If your "morals" are based on Yin and Yang, you invoke all the bad...

@ BW-userx - I thought it would be clear from the entire phrase "preach the same line from the pulpit" that I specifically meant that no matter what is asked or what element discussed, you tend to launch into a dogmatic, general sermon instead of replying in a specific, topical manner. I consider this likely to be definitive of your approach to any dissent or questioning and possibly to any dissenter whom you disrespect by assuming you are at the pulpit and the rest of us are at best, naughty, unschooled children whom you intend to set straight, with The Ultimate Authority on your side, of course.

However the disrespect goes even further as seen in your last "response" where obfuscation (definition - to confuse, bewilder, or stupefy ) is employed to discredit and misdirect in an intentional effort to avoid the point. I know it is obfuscation since the effect is to "muddy the waters" instead of making anyting clearer, and intentional because of your inclusion of an R&B Funk band as a possible defintion of Abstract Truth when it is entirely obvious that is not what was meant.

In short, "Organized Religion" and "Abstract Truth" are well known concepts as well as figures of speech that I am confidant even those to whom English is not their native tongue understands. Since I suppose it is at least possible you don't, FTR "organized religion" refers to "religion as an institution" of official dogma and codification of rules and practices. "Abstract Truth" refers to generally accepted terms such as in the use of "Man" or "Men" to refer to all of Manhood (usually including Women as All of Mankind) I'd list the source but instead of one there are many since, as I said, they are widely known terms.

To answer your (finally!) specific question re: abstract term - Justice

The christian bible, in several of it's forms, declares "An eye for an eye" to be just, but since governments find it difficult to avoid vigilantiism and civil disorder when each individual is allowed to mete out such justice, it is codified into Law which is supposed to (but regularly fails to) link severity of crimes with their specific appropriate punishments. One might question the justice and equivalency of the speaking of a word a certain way and Eternal Torture, but that would be an example of what many (and this includes mostly those in power) consider Abstract Truth.

From what I can determine the next actual response/rebuttal, after a bit of "fancy dancing", regards extreme resistnce to change with the case of Galileo's person and research being ill treated for over 300 years*.

*which, btw, is but one example of Clergy having Scientists arrested. Later some would be tortured for days, starved, and/or burned at the stake. One didn't even have to be a Scientist. One could just be an ordinary farmer. The Crusades, including the Catharr, Gnostics, Albigensians and a few hundred years of Inquistion and witch burning fills out the continuing "enlightened and peaceful" doctrine. At least Jesus allegedly confined most of his temper tantrums to fig trees.

Since an apology, an admission of wrongdoing, was finally issued (albeit, a bit late to the party) I don't sit around cursing the names of those responsible as what would be the point? I will not forget what they did nor that it implies exactly my point, that even in such simple and verifable truths like whether the Earth revolves around the Sun or the Sun around the Earth, Organized Religion will choose to live with 350 years of "egg on it's face" rather than admit to bad information, let alone bad conduct.

Your last jab refers to staying on the subject as 'selective hearing". So if I ask you if it is currently raining where you live and you reply "the rain in Spain falls mainly in the plain" or more accurate to some of your "responses", "Beware the frumious Bandersnatch", that is discussion to you?

Hazel, since the translation of "ta biblia" is exactly "the books", I'm mildly surprised that you find it childish to call them in the latter way, and that a simple and accurate denomination like that can pejoratively affect the representation and classification of a whole religious group.

I don't know where your certainty comes from, but I'm certainly not convinced that the christian god is this or that, as I don't think that he is in the first place. For the record, I was simply referring to the way in which he's been represented for centuries by christian artists, in works of art commissioned by the christian church itself... not by the first "childish atheist" passing by. A few nice examples here: God the Father in Western art. Notice that I could have said "grey bearded man".

I'm not sure if you're being personal here, and I'm not at all into the subtleties of christianity versioning, but I can reassure you that fortunately I wasn't hurt by any of them as a child. It seems that many people were not that fortunate, though.

I'd like to chime in, Hazel, regarding "militant atheism", as I'm not at all certain where that boundary is - why one atheist is considered some version of non-militant and anothor militant. I suppose I can be considered "militant" by the mere fact that rather than simply fill out the checkbox for the poll I have chosen to post here many times. The actual fact from my point of view, one hard-won and reinforced regularly, is that the existence of The Creator is of extremely little concern to me. It would be lovely if such a creature existed but I have zero experience that leads me to conclude this is so, and of more immediate concern is that even if one or more does exist, we are on our own, and that's fine with me because as bad as it can get, Life is so great that it's certainly preferable to non-existence, at the very least. Additionally I am entirely unafraid of Death although the prospect of dying can be a bit daunting. As the joke says, "It's just that Death lasts so LONG!" :)

