
Evolution is a process of change, hopefully for the better, not always. For example, our ancestors were quadapeds, we evolved as bipedals so we could adapt better to oue needs i the environment. Evolution, natural selection, survival of the fitest are natural evolutionary process…they do not negate the possibility of a Prime Mover. I treat all aspects of creation with respect; bad bacteria are simply means which have developed to control populations. Scientific principles are not incompatible with higher energetic sources, ie God.
And how do you know that for a fact?
And how do you know that for a fact?
According to the witnesses to Lazarus rising from the dead there is. According to the witnesses of Jesus’ Resurrection there is.
I am not stating facts. I am stating doubts. You are the one trying to state facts.
Perhaps your first statement was worded as a doubt. But the second one says: The stories of this happening are just stories
How do you know they are just stories? How do you know that John did not really see Lazarus get out of the tomb.
Sometimes we have to look at a story and use our own best judgement as to its veracity. I trust my own best judgement over religious dogma and Bible stories.
And what makes you think that you have such a capacity to judge the veracity of a story that happened 2000 years ago in a culture so different from yours?
Your own best judgment? What makes that so special, that it is capable of discerning truth from falsity?
Unless of course, truth does not matter, in which case it boils down to I believe what I choose to believe even if it is false.
There is not a person on this planet who should be required to believe anything told in a story from the past. I am under no obligation to believe anything that I choose not to believe. I choose not to believe anything that is presented as something that must be believed to obtain a reward or avoid a punishment. That is a stupid reason to believe anything. A reason used by way too many people. If something is really true, you don’t have to be seduced and threatened to believe it. You can use your own judgement and decide for yourself whether to believe it or not. What you choose to believe has no impact on whether it is really true or not.
Who said anyone is requiring you to believe a story from the past? But if you are going to pontificate that such a story is false, then you better be prepared with your facts because you just look stupid.
True. But if you are going to open your mouth and claim that it is false, then you better be prepared to back up what you say or else shut up.
I mean, it is obvious that you believe what you choose to believe even when it is false. So why in the world are you even in this board?
And who is threatening you to believe the Gospel?
Are you referring to the the “threat of damnation”?
Well, it is not a threat. After all, according to you, it is up to you what you believe.
How it is playing out is like this.
You’re in a car speeding at 120 mph. Someone is giving you a signal to turn back because the bridge has collapsed. Up to you to believe or not. No one is coercing you to believe either way.
You compare my inability to accept Catholicism to being in a speeding car heading for a cliff. That is not what not accepting someone else’s religion is like at all. The down side of not accepting your religion is just the lack of comfort and consolation that once got me through life. All these other dire consequences are just the kind of nonsense that keeps me from wanting to truly return to the faith that got me through life in the first place. I have no interest in anything eternal. Nor should I.
There is that too. But if the Catholic Faith is true, then there is much more than the occasional existential angst. Much, much, much, more.
It does not matter whether you have any interest in anything eternal. It is a fact. It would be like saying I have no interest in breathing. Heaven and hell does not cease to exist just because you don’t believe in it. Reality does not depend on your belief. That is my point about speeding along a non-existent bridge.
The question I need to ask myself is “despite the bs that attracts so many believers but nauseates me, should I continue my practices based solely on the good that it does for me, my wife and so many others or should I stop going through the motions, say this is bs and give it up. I seem stuck going through the motions.
Firstly, how do you know it is BS?
I mean your knowledge of the faith is so dismal and yet you have the hubris to declare it BS?
Secondly, the options you present are not the only options. There is third one. Study.
But of course, you couldn’t be bothered to do that because that might just prove your beliefs false and you would not be able to handle that. You prefer the bliss of ignorance so you can continue pontificating according to your own deficient beliefs.
It is bs. The more I learn about it, the more bs I see.
Since you are so convinced of that, then prove it. Show where the bs is.
You can’t prove that bs stories are bs. There are many bs stories that you know are bs but can’t prove that they are. Can you prove that UFOs don’t exist? Big Foot? Loch Ness Monster? Do you choose to believe in them because you can’t prove they don’t exist? If those aren’t ridiculous enough, substitute something you know is ridiculous. Can you prove it is?
Where then do you base such knowledge if you have not got one iota of proof?
