Atheism-o-phobia Part 2

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
761

[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Magicpunch wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
How about subjecting the material to scientific scrutiny by objective scientists without a preexisting religious bias? For example, the claim that the material is divinely protected from explosive damage is easily tested. Wrap it around a few sticks of dynamite, light the fuse, and see what happens.

Of course, we both know that will never happen.

The same criticism applies to other supernatural claims, like being able to read minds. People appear to have unexplainable psychic abilities, but when you put them in a lab and study their performance under controlled conditions, they are no more accurate than would be expected by chance alone.

I believed there was undeniable, indisputable, rock solid evidence for my religious beliefs back in the day…and now I realize that it was all a crock.

Am I now under a denial bias? Could be, which is why I think the most honest and accurate position toward the supernatural is to say we simply don’t know, and leave it at that. [/quote]

Indifference is for the cats…

Second you want to wrap a stick of dynamite with the clothe to test it, but won’t take in the fact that there was a bomb set off right next to it?[/quote]

You got to this before I could. This is a classic example of the fact that there will never, ever, ever, ever, evereverever be enough evidence for someone to be convinced of something they are dead-set on not being convinced of.

Yeah, I understand it works both ways, but right now we’re talking about this way.
[/quote]

I can see what you’re saying (re: biases) but I think what he was suggested was that the event should be repeatable. But I’m intrigued - these things fascinate me.[/quote]

If we did and the thing came out of the explosion immaculately (harhar), skeptics would offer up their “scientific” explanations for why the cloth was unharmed, because the reason could never, ever, evereverever be that the material really is divine, or divinely protected, or whatever. The game is set up so we won’t win.

Thing is, I’ll say it again, there was a bomb that went off a few feet under the completely unprotected cloth. The marble steps the bomb was placed upon were demolished, the windows of the church and even those of neighboring structures were blown out, the brass crucifix you see above was warped into the shape it is by the force of the blast, and the cloth remained completely unharmed. This story is corroborated by hundreds of people, it’s not some made up fantastical event, it’s not a conspiracy. But the naysayers won’t be happy until we douse the thing with gasoline and set fire to it.

Give me a break.

Could it possibly, just maybe, be that there are still some things that we cannot explain with our current knowledge? That are outside of our ability to experience or measure?

[/quote]

lol you clown…You’re wrongly basing your assumptions and conclusions on the fact the cloth is in actually “divinely protected” - rather than it just coincidental that it didn’t get damaged - What if, simply, the clothe is not grounded and thus has no resistance, such as the metal cross would have - ie. instead of being broken out of shape the clothe flows with the resistance of the opposing force(the bomb) and therefore is not damaged - or maybe it was protected by the floor??? who knows??? But its no reason to call MIRACLE!!!

But of course, this is all here say… no way to tell unless its repeated with some form of reliability and validity (ahh science)
[/quote]

Like I said before there is different ways of having evidence, you can have eye witnesses or you can have science, you can even have both! Why don’t you look into the evidence, instead of just saying that it’s not based on a couple of guys on the internet that don’t own the object anyway. Acting like I’m saying the tapestry in my room is the apparition of the Virgin Mary or something…

762

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
That is very cool my friend. Thanks for posting this.
[/quote]

My pleasure, ZEB! There’s lots more cool stuff surrounding that tilma. Feel free to do some reading on it, you will be even more amazed, I promise.

[/quote]

Here’s what I found with many such things (such as this). If one is really looking for God he will find God. Since God is everywhere it isn’t that difficult for someone to see, feel, hear and know that he is there. But if one wants nothing to do with God suddenly he’s not there. We serve a very awesome God.

763

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Magicpunch wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
How about subjecting the material to scientific scrutiny by objective scientists without a preexisting religious bias? For example, the claim that the material is divinely protected from explosive damage is easily tested. Wrap it around a few sticks of dynamite, light the fuse, and see what happens.

Of course, we both know that will never happen.

