Atheism-o-phobia Part 2

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
so what you’re saying is because I’m religious…I do not question? Isn’t that some kind of logical fallacy as well?[/quote]

You’re less likely to question.[/quote]

I would have to claim here that depends on the individual person. I saw how my mother was persuaded by any Dick and Jane argument. She was a Catholic in name, but I never saw her go to Church and half the time she acted like an atheist and the other half like a blood sucking protestant. I also see people around me that change their stance every other week. It seemed ridiculous to be persuaded by such arguments. My mother is on one spectrum, somethings she would never question, other things she would not question but change her mind on every few weeks. The other people are on the other spectrum, they have no solid believes (wrong or right) and change their minds every week. Neither question.

I didn’t want to be a person that did such foolish things, so I will accept a dogma from the Church for logistics sake, and figure out what it actually means, look at both sides of the argument. It took me over four years to figure out if the Catholic Church was Jesus’ Church. I read history book after history book (which I found out after reading all those books that history books really aren’t that “unbiased”) until I came across some papers wrote by Ignatius of Antioch (who died in 110 AD and knew one of the 12 Apostles personally) where he talked about the Traditions of the Church and actually called the Church the Catholic Church. After that, I reconciled all things I had found and five months later decided the Catholic Church was in fact the Church of Jesus and the Jewish prophecies.

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
The beginning (and end) of the Abolition movement in slavery era America:

Slavery is immoral!

No sir, you have it wrong. You see, morality is relative. Presently it is moral to own and work slaves. And, it can remain moral from here to eternity. In fact, it can only become immoral in the future if you succeed in changing our customs today. So, if slavery today is as moral as anti-slavery of the future, why put yourself through the trouble?

[/quote]
[/quote]

Yes, wearing fashionable leather outfits is not against morality. Good argument.

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Yes, I read much, read 3-4 hours a day. Not sure what you’re getting at, or is this another ad hominem. You can refute a bunch of stuff in the Protestant Bibles, I would guess if you pick up a Protestant Bible there is about 2000 mistakes. However, never came across one in the Catholic Bible (with the right credentials).[/quote]

We get it, you’re a Catholic groupie. Go hit on a Pastor and calm the fuck down.[/quote]

Catholic groupie…because I don’t have the time to search the entire bible and all books that my have something to refute in the Bible I am now a Catholic groupie and a homosexual. Awesome.

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:
Why is it on these religion threads, we always start with one topic (i.e. do people fear atheists) and end up debating: A) The existence of God B) Evolution vs. Creation or C) Can you prove the Bible[/quote]

Not sure.[/quote]

Because when Atheist try to explain what it is that forms their worldview, Christians get butthurt and have to make it about them.[/quote]

Well, I would like to read your worldview. I came in late and saw in correct arguments.

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

In the case of the Bible, though, the central premises are so outlandish that there really is no burden to disprove them. Whereas, there certainly is a burden of proof upon its proponents.

[/quote]

LOL, very transparent way to try to get out of proving the Bible is wrong. If you’re not up to proving that the Bible is wrong why don’t you go ahead and explain electricity, nuclear science, quantum physics and brain surgery to me. Some think that those things are so outlandish that they can’t be real. At least the ignorant think that way.
[/quote]

The difference between electricity, nuclear science, quantum physics and brain surgery and the central claims of the Bible is that electricity, nuclear science, quantum physics and brain surgery all have results and/or evidence of their existence or efficacy that can be observed, tested and repeated.

If you came to me and said, “Look. I have this evidence here in my possession that there was once a guy named Jesus who was the son of God, and he died, was later resurrected, and now lives in this awesome place called Heaven. By the way, you can be observe my evidence, and it will stand up to rigorous testing… not only that, but I can show you how to repeat the process by which I came to possess this evidence.”

… well, then you would have something. And, the burden of disproving your evidence would be upon me.

As it stands, no one - that’s NO PERSON EVER IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD - has offered anything amounting to concrete evidence of the central claims of the Bible. This is why there is absolutely no reason for anyone to ever have to waste time disproving these claims.

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
Brother Chris,

Do me a favor. The next time you take mass, save some stool samples for the next few days. I will gladly pay to have them analyzed.

If upon examination of your stool sample, it is evident that you consumed human flesh, I will immediately convert… no lie. I will immediately convert to catholicism. [/quote]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation[/quote]

Yes… that is exactly why it is so funny… a classic example of religion attempting to substantiate one of its more absurd claims. [/quote]

Well, we all can’t be of the Darwinian dead of Scienatheiology. Someone has to build families and propagate the species. [/quote]

I’m not sure what this - “Darwinian dead of Scienatheiology” - means… But, I’ve done my part. I’ve got two sons, so there’s a pretty good chance that my genes will persist.

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
Natural selection
[/quote]

Evolution or Darwinism?

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
Natural selection
[/quote]

Evolution or Darwinism?[/quote]

What are you getting at here?

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
Brother Chris,

Do me a favor. The next time you take mass, save some stool samples for the next few days. I will gladly pay to have them analyzed.

If upon examination of your stool sample, it is evident that you consumed human flesh, I will immediately convert… no lie. I will immediately convert to catholicism. [/quote]

It is called transubstantiation, not transformation – or whatever you’re talking about. It is still in the form of a wafer and wine, however the substance of the wine and wafer has wholly changed into that of Jesus Christ.

I read it wrong…my bad.