Well, all these things that you claim to exist are material. So if no one can prove their existence then they don’t exist. It is different with Jesus. The miracles alone prove that. No one dies for a lie. And yet so many were martyred for His sake.
As I said, all these things, you really can find out if you have the desire to know the truth. But you prefer lies.
No one dies for a lie. And yet so many were martyred for His sake.
There is a game changing natural explanation that directly addresses this argument. There was a belief that people chose to hold on to even to the point of persecution, torture and death.
To have a natural explanation for this phenomenon, Jesus had to be wrong about life after death. He could be wrong in that he was just lying about it or he could have been delusional and really believed that and many other things such as the existence of demons and being the Son of God. I’m not saying this is actually so. But it is the only natural explanation other than the whole thing being made up and Jesus not saying any of these things or not even being a real person.
Why did Stephen, the first recognized martyr, die? He believed what he was told and supposedly he had a vision. After that, many others chose the same fate and still do to this very day.
That again is a dumb argument. Would you die for a lie. Would you die for something you know is false? We are talking about people here who saw and heard Jesus after His resurrection. If there is even one iota of doubt about that, you would save your skin.
So what is the natural explanation for Him dying a gruesome death and then being seen alive? And please don’t give me the swoon theory as that has been completely debunked.
If He was lying about being the Son of God, then you cannot given Him credit for anything at all. You either take Him at His word of not at all. If He is not who He is, then He is a bad man, a delusional man. You are therefore saying that Christianity was founded by an accomplice of the father of lies. As Jesus said in refutation of the same charge – a house divided cannot stand.
So what is the natural explanation for Him dying a gruesome death and then being seen alive?
One possible natural explanation is that the people who wrote about the suffering, death and resurrection of Jesus were incorrect. Paul said that Jesus appeared to 500 but his claim can not be verified or dismissed. You either believe him or you don’t. I don’t.
Sorry but that is NOT an explanation. How is it incorrect?
But you are forgetting that there are others who saw them. The Apostles were there. Those who wrote the account were close to the Apostles.
Furthermore, here’s another thing that you have to reconcile in your head. You have been going on and on about how the OT God is evil but the NT God is good.
But how do you know that apart from Jesus being God. Apart from the 2 appearances that the Father makes in the NT, there is only Jesus. So if Jesus is not God, how can you say that the NT God replaces the bad OT God?
Jesus taught about God and that is how we know the God of the New Testament. Not by a couple of cameo appearances.
I can’t argue with you any more about the Resurrection. It is the cornerstone of your faith. The evidence supporting it is sufficient for you. It isn’t for me.
If that is not one of your truly pitiable posts, I do not know what is.
It is the faith that got you through life but you will not return to it because it teaches the reality of heaven and hell?
Sorry, but that is really, really dumb. Even on the utilitarian basis, even as a crutch, that is preferable to the miserable state you are in. But because of your pride, you would rather be miserable than submit to a beautiful and glorious possibility.
I’ve been there so I know how terribly real your situation is… and how very frightening.
Heaven and hell are imaginary. If I know nothing else about religion, I know that eternal life is the sales pitch to get people to buy into religion. It is so obvious. Religion might still have redeeming value so we don’t want to throw out the baby with the bath water.
And how do you know for a fact?
Since you “know” then obviously you have support for this “knowledge”. Okay, I am waiting to hear it.
Yet another dumb statement. If all religions are false, then what possible redeeming value can there be to it. It would be nothing more than LSD.
Even if every unbelievable teaching of the Catholic Church were wrong, it has already proven itself to be indispensable in transforming the Roman Empire into modern Europe and educating millions of children and civilizing the western world. It most definitely has redeeming value even if the Resurrection never really happened. It doesn’t matter now. The contribution has been made by people who believe in the Resurrection and eternal life.
Well duh. If the teachings of the Catholic Church were wrong, there would not be the transformation that happened in Europe. The transformation happened precisely because of the truth of what she teaches.
Look at all the other religions. Did you see them transform cultures?
The transformation that Christianity effected is tightly bound and ground on the faith that the Church preaches.
If the teachings of the Catholic Church were wrong, there would not be the transformation that happened in Europe.
Once the word got out, whether it was true or not, the rest is history. Could the whole of Catholicism have come about without any divine intervention. You say no. I say yes. Belief in the word that got out (Resurrection, etc.) drove the growth of the Church to what it is today.