The same criticism applies to other supernatural claims, like being able to read minds. People appear to have unexplainable psychic abilities, but when you put them in a lab and study their performance under controlled conditions, they are no more accurate than would be expected by chance alone.

I believed there was undeniable, indisputable, rock solid evidence for my religious beliefs back in the day…and now I realize that it was all a crock.

Am I now under a denial bias? Could be, which is why I think the most honest and accurate position toward the supernatural is to say we simply don’t know, and leave it at that. [/quote]

Indifference is for the cats…

Second you want to wrap a stick of dynamite with the clothe to test it, but won’t take in the fact that there was a bomb set off right next to it?[/quote]

You got to this before I could. This is a classic example of the fact that there will never, ever, ever, ever, evereverever be enough evidence for someone to be convinced of something they are dead-set on not being convinced of.

Yeah, I understand it works both ways, but right now we’re talking about this way.
[/quote]

I can see what you’re saying (re: biases) but I think what he was suggested was that the event should be repeatable. But I’m intrigued - these things fascinate me.[/quote]

If we did and the thing came out of the explosion immaculately (harhar), skeptics would offer up their “scientific” explanations for why the cloth was unharmed, because the reason could never, ever, evereverever be that the material really is divine, or divinely protected, or whatever. The game is set up so we won’t win.

Thing is, I’ll say it again, there was a bomb that went off a few feet under the completely unprotected cloth. The marble steps the bomb was placed upon were demolished, the windows of the church and even those of neighboring structures were blown out, the brass crucifix you see above was warped into the shape it is by the force of the blast, and the cloth remained completely unharmed. This story is corroborated by hundreds of people, it’s not some made up fantastical event, it’s not a conspiracy. But the naysayers won’t be happy until we douse the thing with gasoline and set fire to it.

Give me a break.

Could it possibly, just maybe, be that there are still some things that we cannot explain with our current knowledge? That are outside of our ability to experience or measure?

[/quote]

lol you clown…You’re wrongly basing your assumptions and conclusions on the fact the cloth is in actually “divinely protected” - rather than it just coincidental that it didn’t get damaged - What if, simply, the clothe is not grounded and thus has no resistance, such as the metal cross would have - ie. instead of being broken out of shape the clothe flows with the resistance of the opposing force(the bomb) and therefore is not damaged - or maybe it was protected by the floor??? who knows??? But its no reason to call MIRACLE!!!

But of course, this is all here say… no way to tell unless its repeated with some form of reliability and validity (ahh science)
[/quote]

Like I said before there is different ways of having evidence, you can have eye witnesses or you can have science, you can even have both! Why don’t you look into the evidence, instead of just saying that it’s not based on a couple of guys on the internet that don’t own the object anyway. Acting like I’m saying the tapestry in my room is the apparition of the Virgin Mary or something…[/quote]

My friend and I saw my dog turn into God, told us he created the universe, then turned back into my lil kelpie! - We witnessed it, then wrote a book about it…i can send you through a copy if this is evidence enough for you?

764

980×1608 59.4 KB

Everyone, meet god. God, this is everyone.

Although this sounds stupid - Unfortunately for you, it is no more or less evidentially based than a lot of the text in the bible.

765

when the words of your dog will have changed our history and give birth to a civilization, i may actually consider reading it.

i just hope His Gospel can be translated in French.

766

I have been sleeping through this entire exchange.

To the detractors, you guys really sound pathetic. You have latched onto this bomb thing like it’s some kind of “gotcha!” moment for us, all the while IGNORING the multiple claims of scientific or phenomenal evidence I showed, you’ve twisted it into some sort of tool to strong-arm us into an impossible decision.

Our Lady of Guadalupe (a tilma is the correct word for the cloth, though you can continue to use apron in a derogatory sense and it will continue to make you look petty) is the equivalent of a national treasure. You don’t think we have faith because we won’t wrap it around a stick of dynamite and test it? Who fucking cares what you think? You’d be more than happy to see an object that has given and continues to give hope and happiness to literally millions of people blown to smithereens. You come in here with your sneering, imperious tones claiming superiority. Do you know what you sound like? You sound like assholes.

