Cured of Catholicism

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Interestingly Hitler faced the same problem in WWII and used diplomacy to overcome it - ie the alliance with Stalin.[/quote]

Yeah, but only kind of.

They divided Poland and initially, the idea was that he would throw everything at the Western front while only leaving two divisions to protect the East and Stalin was stacking up troops on the Polish border which is why the German forces rounded up so many of them during their initial strike.

Now there were plans to let Europe bleed out and then roll it up like a carpet on the Sowjet side but military strategists like to make plans for every eventuality…

Its really hard to say whether they both were playing each other and Hitler was faster on the draw or if that pact would have held. [/quote]

Yes. Everyone forgets about the implicit agreements of the Molotovâ??Ribbentrop Pact. I don’t believe Stalin had betrayal in mind, as he was nearly catatonic in the wake of Operation Barbarossa.

62

[quote]orion wrote:

Its really hard to say whether they both were playing each other and Hitler was faster on the draw or if that pact would have held. [/quote]

Granted, we have no way of knowing for sure, but it seems historically evident that the two had competing aims for parts of eastern Europe. Stalin was scared of Hitler to some extent, and the rise of Nazism was predicated, in part, on a disdain for communism. Assuming the war’s outcome had been different, I think there is a good possibility their union would not have lasted much longer.

63

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Iraq’s problems are directly linked to religion
http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1167476,00.html

Russia , the jury is out

http://www.uscirf.gov/news-room/press-releases/russia-expanding-net-intolerance

I can see the common thread you refer to , I think it is part of the problem too but I think for different reasons [/quote]

If you look at the history of war, the vast, vast majority are not religious in nature, nor had anything to do with religion.
The main reasons for wars are: Land, Power, Money. Even many of the so-called religious wars, had the veneer of religion to cover up what is essentially a power grab or land grab.[/quote]

I did not blame religion for every war , I blame religion for many wars , for religious intolerance , for basically imposing their will on others and castigating anyone that opposes or differs in opinion
[/quote]

Isn’t religious intolerance what you are displaying here?[/quote]

I am intolerant of any one that is intolerant of others (for no reason)

I personally accept every one’s right to believe what ever they like . Just so it does not interfere with some one else’s rights

64

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Iraq’s problems are directly linked to religion
http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1167476,00.html

Russia , the jury is out

http://www.uscirf.gov/news-room/press-releases/russia-expanding-net-intolerance

I can see the common thread you refer to , I think it is part of the problem too but I think for different reasons [/quote]

If you look at the history of war, the vast, vast majority are not religious in nature, nor had anything to do with religion.
The main reasons for wars are: Land, Power, Money. Even many of the so-called religious wars, had the veneer of religion to cover up what is essentially a power grab or land grab.[/quote]

I did not blame religion for every war , I blame religion for many wars , for religious intolerance , for basically imposing their will on others and castigating anyone that opposes or differs in opinion
[/quote]

Isn’t religious intolerance what you are displaying here?[/quote]

I am intolerant of any one that is intolerant of others (for no reason)

I personally accept every one’s right to believe what ever they like . Just so it does not interfere with some one else’s rights
[/quote]

I think you assume intolerance before any is displayed based on stereotypes. Well, ya do.

65

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
It took many years and a lot of wicked people in 3 local catholic churches but I am truly done with this church. All I want now is to be excommunicated and all record of my ever being involved with these people to be put into the dustbin.

Does anyone know a shortcut of how to obtain excommunication? Knowing what I know, I’d probably have to pay a large bribe in order to get this and I certainly don’t want to give these people any more money, that’s for sure. Any way to force them to do this?[/quote]

Join the mafia. Get a direct excommunication from the Pontifex.

66

I’m not closed minded, my belief is based on evidence, there is no evidence of any god that any ancient civilisation thought up. The opinion that there is a magical invisible creature that can create a whole universe via telekinesis is hilarious, it is also worrying though that atheists are in the minority across the world which suggests pretty bad progress in logic and reason as a species.

67

[quote]PJS2010 wrote:
thought up. [/quote]

You mean actually personified in human flesh? And, the evidence for Jesus being God is there, just because you are closed minded doesn’t mean that there is no evidence, especially since you have not even looked at the evidence.

68

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]PJS2010 wrote:
thought up. [/quote]

You mean actually personified in human flesh? And, the evidence for Jesus being God is there, just because you are closed minded doesn’t mean that there is no evidence, especially since you have not even looked at the evidence.[/quote]

I’m not saying a guy called Jesus didnt exist but what is the evidence of him being a god? I’d like to have a look at it please.