As I said before that’s a dumb argument for the simple reason that such a development did not happen with other world view and with other religions. It was only possible within Christianity because it is all closely tied to what these people believed.
The Resurrection as an event is precisely the root of everything that was good that happened in Europe. It is precisely because of it’s reality, that we see the development of the Western World.
Just take a look at what happened to societies where atheism was the major belief. Think Russia, China, Cuba, Nazi Germany, etc.
Or think of the Muslim world where progress is dead.
All the other societies who have progressed were societies who have been touched by Christianity in one way or another.
The Resurrection as an event is precisely the root of everything that was good that happened in Europe. .
That could be debated. Actually, if the resurrection occurred but no one believed it, it would not have benefitted.
Regardless of whether it did or did not occur, it was the spreading of the word that it occurred (true or not) that had the beneficial effect on the whole world.
Okay, this really seals your stupidity. That is now a given.
What we are talking about here is the mind blowing even that underpins Christianity.
If the resurrection occurred and there are no Christians we would not be even having this discussion. Surely even you can at least understand that.
You missed the whole point. If the Resurrection truly occurred but no one believed it, you are right, we would not be having this conversation. It is only because people BELIEVED in it. It was the BELIEF in it that has made Christianity what it is today. Once the BELIEF has been established, whether it really happened or not is absolutely irrelevant. Is that so hard for you to comprehend. Stop insulting my mental competence.
And how do you know that it is not true?
The idea of Jesus being the way, the truth and the life has been accepted by many people, including myself until recently. From my perspective, the evidence for this being correct tainted because, from the very beginning, Jesus, himself promised a reward for believing and spreading that belief and a punishment or admonition for not believing or for having doubts.
You look at ideas proposed by people like Newton, Darwin, etc. They don’t reward or praise those who believe or threaten and criticize those who doubt them.
That is the difference between religion and science.
Okay, fair enough. But everyone saw him die a horrible death.
Don’t you think that would have put paid to His capacity to compensate anyone?
I mean, seriously, who believes a dead man who is unable to fulfil a single promise.
Unless of course…. He didn’t remain dead.
Indeed. And the really stupid make a religion out of science.
The story of the death of Jesus was recorded based on information passed on by supposed eyewitnesses. Paul was the first to record it in what was passed on to us. It may have been recorded by others before Paul and not have survived.
You suggest that the writer of the Gospel of John was the apostle John who was present at the execution. You have no other evidence but that gospel. That is insufficient.
According to you. But Scholars actually agree on the historicity of Jesus.
Also, it was not only John who was at the execution, there were many people there since the execution is always a spectacle that the Romans used to bully the population into obedience.
Mark is the companion of Peter and it is believed that his writings are reminiscences of Peter himself.
So again, you are pitting your dismal knowledge against the scholars here.
And even if it were just John that can be brought to bear as evidence, that is still better than your claim that it is just a story because John was close to Jesus’s time than you are so in terms of credibility, your is already shot down even before it got off the ground.
So. I said “supposed” witnesses and you say “actual” witnesses. Neither of us can prove what we are saying.
We can agree to disagree as to whether they are supposed or actual. Saying they are supposed leaves it open to being actual.
Quite the contrary. You definitely can’t, but we can. There is historical data there. We have the testimony of those who were disciples of the apostles. That’s second generation Christians. We have people who were willing to die for their belief.
We have a lot more data for our case than you will ever muster for yours.
Everything you are writing is a byproduct of your terrible, terrible ignorance of the Bible and Christian history. Most of what you know is most likely myth and yet you go about as if these myths that you hold fast to are true.
Actually, I can prove that there were “supposed” witnesses. Saying that something is supposed can be proven. All I have to do is show in the Bible where it says there were witnessed and I prove that there were supposed witnesses. I’m at least giving the possibility that there were witnesses the benefit of the doubt. The evidence that you present does not definitively prove that the story is based on actual testimony of eyewitnesses. The possibility exists that the stories are made up and/or embellished.
Well then, does that not just show how convoluted and irrational your thinking is?
I mean first you make a claim that these are just stories that cannot be believed because that is all they are. And now on another breath, you are saying that there is a possibility that there are witnesses.
You know what your problem is? You don’t know how to sort out the data that you hold in your head.