There are MANY different stories I posted along with the bomb thing that you IGNORED. There have been MANY tests, scientific tests conducted by Christians as well as non-Christians. But you seriously act as if you think we would wrap a national treasure around a stick of dynamite to prove a claim that was never made by a single person here in the first place. Show me where anyone said it was bomb-proof.

You guys really do expose yourself as just as bad, just as overbearing, just as heavy-handed with your “religion” as the worst Christian. You got excited about something and then couldn’t help yourself as you unleashed this slough of mongoloid arguments. Good job.

Finally. Do you know anything at all about the Christian God? If you did, you could assume just as easily as we can that, if his creation was going to treat an object of his with such supreme disrespect, he’d very likely say, well fuck it, then, and let the cloth be blown to smithereens.

Put your own god to the test. I do just fine with the very large body of evidence that I have.

767

[quote]Cortes wrote:
I have been sleeping through this entire exchange.

To the detractors, you guys really sound pathetic. You have latched onto this bomb thing like it’s some kind of “gotcha!” moment for us, all the while IGNORING the multiple claims of scientific or phenomenal evidence I showed, you’ve twisted it into some sort of tool to strong-arm us into an impossible decision.

Our Lady of Guadalupe (a tilma is the correct word for the cloth, though you can continue to use apron in a derogatory sense and it will continue to make you look petty) is the equivalent of a national treasure. You don’t think we have faith because we won’t wrap it around a stick of dynamite and test it? Who fucking cares what you think? You’d be more than happy to see an object that has given and continues to give hope and happiness to literally millions of people blown to smithereens. You come in here with your sneering, imperious tones claiming superiority. Do you know what you sound like? You sound like assholes.

There are MANY different stories I posted along with the bomb thing that you IGNORED. There have been MANY tests, scientific tests conducted by Christians as well as non-Christians. But you seriously act as if you think we would wrap a national treasure around a stick of dynamite to prove a claim that was never made by a single person here in the first place. Show me where anyone said it was bomb-proof.

You guys really do expose yourself as just as bad, just as overbearing, just as heavy-handed with your “religion” as the worst Christian. You got excited about something and then couldn’t help yourself as you unleashed this slough of mongoloid arguments. Good job.

Finally. Do you know anything at all about the Christian God? If you did, you could assume just as easily as we can that, if his creation was going to treat an object of his with such supreme disrespect, he’d very likely say, well fuck it, then, and let the cloth be blown to smithereens.

Put your own god to the test. I do just fine with the very large body of evidence that I have. [/quote]

what ? you still don’t understand - there is no Christian/catholic god - Its all hindu my friend, he’s currently reincarnated as a dog, look up a few posts.

768

[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:

what ? you still don’t understand - there is no Christian/catholic god - Its all hindu my friend, he’s currently reincarnated as a dog, look up a few posts.
[/quote]

Well, you’d better strap a bomb to him and detonate it to be certain.

769

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:

what ? you still don’t understand - there is no Christian/catholic god - Its all hindu my friend, he’s currently reincarnated as a dog, look up a few posts.
[/quote]

Well, you’d better strap a bomb to him and detonate it to be certain.[/quote]

On the phone to Pamela Anderson and PETA

770

[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:

980×1608 59.4 KB

Everyone, meet god. God, this is everyone.

Although this sounds stupid - Unfortunately for you, it is no more or less evidentially based than a lot of the text in the bible. [/quote]

Who says I only go by the Bible? Answer me this, and we’ll continue. Until then it’s just going to be a string of straw man arguments on your part.

771

[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:

what ? you still don’t understand - there is no Christian/catholic god - Its all hindu my friend, he’s currently reincarnated as a dog, look up a few posts.
[/quote]

Well, you’d better strap a bomb to him and detonate it to be certain.[/quote]

On the phone to Pamela Anderson and PETA[/quote]

Pamela Anderson sucked my dick with her saggy silicone tits hanging out of her pink blouse, how about posting an argument that doesn’t have a single fallacy for once.