So why am I motivated to post here in what is likely seen as an effort to "slay sacred cows"? First in an effort at full disclosure and out of my respect for honesty, I have been hurt by Religion and the religious, not only as a child but from time to time. The first recognizable hurt was discovering the likelihood "that it was all a lie or at least delusion at age 14. It was almost exactly like finally finding out that Santa Claus was a fictional character, and please trust me I am not being flippant or disrespectful when I say that. I can see both scenes in my memory's "eye" and recall the emotions. Howver that feeling was never that I hated God. To be clear, I just resented being deceived by people. As I matured I began to realize that people weren't trying to deceive me while holding on to the "real truth". They were deceived, too, and somehow needed to believe in this unsupportable "Truth", a feeling or something? I couldn't share, and some of them needed others to believe, it seems to me, to bolster their own beliefs, a concept I also can't share. I'm certain that I would be the kid stating "But the Emperor is naked!" and there it is. While I heartily embrace the reality that "it takes all kinds..." I think the world would be a considerably better place if more people come to the realization that there is no Father in the Sky, that we really just have each other and all things that live in this magnificent, wonderful Universe.

So... Is that militant? I suppose each must decide for himself, but I don't consider myself a Militant Atheist. I consider myself a Humanitarian and a Scientific Dreamer.

I spoke to the big fella, then I woke up, didn't see any light though...

Some conflict here? If the matter is of little consequence, why keep posting?

Shouldn't you have got over the "hurt" by now? (assuming you're not 15) And shouldn't you have learned that a 14 year old might just possibly be mistaken?

That's nice, but I think most people here could be described as "a person concerned with human welfare"!

Psycho - analyze

Psycho:
analyze
This subjects name will stay hidden in this post due to whatever reasons someone can come up with for me NOT to put his name in here.

"A tree is known by its fruit"

(may have been taken from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible )

Now here comes a fail in knowledge as a result of it a psychological effects occurs due to a faulty belief system. Because a lie has been placed within it this persons belief system that should not be there.

The lie I speak of I will point out later but this lie held as a belief just caused this individual to lie again. causes and effect.

To define what I call a lie: It is simply something that is not a truth. it is Boolean. It is or it is not. No shades of gray. Lies can cause errors in thinking which cause errors in judgments which causes errors in actions. Be they spoken or acted on.

the lie. because:
Christianity is a cult by definition. It is because of "Hollywood" placing a stigma on that word enough to make ignorant people automatically think that when someone says cult it is an evil. Because it was and still is being associated with evil, Satan's cult. google "satanic cult movies 1970s" and you'll see what I mean by what Hollywood did to peoples understanding of the word cult.

Did one not know that Satan even mimics God? But not completely. If he did that then that would make him like what?

Is this same subject (individual) holding to the belief that the ones he speaks out against or tries to explain his understanding of them by using the same wrong message (lie) of what a lot of people think a cult really is?

He now states his observations of these people and what it tells him. Another showing of how his mind works. or is working at the time he wrote this.
The word militant being used to describe a group of atheists. Not all of them. Just some of them. Implying that these select groups of atheists are defiantly being militant by what they say, or their actions.

Is he doing the same thing that he is now seemly speaking out against to others about how these select group of militant atheists like to use the term "Christian Cult" to (try and) imply that it is an evil to be in this cult of Christianity, and that it is an childish act for stating so by whatever means they do so???

How does the mind work to analyze what people say in order to better judge them or to just judge them without really picking it apart and analyzing what that other said. Instead making snap judgments which can lead to errors?

Who is really in control of this mind everyone has that Judges others?

Now comes a solidified belief of his about these said militant atheists.

By means of his observation of people that state or imply they are atheists first then militant in behavior next?

what was his means for drawing a conclusion?

lets read what he has to say.

His observations tell him that nearly all militant atheists seem to believe that God has a beard.

Used as a means to discredit these same said militant atheists he speaks of this belief that I am sure he did not take survey of them to be sure he is speaking a truth, and too only some of them because he used the word nearly. Maybe one or two said something about it because he mentions someone by name. a Philip stating he certainly believes so. So he has one for sure. not a very good amount of people to draw a conclusion of nearly all of them?

One out of how many are being seen by him as being the . I've often noticed this kind of childishness in militant atheists. For example, they nearly all seem to be convinced that God is an old man with a beard (Philip certainly believes so) atheists types that believe that God has a beard and them that do not believe that God has a beard to get him to a one to nearly all of them ratio?

atheists do not even believe their is a God so where is this coming from? Who is he really talking about? Let me go look again because now I am confused by his thoughts.