The evidence I presented is a tiny fraction of the evidence for the historical Jesus but you could not be bothered to find out about that because you would rather believe what you want to believe even though it is false.
Stories can be anywhere from no facts to all facts and everywhere in between. The Bible is a collection of stories. Some may be more factual than others. The problem is that the Bible has been taken way too seriously. Religion also can be taken way too seriously. When it is, people with moderate interests in it get turned off by the zealots and fanatics.
Not in the manner you use them – like fairy tales.
And I suppose you can give a reason as to why it should not be? You are quite wrong. The Bible has not been taken seriously enough even by so called Christians.
If it is true, why should it not be?
That all depends. Those with “moderate” interests could just be lukewarm.
What underpins sound belief is the marriage of faith and reason.
If religion were true, the zealots would be the smartest. But as we see with radical Islam, the zealots show us how f’d up that religion is. Catholic zealots do the same for their religion. The difference is that the position on violence is very different between the two faiths. One preaches nonviolence the other teaches violence. But they are both wrong.
That’s a non-sequitur. Firstly, there are many religions and they can’t all be true. Secondly, believing in something true does not necessarily mean being smart.
And I suppose you can prove that?
Do you believe Islam is wrong? Can you prove it? You basically believe that hundreds of religions are wrong but yours is right. I believe yours is just one more wrong religion.
Depends on about what? Islam is wrong about many things. And yes, I can prove it. But Islam is also right about some things.
Not quite, There are some tenets that are right in other religions. No religion is pure falsehood. But the problem with half lies is that it is precisely the half truths that gives legitimacy to the presence of lies. If something is just outright bad, it would be so obvious. But the fact that the lies are intertwined and buried amongst the truths is what makes it more dangerous.
Islam is wrong about many things. And yes, I can prove it.
This statement defies logic. Logic says that you cannot prove a negative. For example, you cannot prove that the angel Gabriel did not appear to Mohammed and dictate the Quran to him or that he did not fly on a horse to Jerusalem or even that he went to the moon and back long before the Apollo program. Muslims believe the first two. I made up the third. You can’t prove that any of them are false. Even if I tell you I made the third one up. Neither of us can prove it didn’t happen.
Okay, you’re trying to be smart. That is only true if I am indeed trying to prove a negative. Proving that something is wrong is not the same as proving a negative.
And what makes you think that that is what I would have tried to refute about Islam? It’s dumb to even contest that.
Trying to prove a negative and proving that someone is wrong are not the same thing. If I try to prove that there are no gods, angels, demons, heaven, hell, purgatory, etc. I cannot do it. That is trying to prove a negative, i.e., that these things do not exist. You can show me an angel to prove that it exists, but I can’t show you the nonexistence of an angel. That doesn’t mean that angels do exist. I can’t show you the nonexistence of unicorns or any other imaginary thing. It is a logical impossibility.
Bill, have you totally lost your ability to understand?
What did I write? I said: “Okay, you’re trying to be smart. That is only true if I am indeed trying to prove a negative. Proving that something is wrong IS NOT THE SAME AS proving a negative.”
Did you even understand that small sentence?
I’m not talking about YOU trying to prove a negative. I know that you are just trying to prove that I am wrong.
Yes. We did say the same thing and I missed that in my response. We are in agreement. But that is not the point. The point is that when you ask me to prove that God does not exist, you are asking the impossible. Not because God does exist but because it can’t be proven that something does not exist. It can only be proven that it does.
You seem to determine to tie yourself up in knots here, Bill S.First, you dogmatically state that a thing is”not true”, then ask,”did it really happen?”.Are you sure of YOUR position,or not?
I ask if it really happened in a rhetorical manner. I know it didn’t.
I believe it did. Prayin’ for you BillS
You KNOW? Well, shucks, get ready Bill S; you’re about to become the most famous man in the world. You literally possess knowledge no one else has. It’s like claiming that there is no gold anywhere in the soil of China! WOW!!!
I just mean that I know that the account in the Gospel of John where Jesus raises Lazarus from the dead is not true. It was made up by the writer of that gospel. For one thing, it is never mentioned in the other gospels and seems too important to be left out of them if it really happened. It is part of a pitch promising us eternal life if we accept Jesus as the way, the truth and the life.