People gripe on here about how we are “grammar Nazis” and we don’t argue the point, that’s because you can’t argue against a fallacious argument besides pointing it out.

So, if you wish to counter a point, please for the love of your demi-dog learn to create a logical argument. If you can’t ask a fucking question, is it that hard for you?

I am sure if KRS one (a smart man in his own way) knew how bad you argued he would ask you to use something besides his alias as your name. We as Catholics have pointed out to you multiple times that we are not sola scriptura (if you do not know what that means, that means that we have other sacred things we go off of, like Sacred Tradition and the Magistrate) which go deeper into what the Bible says.

The Bible is an infallible and unerring book, but it’s hard as rock to understand. You can’t just crack that motherfucker open and say you understand it (I don’t care what Tirib says). I’ve been reading since I was fourteen. If motherfucking Catholic theologians and scriptural doctors are still arguing over the nuances of the Bible, while they are looking at the original languages, how the fuck do you suspect that you can understand the English text? You can’t.

That is my point, you just make off comments saying stupid shit that makes zero sense. I am a lay person in the Catholic Church.

I understand a shit ton compared to most laity, I’ve studied the Bible, I’ve studied the Summa Theologica, I’ve read the Summa Contra Gentiles (all four volumes), I’ve read and studied the early Fathers, I’ve studied the Desert Fathers, I’ve read the encyclicals, I’ve read the Dogmas put out by the twenty one different councils, I’ve read Saint Bonaventura, I’ve read the Divine Comedies, I’ve read the causal book by different Popes. I’ve even read St. Augustine for fun. I’ve read on and on and on, and continue to read on and on and on. What have you read, parts of the Bible? I’m not an expert on the Bible, and I’ve read the thing four fucking times all the mother fucking way through and this is my second time studying it.

I’m sure you’ve read a few atheists books on debunking the Bible, guess what so have I, and I read the counter arguments as well, and I read the counter arguments for those counter arguments and the commentaries on those. I’ve read the Protestant counter-arguments to the Catholic Church, I’ve read the Islamic counter arguments and the counter arguments to that.

Hell, I just even finished The God Delusion, and I thought for about an hour on it as I did my laundry and I compiled a few dozen counter-arguments and an another few dozen or so fallacies in the book that I picked up with a casual read through. I haven’t even put pen to book page and worked out the details, haven’t even read the counter argument all the way through (The Godless Delusion) to see what the peers say on Dawkins argument against God.

Tell me, what have you read to further your understanding of the Bible? I’ll joyously and patiently wait for your response, hopefully you’ll have stopped drinking long enough and done enough research to put a coherent and logical sentence together besides “you can’t prove it, arghhh one point for atheists” doesn’t cut it.

You make claims, such as you can’t prove anything in the Bible, yet don’t back up your claim when the burden of proof is in your hands.

Balls in your court Jester. Entertain us.

772

Well, Cortes, if I’ve incorrectly inferred that the apron is bomb proof, then I will withdraw the objection to it not being tested.

Brother Chris, you claim the Bible is infallible. Yet there are numerous contradictions and fallacies contained within it (or at least, it appears that way, I’m not a Biblical scholar). No doubt you will say that, like the teachings of Jesus, there are deeper meanings hidden behind more accessible teachings. But one of my fundamental objection is this: if this is truly the word of God, a deity who you claim can see all that will happen in the future, why didn’t he make it clear what he meant with respect to difficult topics like, for example, transubstantiation? Surely he could see the problems it would cause?

773

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:

what ? you still don’t understand - there is no Christian/catholic god - Its all hindu my friend, he’s currently reincarnated as a dog, look up a few posts.
[/quote]

Well, you’d better strap a bomb to him and detonate it to be certain.[/quote]

On the phone to Pamela Anderson and PETA[/quote]

Pamela Anderson sucked my dick with her saggy silicone tits hanging out of her pink blouse, how about posting an argument that doesn’t have a single fallacy for once.