69

I’m laughing that you say this:

[quote]PJS2010 wrote:
I’m not closed minded,[/quote]

And then go on to post a very close minded rationalization of how you can say one thing, yet actually be the opposite.

Now… An actually open minded individual would say something along the lines of:

“If there is a God, everything is evidence of that God. All the gathering of evidence (science if you will) is just human exploration and an attempt to understand the work of this God. If there is no God…”

This being “hilarious” implies you tend to look down upon, or laugh at those that believe in an omnipotent being.

Contempt for other people’s perspective isn’t really the hallmark of open mindedness. Particularly when you don’t frame their perspective with intellectual integrity, which you largely haven’t yet in this post.

The words you’ve used here can easily be taken as insulting, belittling and generally condescending. There is nothing, and I repeat not a single thing, wrong with that, except you claimed you were open minded. That type of language isn’t typical when one is actually open minded.

This implies that you have made the value judgment that your and only your perspective is the correct one. And that anyone that disagrees with you is in some way shape or form, actually retarding the advancement of the entire species.

Open minded people don’t think like that.

Just lol. If you aren’t religious, fine. If you want to argue your stance that God is a myth, fine. But don’t delude yourself into thinking you are “open minded” because based on this post, you aren’t. In reality, you’re just as dogmatic as those you hold in contempt for being dogmatic. You just hold a different perspective. And there is nothing wrong with being dogmatic, if you understand you are that way.

70

[quote]PJS2010 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]PJS2010 wrote:
thought up. [/quote]

You mean actually personified in human flesh? And, the evidence for Jesus being God is there, just because you are closed minded doesn’t mean that there is no evidence, especially since you have not even looked at the evidence.[/quote]

I’m not saying a guy called Jesus didnt exist but what is the evidence of him being a god? I’d like to have a look at it please.[/quote]

there is plenty of evidence. It’s whether you’re willing to go beyond the usual arguments of “all the writing is fake and hundreds of years older than the events”. It’s actually quite fascinating when you do some research on great minds who have set out to prove everything false and to show the inconsistencies, yet they become true believers themselves.

71

[quote]Zen Taco wrote:

[quote]PJS2010 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]PJS2010 wrote:
thought up. [/quote]

You mean actually personified in human flesh? And, the evidence for Jesus being God is there, just because you are closed minded doesn’t mean that there is no evidence, especially since you have not even looked at the evidence.[/quote]

I’m not saying a guy called Jesus didnt exist but what is the evidence of him being a god? I’d like to have a look at it please.[/quote]

there is plenty of evidence. It’s whether you’re willing to go beyond the usual arguments of “all the writing is fake and hundreds of years older than the events”. It’s actually quite fascinating when you do some research on great minds who have set out to prove everything false and to show the inconsistencies, yet they become true believers themselves.
[/quote]

Okay, so go ahead and lay all of this evidence on us. I’d like to see the evidence you speak of for a personal god.

72

Notice I said the word research. You have a habit of professing your undying belief that there is no God in just about every thread you respond to. So I’m not going to waste my time and effort giving my years of research to someone who has absolutely no interest in it, but is looking for a reason to argue. That being said, if you truly are interested, I want you to do something first: Take some time and read “Evidence Demands A Verdict” by James Mcdowell. Look up Sir Lionel Luckhoo as well as Lee Strobel and sir William Ramsay. I assure you, these men are no slouches, came from atheistic backgrounds and are well-versed in the world of apologetics, archeology and history (some might even say more so than you yourself…). To say that their expert opinion in these fields means nothing is to really show that you don’t have an interest in finding whether or not its true, but to support your presupposition. (which we all do, this isn’t just you, but all of us. But it’s the person who is willing to humble themselves for a few moments and look to understand what the evidence from both sides truly means that can have a productive discussion with other people on a testy topic such as this.)

73

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
Okay, so go ahead and lay all of this evidence on us. I’d like to see the evidence you speak of for a personal god.
[/quote]

Salma Hayek prayed for huge boobs.

74

[quote]Zen Taco wrote:
Notice I said the word research. You have a habit of professing your undying belief that there is no God in just about every thread you respond to. So I’m not going to waste my time and effort giving my years of research to someone who has absolutely no interest in it, but is looking for a reason to argue.[/quote]

Not sure if this is avoidance, laziness, or both. You wasted your time proffessing the existence of real proof, for the existence of a prsonal god, so get on it. Just provide the proof already. You’re making the claim, you provide the proof.