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

In the case of the Bible, though, the central premises are so outlandish that there really is no burden to disprove them. Whereas, there certainly is a burden of proof upon its proponents.

[/quote]

LOL, very transparent way to try to get out of proving the Bible is wrong. If you’re not up to proving that the Bible is wrong why don’t you go ahead and explain electricity, nuclear science, quantum physics and brain surgery to me. Some think that those things are so outlandish that they can’t be real. At least the ignorant think that way.
[/quote]

The difference between electricity, nuclear science, quantum physics and brain surgery and the central claims of the Bible is that electricity, nuclear science, quantum physics and brain surgery all have results and/or evidence of their existence or efficacy that can be observed, tested and repeated.

If you came to me and said, “Look. I have this evidence here in my possession that there was once a guy named Jesus who was the son of God, and he died, was later resurrected, and now lives in this awesome place called Heaven. By the way, you can be observe my evidence, and it will stand up to rigorous testing… not only that, but I can show you how to repeat the process by which I came to possess this evidence.”

… well, then you would have something. And, the burden of disproving your evidence would be upon me.

As it stands, no one - that’s NO PERSON EVER IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD - has offered anything amounting to concrete evidence of the central claims of the Bible. This is why there is absolutely no reason for anyone to ever have to waste time disproving these claims.
[/quote]

Wait…what? So, what you’re saying is all that archeology and all those historians don’t matter? Are you comparing history to a lab experiment? What, do you want to chemically orchestrate history in a lab or something? And…I am guessing from your above paragraph that you don’t believe logical to be a science?

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
perfect results[/quote]

How do we know what the perfect result is supposed to be? And, I am not sure how Natural Law is supposed to do anything, they are Laws not Judges. NL is not Karma, it doesn’t come back to bite you in the ass just because you break Natural Law. Well, something bad may happen to you, but it isn’t NL that did it.[/quote]

What in the world are you talking about? Seriously.

Who said anything about “Natural Law?”

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

In the case of the Bible, though, the central premises are so outlandish that there really is no burden to disprove them. Whereas, there certainly is a burden of proof upon its proponents.

[/quote]

LOL, very transparent way to try to get out of proving the Bible is wrong. If you’re not up to proving that the Bible is wrong why don’t you go ahead and explain electricity, nuclear science, quantum physics and brain surgery to me. Some think that those things are so outlandish that they can’t be real. At least the ignorant think that way.
[/quote]

The difference between electricity, nuclear science, quantum physics and brain surgery and the central claims of the Bible is that electricity, nuclear science, quantum physics and brain surgery all have results and/or evidence of their existence or efficacy that can be observed, tested and repeated.

If you came to me and said, “Look. I have this evidence here in my possession that there was once a guy named Jesus who was the son of God, and he died, was later resurrected, and now lives in this awesome place called Heaven. By the way, you can be observe my evidence, and it will stand up to rigorous testing… not only that, but I can show you how to repeat the process by which I came to possess this evidence.”

… well, then you would have something. And, the burden of disproving your evidence would be upon me.

As it stands, no one - that’s NO PERSON EVER IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD - has offered anything amounting to concrete evidence of the central claims of the Bible. This is why there is absolutely no reason for anyone to ever have to waste time disproving these claims.
[/quote]

Wait…what? So, what you’re saying is all that archeology and all those historians don’t matter? Are you comparing history to a lab experiment? What, do you want to chemically orchestrate history in a lab or something? And…I am guessing from your above paragraph that you don’t believe logical to be a science?[/quote]

I am saying that NOBODY, EVER has proven that there once lived a guy named Jesus, who was the son of God, who was killed on a cross and subsequently resurrected, and who now lives in a wonderful place called Heaven. Nor has anyone ever proven that a place called Heaven exists, or that a place called Hell exists… or any of the other outlandish claims of the Bible.

And, no. Logic is not a science. It a tool that can be employed by science.

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
perfect results[/quote]

How do we know what the perfect result is supposed to be? And, I am not sure how Natural Law is supposed to do anything, they are Laws not Judges. NL is not Karma, it doesn’t come back to bite you in the ass just because you break Natural Law. Well, something bad may happen to you, but it isn’t NL that did it.[/quote]

Natural law via evolutionary processes can give us the facilities to decide right and wrong and derive an unchanging morality for our species.

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
Brother Chris,

Do me a favor. The next time you take mass, save some stool samples for the next few days. I will gladly pay to have them analyzed.

If upon examination of your stool sample, it is evident that you consumed human flesh, I will immediately convert… no lie. I will immediately convert to catholicism. [/quote]

It is called transubstantiation, not transformation – or whatever you’re talking about. It is still in the form of a wafer and wine, however the substance of the wine and wafer has wholly changed into that of Jesus Christ.[/quote]

Oh, man… I love the transubstantiation argument.

Okay, now… define “substance.”

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
perfect results[/quote]

How do we know what the perfect result is supposed to be? And, I am not sure how Natural Law is supposed to do anything, they are Laws not Judges. NL is not Karma, it doesn’t come back to bite you in the ass just because you break Natural Law. Well, something bad may happen to you, but it isn’t NL that did it.[/quote]

Natural law via evolutionary processes can give us the facilities to decide right and wrong and derive an unchanging morality for our species. [/quote]

What is this “Natural Law” of which you speak?

The nature of the physical universe as opposed to religion or metaphysics.

Okay… Are we talking about a unification theory or just using the term as a broad brush for the various governing forces of the universe?

A ‘broad brush’ as you put it.