People gripe on here about how we are “grammar Nazis” and we don’t argue the point, that’s because you can’t argue against a fallacious argument besides pointing it out.

So, if you wish to counter a point, please for the love of your demi-dog learn to create a logical argument. If you can’t ask a fucking question, is it that hard for you?

I am sure if KRS one (a smart man in his own way) knew how bad you argued he would ask you to use something besides his alias as your name. We as Catholics have pointed out to you multiple times that we are not sola scriptura (if you do not know what that means, that means that we have other sacred things we go off of, like Sacred Tradition and the Magistrate) which go deeper into what the Bible says.

The Bible is an infallible and unerring book, but it’s hard as rock to understand. You can’t just crack that motherfucker open and say you understand it (I don’t care what Tirib says). I’ve been reading since I was fourteen. If motherfucking Catholic theologians and scriptural doctors are still arguing over the nuances of the Bible, while they are looking at the original languages, how the fuck do you suspect that you can understand the English text? You can’t.

That is my point, you just make off comments saying stupid shit that makes zero sense. I am a lay person in the Catholic Church.

I understand a shit ton compared to most laity, I’ve studied the Bible, I’ve studied the Summa Theologica, I’ve read the Summa Contra Gentiles (all four volumes), I’ve read and studied the early Fathers, I’ve studied the Desert Fathers, I’ve read the encyclicals, I’ve read the Dogmas put out by the twenty one different councils, I’ve read Saint Bonaventura, I’ve read the Divine Comedies, I’ve read the causal book by different Popes. I’ve even read St. Augustine for fun. I’ve read on and on and on, and continue to read on and on and on. What have you read, parts of the Bible? I’m not an expert on the Bible, and I’ve read the thing four fucking times all the mother fucking way through and this is my second time studying it.

I’m sure you’ve read a few atheists books on debunking the Bible, guess what so have I, and I read the counter arguments as well, and I read the counter arguments for those counter arguments and the commentaries on those. I’ve read the Protestant counter-arguments to the Catholic Church, I’ve read the Islamic counter arguments and the counter arguments to that.

Hell, I just even finished The God Delusion, and I thought for about an hour on it as I did my laundry and I compiled a few dozen counter-arguments and an another few dozen or so fallacies in the book that I picked up with a casual read through. I haven’t even put pen to book page and worked out the details, haven’t even read the counter argument all the way through (The Godless Delusion) to see what the peers say on Dawkins argument against God.

Tell me, what have you read to further your understanding of the Bible? I’ll joyously and patiently wait for your response, hopefully you’ll have stopped drinking long enough and done enough research to put a coherent and logical sentence together besides “you can’t prove it, arghhh one point for atheists” doesn’t cut it.

You make claims, such as you can’t prove anything in the Bible, yet don’t back up your claim when the burden of proof is in your hands.

Balls in your court Jester. Entertain us.[/quote]

Why do you expect coherent and logical sentences when you produce what youve just given us…

From what Ive gathered, the “proof” or ideas Ive put forward you haven’t understood (purely judging by your responses or lack there of), Im doubting your education, Im not sure that you understood the kelpie god was a joke, I dont think you know who kris parker is other than your quick google search …and lastly congrats on reading a few books, however what I have or have not read shouldn’t change the validity of the ideas I put forward(given most of them have only been discussing scientific theory).

Id try and get back on topic(i know i know you just like rambling) by discussing the points YOUVE put forward, but i cant remember any…so maybe you go read a few pages back and reply with some coherency and logic!? yeah? sweet. cheers bud.

774

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

You make claims, such as you can’t prove anything in the Bible, yet don’t back up your claim when the burden of proof is in your hands.

.[/quote]

hey hey hey I almost forgot! When the FUNK have I ever said that? I know you love simplicity and taking everything I say out of context but give me a break…

775

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

Who says I only go by the Bible? Answer me this, and we’ll continue. Until then it’s just going to be a string of straw man arguments on your part.[/quote]

You’re HHHHHHHHHHHHHHEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPPPPPSSSS good at jokes. Try disproving my dog is god though…

oo wait DOG turned around it GOD - MIRACLE!!!

