One Question, One Response (aka - Stump the Apologist)

[aitm]

Personal revelation. As ridiculous as that may sound.

Odd how ole god only "reveals" himself to those born into families that indoctrinate their kids into the original idea eh? Never heard of a Indian, Muslim or Chinese kid suddenly waking up and saying they received a revelation from some god they never heard of prior....odd that eh? LOLOLOL  what a dipshit.

The gods only appear to the culture into which they are conceived in, or which they were forced to accept. Basic religion 101. But OH NO! Personal revelation! Yes it sounds ridiculous because it IS ridiculous.....jebus, what twits.

[popsthebuilder]

Odd how ole god only "reveals" himself to those born into families that indoctrinate their kids into the original idea eh? Never heard of a Indian, Muslim or Chinese kid suddenly waking up and saying they received a revelation from some god they never heard of prior....odd that eh? LOLOLOL  what a dipshit.

The gods only appear to the culture into which they are conceived in, or which they were forced to accept. Basic religion 101. But OH NO! Personal revelation! Yes it sounds ridiculous because it IS ridiculous.....jebus, what twits.

Wasn't indoctrinated. Family wasn't actively religious. And I've repeatedly stated that no specific name was associated with it.

Thanks for playing asshat

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

[aitm]

Wasn't indoctrinated. Family wasn't actively religious. And I've repeatedly stated that no specific name was associated with it.

Don't buy it. You openly lie anyway, nobody believes your blathering bullshit.,

[reasonist]

Both our resident deceivers ignored a simple challenge. If they are not the same poster, they surely have the same m.o. Every time a fact cannot be shrugged away with the bible, it is ignored. The transparency is highly entertaining.

" As soon as you tell us how you come to the conclusion that Zeus and Mithra are not real, we can use your method to prove your god is not real either."

Simple enough you would think.

[Blackleaf]

Personal revelation. As ridiculous as that may sound.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

You're right. That is ridiculous.

[marom1963]

Personal revelation. As ridiculous as that may sound.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

Fine.
If it's so personal, how, then, can it be shared?

[Blackleaf]

You know the funny thing about personal revelation? It's not measurable, it's not quantifiable, it can't be observed, and it can't be manipulated. It is, scientifically, no more than speculation, fiction.

And about that faith--real faith, not the "atheist faith" you're trying to push on us. Jesus said that someone with the tiniest amount of faith could move mountains. Why don't we ever see these magic tricks now?

[reasonist]

You know the funny thing about personal revelation? It's not measurable, it's not quantifiable, it can't be observed, and it can't be manipulated. It is, scientifically, no more than speculation, fiction.

And about that faith--real faith, not the "atheist faith" you're trying to push on us. Jesus said that someone with the tiniest amount of faith could move mountains. Why don't we ever see these magic tricks now?

Personal revelation= schizophrenia


Truth in Faithless Unity for Good

[Mike Cl]

Pops--You say you use critical thinking, logic, and empirical evidence for your sole basis of knowledge. Commendable.

Mike--Thanks.

Pops--You say my Faith in GOD isn't similar to your belief that GOD does not exist. Yet neither can be proven empirically.
Mike--I don't have a belief that god does not exist.  I know god(s) do not exist.  I don't have any beliefs--I suppose you keep saying I have beliefs to piss me off, eh???

Pops--If we use logic we can hypothesize about the existence of GOD or the lack there of. I'm only going to use one example.
Mike--Actually, nobody can construct a hypothesis about god(s), because that means it would be testable.  And your 'hypothesis' cannot be tested.  You are simply making a guess. 

Pops--Absolutely everything within observable existence can be explained using math. From the tiniest iota to the largest masses. Our DNA, nature, energy, galactic plotting, sound, literally everything is mathematically structured in one way or another.
Mike---Hmm....don't know that I would agree with that premise.  But if you think that, then god(s) must be explainable by math, since you insist you have observed him.

pops--Using logic and critical thinking, is it more feasible that all existence, being mathematically decipherable, is the product of intelligent design?
Or is it more logical to assume that though all is mathematically decipherable, it happened by some grand happenstance?
Mike--Grand happenstance??? No.  Design???  No.  Intelligence driven?  No.  You are viewing the result of the development of this universe as it is now from the vantage point of hindsight.  The universe and all within it, developed through physical laws.  Are those laws are math driven (I suppose)--intelligence driven does not equate to natural law driven.  Any specific point or place, though conforming to the physical laws that drives its creation, did not have to look exactly like our Earth does, or our solar system (look at all the thousands of solar systems we now know of--none looks exactly like ours), or anything else we know of.  For example, if I were to step out into a rain storm, I will be rained on.  And I will be hit by a first drop of water--from hindsight it would appear that that specific drop was predestined to he me.  Not so--it was simply happenstance.  Drops would hit me, but which ones in particular is purely chance and not driven by intelligent design. 

pops--Damned illogical, gullible theists and their nonsense right?
Mike--Pops, that just about sums it up--you are correct.