This “I won’t waste my time” BS is weak and sad.

[quote]Zen Taco wrote:
That being said, if you truly are interested, I want you to do something first: Take some time and read “Evidence Demands A Verdict” by James Mcdowell. Look up Sir Lionel Luckhoo as well as Lee Strobel and sir William Ramsay. I assure you, these men are no slouches, came from atheistic backgrounds and are well-versed in the world of apologetics, archeology and history (some might even say more so than you yourself…). To say that their expert opinion in these fields means nothing is to really show that you don’t have an interest in finding whether or not its true, but to support your presupposition. (which we all do, this isn’t just you, but all of us. But it’s the person who is willing to humble themselves for a few moments and look to understand what the evidence from both sides truly means that can have a productive discussion with other people on a testy topic such as this.)[/quote]

LOL…All I’m asking, is for the evidence you claimed to have. I assure you, if I was provided with REAL evidence for the existence of ANY of the gods, my life would be immediately changed. Real proof. Here’s your chance to be a fisher of men; go ahead and haul me into your ship of faith with your net of solid evidence.

You keep talking about humbly evaluating evidence, so why don’t you humbly provide it? You say it’s easy, so just get to it. Humbly provide it, and I will humbly evaluae it.

Simple.

As.

That.

75

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
Here’s your chance to be a fisher of men; go ahead and haul me into your ship of faith with your net of solid evidence.

[/quote]

sigh…

Again, if there is a God, all of everything is the evidence.

On top of the fact dude gave you a reading list so… I would say that constitutes holding up his end of the bargain no?

76

i already provided some sources, but you did exactly what i thought you would. If you were interested in me being a fisher of men, you would have read the resources I gave you. But you didn’t. You stated I was weak or lazy in not being goaded into spending a lot of time to begin to write down evidence and research that has been done on the subject. The thing is, is that i DID provide some of my evidence. You didn’t want it.

If Sir Lionel Luckhoo (the greatest lawyer of all time, 245 consecutive cases won) can be turned from atheist to follower after pouring over the evidence of the resurrection in a law fashion, then there must be something there. That’s a taste of the information. I am not going to take several hours to post what my research has found, because I already know your response.

77

[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
Okay, so go ahead and lay all of this evidence on us. I’d like to see the evidence you speak of for a personal god.
[/quote]

Salma Hayek prayed for huge boobs.

That’s enough proof for me!

78

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
Here’s your chance to be a fisher of men; go ahead and haul me into your ship of faith with your net of solid evidence.

[/quote]

sigh…

Again, if there is a God, all of everything is the evidence.[/quote]

C’mon, really?

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
On top of the fact dude gave you a reading list so… I would say that constitutes holding up his end of the bargain no? [/quote]

No, a reading list of authors biased authors friendly to his argument, doesn’t suffice. Is that what passes for evidence on T-Nation now? Really?

I’m talking about EVIDENCE, real evidence. I mean, if reading lists suffice, then fine, Karl Marx was absolutely right. Why? because read the Manifesto, in addition to a bunch of other economists who also believe that he was right. LOL

79

[quote]Zen Taco wrote:
i already provided some sources, but you did exactly what i thought you would. If you were interested in me being a fisher of men, you would have read the resources I gave you. But you didn’t. You stated I was weak or lazy in not being goaded into spending a lot of time to begin to write down evidence and research that has been done on the subject. The thing is, is that i DID provide some of my evidence. You didn’t want it. If Sir Lionel Luckhoo (the greatest lawyer of all time, 245 consecutive cases won) can be turned from atheist to follower after pouring over the evidence of the resurrection in a law fashion, then there must be something there. That’s a taste of the information. I am not going to take several hours to post what my research has found, because I already know your response.[/quote]

Wrong. I’m not trying top goad you into “spending a lot of time to begin to write down evidence and research that has been done on the subject”, I’m trying to goad you into posting, even if just a smidge, the evidence you said that you have. A reading list doesn’t suffice. Quit being lazy and avoiding this. Give me synopsis of the evidence contained in these books; surely you’re smart enough to communicate an overview of the evidence you claim is contained in them. Or perhaps not, whatever.

So, go ahead and provide the evidence for your claim. I’ll be waiting.

80


.