776

[quote]forlife wrote:
confirmatory bias.[/quote]

Oh the irony - Seems to me like you made some very big changes in your life based on this.

777

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
Chris, your refusal to allow the apron to be tested tells me that you doubt it is actually bomb-proof. If you actually believed it was protected as Cortes claims, you would not be endangering the apron in the slightest…it’s bomb-proof, remember?
[/quote]

Where did I refuse to let the cloak, which is not an apron, be tested?

So, because I have respect for a religious object, that means I do not believe it is divinely protected?

Because I have more respect for religious objects than that, and I do not needlessly and destructively test God. I really do not care if you believe if it is divinely protected or not. Honestly, I’m not sure why you are asking me all this stuff, because I do not know anything about the object. I do not know the claims about the object. I know of the image because of how close I live to Mexico and the fact that she is the Patron of Americas.

I’m glad you have beef with us religious types, usually means we’re doing something right. Because, even though I know zero about this object, you are throwing your hands up in the air because I think it is unwise to attempt to destroy a religious object. I do not believe in desecrating religious objects, not for science sake, not for anything.

Like I said above, I’m not a utilitarian, the ends do not justify the means.

[quote]
Then again, if it exploded into smithereens, think of the implications for your faith.

How convinced are you that your beliefs are actually based in reality? Are you willing to put those beliefs to the test by letting scientists study the apron? Or would you rather not know? [/quote]

I’m going to ignore this stuff because it’s assumptions, and it’s false dichotomy. [/quote]

But the ends do justify the means for your god! With regards to the problem of evil, that is.

778

[quote]Rational Gaze wrote:
Well, Cortes, if I’ve incorrectly inferred that the apron is bomb proof, then I will withdraw the objection to it not being tested.

Brother Chris, you claim the Bible is infallible. Yet there are numerous contradictions and fallacies contained within it (or at least, it appears that way, I’m not a Biblical scholar). No doubt you will say that, like the teachings of Jesus, there are deeper meanings hidden behind more accessible teachings. But one of my fundamental objection is this: if this is truly the word of God, a deity who you claim can see all that will happen in the future, why didn’t he make it clear what he meant with respect to difficult topics like, for example, transubstantiation? Surely he could see the problems it would cause?[/quote]

I’ve heard the contradiction thing and I’ve explained it to some extent before, but I really don’t need someone to post a laundry list out of some book, I don’t have the time and there are better people for that. So, I’ll just speak on your last point.

The Bible wasn’t created as a whole piece, it was a collection of books that the early witnesses found to be coherent with what they either saw or learned from the witnesses of Jesus Christ. There is context of who the author is, his relationship with his audience, and the time period. On top of that you have the language, the New Testament was written in Greek, and likely Jesus spoke Hebrew and Aramaic. To pick up the Bible now is a little confusing on the readers part. However, most teaching in the early church was not done out of the bible, it most likely to be done orally.

The early Christians understood transubstantiation (even though that word was not used) it wasn’t needed to be explained in paper, they had it down orally. The account in the Gospel, with Christians leaving when Jesus told the Jews to eat his flesh and drink his blood does not explain it directly, but indirectly. Why would someone leave over something that is symbolic, symbolic and parallel to their manna and water? They wouldn’t, however it would be understandable since cannibalism was a no no, that some Jews would take it as Jesus saying they had to be cannibals. Not going to indulge in such behaviors (even though they were mistaken) they left Jesus.

779

[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

Who says I only go by the Bible? Answer me this, and we’ll continue. Until then it’s just going to be a string of straw man arguments on your part.[/quote]

You’re HEAPS good at jokes. Try disproving my dog is god though…

oo wait DOG turned around it GOD - MIRACLE!!![/quote]

See, you still haven’t shown me where I only go by the Bible. No, sorry you are twisted, you claimed your dog is a god, so the burden of proof is in your hands, still again.

780

probably a typo or a lapsus.
not Arabic, but Aramaic.