Today’s stories -
Pro-Abortion Attack
Pedophilia Supporter Speaking In Canada
Legal: Multiple Parents
Catholic’s Forbid Nazi Public Funeral
Earthquake Destroys Ancient Church
Jesus cries every time he sees or hears the name Churchmilitant.
BTW, religious belief is by definition irrational. You can’t have faith without doubt. When these weirdos mention things like logic and reason they are betraying their stupidity because logic and reason belong to rational thought.
If there is a Jesus he does not quit crying
I also do not understand why a religious group would want to use the phrase “ChurchMilitant.”
Whatever floats your boat though wackos.
[quote]H factor wrote:
I also do not understand why a religious group would want to use the phrase “ChurchMilitant.”
Whatever floats your boat though wackos. [/quote]
I don’t think they could have choose a better name. It saves many people the time they would waste watching the video.
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
Jesus cries every time he sees or hears the name Churchmilitant.
BTW, religious belief is by definition irrational. You can’t have faith without doubt. When these weirdos mention things like logic and reason they are betraying their stupidity because logic and reason belong to rational thought. [/quote]
This is nonsensical. You can’t have rational thought without doubt either: if you profess to have it, you have just conceded to blind acceptance yourself. Furthermore, it may be said that theism is in fact rational and is so by putting it in the same epistemological boat as belief that other people have minds. That is not the only way to show the existence of rational theism either. And besides, what you actually meN to say is thT you cannot PROVE God exists beyond a shadow of a doubt. This should go without saying considering both the fact that you cannot prove much of anything beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Didn’t watch the video, but for some reason the pair pictured in the OP reminded me of the pair from God Bless America.
In fairness, the name “church militant” has been around for centuries. It is a theological concept, not just a dumb name for dumb combative youtubers.
In further fairness, the people in these videos are so stupid and so acrid as to approach the earning of the moniker “unchristian.” I didn’t watch this one, but the one I watched and commented on yesterday blew me away. It’s as if these clowns have never picked up a Bible. I would quote a passage from Scripture about what happens to slanderers and shit-talkers–calling someone evil because they’ve said that it is Christian to love everyone is certainly slanderous–but there are too many to choose from.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
In fairness, the name “church militant” has been around for centuries. It is a theological concept, not just a dumb name for dumb combative youtubers.
In further fairness, the people in these videos are so stupid and so acrid as to approach the earning of the moniker “unchristian.” I didn’t watch this one, but the one I watched and commented on yesterday blew me away. It’s as if these clowns have never picked up a Bible. I would quote a passage from Scripture about what happens to slanderers and shit-talkers–calling someone evil because they’ve said that it is Christian to love everyone is certainly slanderous–but there are too many to choose from.[/quote]
Very good call on both points. The Church militant is an old old concept, but putting that term together with this sort of presentation may not be the greatest idea they’ve ever had if the hope is to achieve clarity on the concept of “church militant”. It gives a bad taste to people who’s entire prior experience with “religion” and “military” = “terrorism” or “crazy jihadist” or even “theocratic government” and it’s not unsurprising most of them are not aware of the term’s historical context. The thing practically BEGS to be mistaken.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
Jesus cries every time he sees or hears the name Churchmilitant.
BTW, religious belief is by definition irrational. You can’t have faith without doubt. When these weirdos mention things like logic and reason they are betraying their stupidity because logic and reason belong to rational thought. [/quote]
This is nonsensical. You can’t have rational thought without doubt either: if you profess to have it, you have just conceded to blind acceptance yourself. Furthermore, it may be said that theism is in fact rational and is so by putting it in the same epistemological boat as belief that other people have minds. That is not the only way to show the existence of rational theism either. And besides, what you actually meN to say is thT you cannot PROVE God exists beyond a shadow of a doubt. This should go without saying considering both the fact that you cannot prove much of anything beyond a shadow of a doubt.[/quote]
It’s not about proof of existence. You can’t explain God in scientific terms. There may be things that cannot be proven beyond a shadow of doubt but they can still be explained by science. It’s about methodology not whether it is right or wrong. My comment about doubt was not directed toward rational or irrational thought but toward faith hence the fact it was a separate sentence.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
In fairness, the name “church militant” has been around for centuries. It is a theological concept, not just a dumb name for dumb combative youtubers.
[/quote]
Which is why I wrote ChurchMilitant referring to these wackos instead of Church militant. They have co-opted the term and distorted its original meaning.
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
In fairness, the name “church militant” has been around for centuries. It is a theological concept, not just a dumb name for dumb combative youtubers.
[/quote]
Which is why I wrote ChurchMilitant referring to these wackos instead of Church militant. They have co-opted the term and distorted its original meaning. [/quote]
Gotcha.
Either way, these people suck. Hard.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
In fairness, the name “church militant” has been around for centuries. It is a theological concept, not just a dumb name for dumb combative youtubers.
[/quote]
Which is why I wrote ChurchMilitant referring to these wackos instead of Church militant. They have co-opted the term and distorted its original meaning. [/quote]
Gotcha.
Either way, these people suck. Hard.[/quote]
Or they don’t suck hard, and often, enough.
