Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spin · 11-13-2012, 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Net2004

Quote:

the belief that supernal deity temporarily became a man in order to make it possible for humanity to live forever.

your diety , like pagan gods, had to hide behind flesh to do deeds?

My wonder is why he/she/it--without gonads I doubt that gods can be gender specific--would have bothered with all this flesh stuff at all. Obviously unbecoming for any self-respectful deity.

If you're going to create something, why not something more to your level, rather than all this fleshy stuff that at best can only grovel before you? It might be fine for a few thousand years, but it's going to get awfully boring awfully quickly. What are you going to do on those long eternal nights for intellectual stimulation? Watch reruns of WWII? Just a bunch of bellicose ants on a lump of dirt circling an insignificant point of light on a spiral arm of one of the myriad of galaxies in your creation. That's as stimulating as contemplating the action of the motile cilia in one of the cells in your trachea for entertainment. Not that gods need, or even have, trachea. It's that for something that can create a universe humanity with all its inanities is so small time. Stupid, stupid creatures. Why bother? I'm sure a little divine mitosis would have brought a more fruitful result... without all the mess.

MrMacSon · 11-13-2012, 03:45 PM

Quote:

“I am a practicing Catholic, and I would probably describe myself as a critical realist in religious matters; but I’m a realist and I believe, as it were, that the truths of the Christian faith are objective truths, rather than being entirely subjective."

http://www.nycreligion.info/?p=6589

Such tautology does not auger well for an esteemed publication like the New York Times.

and he needs to learn what secularism really is

Quote:

“Around the world, it would appear that, if anything, secularism is rather in a decline actually."

sotto voce · 11-13-2012, 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Perspicuo

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by Perspicuo

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by Perspicuo

Quote:

Because secularists privilege their beliefs on the public square, they often don’t understand the deep offensiveness of their ridicule of religious belief.

Well in fact we do. We know that certain people will think, and others, who choose not to, will feel offended.

We do? How do we know this? Or is it merely hoped that people will be offended?

Quote:

The implication is simple, straightforward, immediate. The idea is absurd. But instead of doing the reasonable thing, which is admit it is absurd, the person feels the pain of ridicule... but nothing happens, from the cognitive standpoint. Only affect.

Exactly who is dreaming, here? The heavily loaded language of the definition is enough to convince anyone that its author believes in Christ, and finds that belief a great irritation.

Let's analyse it. Just four words let the reader know he's wasting his time reading further.

'some cosmic Jewish Zombie'

First, 'some'. Pejorative, without justification. Suicidal, already! 'Some cosmic Jewish Zombie'; like you meet them every day. It's not like, 'some rowdy drunk kept us awake'. The claim is for a unique agent. Just perverse and childish, this.

Next, 'cosmic'. Circularity, here. The supernatural is irrationally bellowed out of existence by people terrified of it!

'Jewish'. Is there something wrong with being Jewish? Is there anti-Semitism here? :constern01:

'Zombie'. Note the capitalisation, that demonstrates the mendacity of the author, who needs to bolster his false argument with a capital. But note that he/she is cheating. If the person described is a zombie, he cannot be cosmic. And if cosmic, cannot be a zombie.

It's so pathetic that you are not surprised by 'telepathic' and the fundie lunacy that follows.

Some people shoot themselves in the foot. Others have a higher aim.

:huh:

Pretty much the sort of thoughtless affective reflex I was referring to. Thank you for the colorful illustration.

What else can be said?

Thank you for the conspicuous white flag.

White flag indeed. One can't give rebuttals to non-thoughts.

There's no need to respond to non-thoughts, is there. But you responded, meaning that the thoughts were genuine. And you responded irrationally, with low insult and not a shred of evidence for your opinion, indicating that the thoughts were genuine and apposite. If that is all we can do, we have nothing to contribute here; except reluctant conviction that Jesus exists, which is of limited value, and is not a substrate for sensible discussion. As with the author of that believer with the blackboard. That he believes in Jesus is not usable evidence that Jesus existed.

What is of interest here is not what Thompson said, but the fact that he said it, and its context; that would seem very strange to UK citizens, were it to be reported in the UK. It's disappointing that the usual knee-jerk, supposedly atheist reactions were set off here in lieu of sensible discussion.

Splarnst · 11-13-2012, 04:29 PM

Well, Catholicism is based on objective claims. But those claims are incoherent, contradictory, and/or lack sufficient evidence.

sotto voce · 11-13-2012, 04:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Splarnst

Well, Catholicism is based on objective claims. But those claims are incoherent, contradictory, and/or lack sufficient evidence.

Catholicism must be a lie, and worse. To claim apostolic succession, with rights to direct lives, without proof of legal validity such as would prove title to real estate, is to tell a lie, because it is claiming to know what one does not know. So, every educated Catholic is a liar, and anti-democratic. A threat to society. It is time people woke up to this fact.

Two Catholics wrote Mein Kampf.

Splarnst · 11-13-2012, 05:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Catholicism must be a lie, and worse.

Whether a statement is a lie is not property of the statement itself but of the speaker's intent, which varies.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

it is claiming to know what one does not know.

In a sense, I suppose.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

So, every educated Catholic is a liar, and anti-democratic. A threat to society. It is time people woke up to this fact.

Two Catholics wrote Mein Kampf.

So, if I say a religion is false, I'm the equivalent of Hitler. What an absolutely pathetic strawman.

Jaybees · 11-13-2012, 09:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Catholicism must be a lie, and worse....because it is claiming to know what one does not know.

I agree. But how does this differ from most other Xtian beliefs?

sotto voce · 11-14-2012, 03:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Splarnst

Well, Catholicism is based on objective claims. But those claims are incoherent, contradictory, and/or lack sufficient evidence.

Why are those claims incoherent and contradictory, and why do they lack sufficient evidence?

Net2004 · 11-14-2012, 05:39 AM

Quote:

Catholicism must be a lie, and worse

jesus was a catholic, how can catholicism be a lie? yhwh was also a catholic.

both jesus and yhwh believed that mary was thier mother and daughter
jesus believed that yhwh required blood and flesh as an intermediary between himself (yhwh) and humanity

catholics believe that pope john paul is their intermediary before god.

there are too many things in common. yhwh uses his deeds in human flesh to make himself happy and catholics use the deeds of pope john to make yhwh happy

Splarnst · 11-14-2012, 06:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Why are those claims incoherent and contradictory, and why do they lack sufficient evidence?

Well, some of its incoherent aspects: non-physical mental phenomena, contra-causal free will, ability of omnimax deity to suffer, ability of omnimax to desire anything. Some of its contradictory aspects: God's omniscience vs. our free well, God's desire for our happiness vs. eternal hell, expectation that fallible human can recognize infallible authority, myriad biblical contradictions. And I don't know how to document lack of sufficient evidence other than to say that everything offered for, say, the resurrection falls short by a mile.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-13-2012, 04:29 PM	#34
Splarnst Contributor Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Jacksonville, Florida Posts: 13,161	Well, Catholicism is based on objective claims. But those claims are incoherent, contradictory, and/or lack sufficient evidence.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.