Pops--Peace friend
Mike--Namaste

Pops--Faith in selfless Unity for Good.
Mike--Lets make this world a better place, one human at a time.

[Randy Carson]

Hey Randy, Sorry for not being up to date with our discussions. You probably figured this out on your own, but I am in fact a high school student. Thus I have work that needs to be done before finals.

One question: What makes Catholicism different from other sects?

There is only one Body of Christ, the Church. Therefore, anyone who is a member of the Body of Christ is actually a member of the Catholic Church even if they do not know this.

A few distinctives:

1. Catholicism was founded by Jesus. Other sects were founded by men (e.g. Martin Luther, Henry VIII, John Calvin) who decided to split off from Catholicism (cf. Mt. 16:18-19) or invented from scratch (Mormonism).
2. Catholic apostolic succession can be traced all the way back to the apostles; its bishops and priest are validly ordained and can perform valid sacraments. Other sects cannot.
3. Catholicism has all seven sacraments instituted by Jesus (baptism, confirmation, the Eucharist, marriage, Holy Orders (ordination of priests), Reconciliation/Confession, Anointing of the Sick). Other sects do not.
4. Catholicism teaches that the bread and wine consecrated at mass become the actual body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus. Other sects believe that the Last Supper is purely symbolic. (cf. John 6)
5. The Catholic Church teaches doctrine infallibly; this means that the Church which speaks for God cannot formally teach error when it binds the consciences of the people of God.


Bishop Robert Barron has hundreds of great videos on YouTube. Here is one:

What Gifts Does God Give the Catholic Church?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=roum4zbJ8ZQ

[Randy Carson]

A lot of us are agnostics as well as atheists.

link

For someone who who tries very hard to be seen as some sort of religious expert, this is a pretty basic (and telling) error.

From my notes:

ATHEISM â€" God does not exist.

Atheism literally means “without God” and can be divided into either strong or weak types. Strong or positive atheism holds that God does not exist with certainty. Weak or negative atheism merely holds that there is not enough evidence to prove that God does exist.

Another name for atheism is naturalism, or the view that only the natural world exists. Naturalists may admit that there are things in our universe we cannot detect (like particles that are smaller than atoms) or natural objects outside of our universe (like “multiverses”), but they deny the existence of a supernatural being that transcends nature. Atheism is also sometimes called materialism, or the belief that only matter exists, and therefore an immaterial being like God does not. But atheism is not the same thing as materialism, because some atheists believe in the existence of immaterial things that are not God (like minds or numbers).

Among the religiously unaffiliated is what sociologists Christian Smith and Melinda Denton call moralistic therapeutic deism, which claims that:
1.   God exists and watches over the world.
2.   God wants people to be nice, and good people go to heaven.
3.   God is not needed in life unless there is a problem he can solve, because the purpose of life is to be happy.
   
AGNOSTICISM â€" Cannot know or does not know if God exists.

Agnosticism (from gnosis, the Greek word for knowledge) is the position that a person cannot know if God exists. A strong agnostic claims that no one is able to know whether God exists. A weak agnostic merely claims that while he doesn’t know if God exists, it is possible that someone else may know. Agnosticism and weak atheism are similar in that both groups claim to be “without belief in God.”

+++

aitm claims to be a strong atheist
many here appear to be weak agnostics and weak atheists
widdershins claims to be an "apatheist" (he does not care)

Any disagreement with my understanding of these terms?

[Randy Carson]

Where? In the bible? That isn't evidence.

Nope.

In the OP's of my threads.

[Randy Carson]

So you agree that your faith in God is as credible as another's faith in a shape-shifting lizard alien species that secretly owns the White House?

I wouldn't agree without examining the arguments and evidence.

And we both know that Christians have a boatload of arguments for God whereas you have bupkis for Obama being an alien (unless you know something about his birth certificate that the rest of us don't).

[reasonist]

Any disagreement with my understanding of these terms?

We are all agnostics, including you, and we are all atheists, including you.

Agnostic, because none of us KNOWS if there is some sky daddy who runs the show. We are open enough to say we don't know. The evidence is overwhelmingly against such a proposition, but there is a possibility. You on the other hand pretend to KNOW, which of course is a fallacy. Nobody knows.

Atheists, because we have shown that you discard hundreds of monotheistic gods, like us. We are still waiting for a criteria on how you can ignore all these deities. We would like to use your method for the last sun god also.

And then you forgot the last group, which I count myself in. The Anti-theist. That entails the belief that your proposed deity is such a despicable monster in both books (plus the Koran) that even if such a deity would exist, we would be disgusted enough to reject it/him/her as amoral and toxic.

Truth in Faithless Unity for Good

[Harassed]

Do you think that this situation is representative of all Christians?

Nice dodge!!  Most of the bible thumper sects in Canada are happy to help MENNONITE BRETHREN ORGANIZED CRIME harass me. 
How do you rationalize this campaign of harassment? 
Or the Vatican cover -up child abuse for 100's of years?
Or Native Canadian children kidnapped, abused and tortured by "christians" for 100 yrs in the Residential School system?