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
Jesus cries every time he sees or hears the name Churchmilitant.
BTW, religious belief is by definition irrational. You can’t have faith without doubt. When these weirdos mention things like logic and reason they are betraying their stupidity because logic and reason belong to rational thought. [/quote]
This is nonsensical. You can’t have rational thought without doubt either: if you profess to have it, you have just conceded to blind acceptance yourself. Furthermore, it may be said that theism is in fact rational and is so by putting it in the same epistemological boat as belief that other people have minds. That is not the only way to show the existence of rational theism either. And besides, what you actually meN to say is thT you cannot PROVE God exists beyond a shadow of a doubt. This should go without saying considering both the fact that you cannot prove much of anything beyond a shadow of a doubt.[/quote]
It’s not about proof of existence. You can’t explain God in scientific terms. There may be things that cannot be proven beyond a shadow of doubt but they can still be explained by science. It’s about methodology not whether it is right or wrong. My comment about doubt was not directed toward rational or irrational thought but toward faith hence the fact it was a separate sentence. [/quote]
You’re misunderstanding. I am saying that you can successfully argue that faith CAN BE (not necessarily that any particular person’s faith IS) rational.
There are a number of things we can’t explain in scientific terms, as you put it, which a lot of very brilliant people put weight to. There are also things which ARE explainable by scientific terms that many brilliant people don’t put any stock into at all–I was at a lecture by a Nobel Laureate of chemistry, who quite clearly didn’t believe in global warming at all. Of course he stopped short of talking about it in the lecture so as to avoid being all controversial, but his implications were quite thinly veiled and it was quite obvious to anybody who had met him (had lunch with him).
When you said “religious belief is by definition irrational. You can’t have faith without doubt.” I am assuming you meant can’t have faith WITH doubt–otherwise it means nothing because you can’t have rational thought without some doubt either and you have not clearly differentiated between them on those bounds. In any case, even if that was a typo it is still nonsensical and untenable–there is no prerequisite to faith that says you can’t doubt.
Regardless, there is a mathematically impossibility in science–however advanced in this century or the next 10–being able to explain everything in the universe. To make decisions in that arena is not de facto irrational.
That chick anchor just looks like she’s unhappy to be there. Who pissed in her Cheerios I wonder? The guy reminds me of the teacher from South Park for some reason. Just looking at him I can hear that voice “mmkay?”
Faith without doubt is fundamentalism. When you go from “I believe” to " I know" you no longer have faith. You can have doubt and still be rational. You can doubt the Theory of Relativity but you can, and may have to, defend that doubt using a rational argument. You can’t do the same with God. You could even argue that you shouldn’t even try.
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
Faith without doubt is fundamentalism. When you go from “I believe” to " I know" you no longer have faith. You can have doubt and still be rational. You can doubt the Theory of Relativity but you can, and may have to, defend that doubt using a rational argument. You can’t do the same with God. You could even argue that you shouldn’t even try.
[/quote]
You can’t defend the existence of God with a rational argument? Of course you can. It’s just that it’s philosophical in nature. Which, incidentally, doesn’t make it less rational than empirical methodology. They answer two different sets of questions, and in any case philosophy is the father of all sciences.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
Faith without doubt is fundamentalism. When you go from “I believe” to " I know" you no longer have faith. You can have doubt and still be rational. You can doubt the Theory of Relativity but you can, and may have to, defend that doubt using a rational argument. You can’t do the same with God. You could even argue that you shouldn’t even try.
[/quote]
You can’t defend the existence of God with a rational argument? Of course you can. It’s just that it’s philosophical in nature. Which, incidentally, doesn’t make it less rational than empirical methodology. They answer two different sets of questions, and in any case philosophy is the father of all sciences.[/quote]
In my opinion, all theism and all atheism ends irrationally. That is, with something that it is beyond the finite human mind to comprehend. Perfection, atemporality, the infinite regress, uncaused causes: it all ends somewhere that is not truly comprehensible. Existence itself,in this way, is not truly comprehensible.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
Faith without doubt is fundamentalism. When you go from “I believe” to " I know" you no longer have faith. You can have doubt and still be rational. You can doubt the Theory of Relativity but you can, and may have to, defend that doubt using a rational argument. You can’t do the same with God. You could even argue that you shouldn’t even try.
[/quote]
You can’t defend the existence of God with a rational argument? Of course you can. It’s just that it’s philosophical in nature. Which, incidentally, doesn’t make it less rational than empirical methodology. They answer two different sets of questions, and in any case philosophy is the father of all sciences.[/quote]
Well, maybe you can but it won’t be a very good argument. All of the ones I have read may have been good at the time (long ago) but science ended up making them look silly. I don’t think anything that begins with, “God exists because…,” will, at its core, be rational.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
In my opinion, all theism and all atheism ends irrationally. That is, with something that it is beyond the finite human mind to comprehend. Perfection, atemporality, the infinite regress, uncaused causes: it all ends somewhere that is not truly comprehensible. Existence itself,in this way, is not truly comprehensible.[/quote]
What do you mean by atheism? The absence of belief or a belief in the absence of belief?