"I've often noticed this kind of childishness [behavior?} in militant atheists. For example, they nearly all seem to be convinced that God is an old man with a beard (Philip certainly believes so)"

How can someone that does not even believe in someone else even have a belief about how this someone else they do not even believe exist shaves or not?

Namely these "cold blooded" militant atheists that hold no such belief that a God even exist.

Why would such a type even worry about it?

for someone to buy into that he calls militant atheists and what he says nearly all of them believe about God having a beard. When he should already know that they do not even believe that their is such a person.

But he stills buys into this argument.

Well then who's fault is that?

His evidence used to discredit a militant atheists belief about someone they do not even believe in wether or not God shaves.

leaving out the other side of that truth. There is nothing in the Bible that shows him NOT having a beard. That is an open and kept in the abstract.

What one believes about that is not even a hit against anyone in getting them in to heaven that actually do Believe in God.

No where in the Bible does it state the one has to believe that God has or does not have a beard to obtain salvation. It is a mute point. That can obviously be used as a mean for a pointless argument. Because someone just made one about it.


a thought of clarity perhaps. Because this is a psychological effect that stems the board with humans.

Transferring of blame.

Right there is the transferring of blame for someone else's actions. God did not do anything to harm them it was either themselves or someone else. Never God.

the rationalization of the individual that does this. As everyone can do this. blame someone or a group of others for what one did to them.

Just to try and get that feeling out of them.

Like denial and projection. that is the bases from which it stems.

trying to bring knowledge by telling stories instead of facts to try and show facts of how someones mind works.

Now he speak to me directly. in calling to memory of something he said he did that I commented on.

I now find out that he used a lie about himself to tell a joke. In fact he never went to church for four hours to show Jesus his devotion to Him on good Friday.

Is this what he is now telling me?

I have no real idea. he never really fully explained his lie to me and whoever else read what he wrote. Only stated that it was a joke, therefore it all has to be a lie intended for the purposes to make either himself or others laugh, or both.


now for whatever his reasons he tells me something he believes about Jesus' pertaining to what he used for a joke a lie about his devotion to Jesus.

One he does not even know that Jesus condemns no one, nor does God Almighty condemn anyone.

people condemn themselves.

Now he takes a pot shot at me. To try and make me feel like I must have made him feel?

Just to get back at me for something I did not do. Why?

which was he must of felt I was implying that he is a hypocrite. And that brought with it feeling of what? shame or guilt perhaps?

The thing is I never called him that.

I actually wrote it to fall into the

if the shoe fits wear it category.

It was generalized and not personalized in anyway whatsoever.

the proof:
Analyze it if you can.
That is his lie about his devotion to Jesus that he intended to be funny. To who? I do not know.

what I did was give the definition to the word devote.
what I said about that definition not him.

then all I do is pose a question to him. That is not stating anything about him because it is just a question, not a statement.
He never answered my question. he side tracked it instead. loss of focus or avoiding something?


look did you se it. Just another question. to give him something to think about. No accusations of anything about him. Only an example of how some people operate. then question to him on what is that a sign of from these actions coming out of people that do this.

He again never answers my question. Instead he side tracks again.

I then clearly as I can explain to him these types of people that do this are in need of self examination..

Him indicating loosely that he is a Catholic, because I know of no Protest-ants that show a devotion to Jesus on good Friday for 4 hours. A luncheon maybe but not a devotion to Jesus.

then wish him peace.

now he never answers my questions. Instead he draws a conclusion about me.

He states first that he regrets how he now bleives how I show my devotion to Jesus by the use of the word, Unfortunately:

then he states what he thinks is a truth about me. that I am absolutely serious about my devotion to Jesus to where I paraded it around for others to see.


that is a misconception of the truth.

How can he have any indication of how I show my devotion whatsoever?

When I not once ever stated what I do to show my devotion to Jesus. Where he does, then later on states, confesses that it was all a lie. then his justification for telling that lie. to be funny.

Is this individual now being like the ones he talks against?

How they love to state false beliefs about someone to try and strike back at the ones that hurt them in their childhood?

I hit a nerve somewhere within this individual that is for sure.

Perhaps a guilty Conscience even cause this effect to come out of him.

I can only speculate or give a educated guess.


I just said a prayer for you...

Peace!

abstract truth definition, abstract truth meaning
 

Well you thought was wrong, and that is what that wrong thought got you, a wrongful conclusion about me.

It matter not where I stand on a pulpit or not, my preaching is what by definition?
I gave you that definition, then used it to explained plainly what I was am doing.

Now here comes your preaching to me and using what as a source of authority?

if you think you are not preaching to me then go and look up preaching again. Here let me help you.
you are preaching to me your beliefs and using what as your authority?

then that has to be me not side tracking as best as possible.



why does what I say make you feel that way?

You state you believe that their is not God and anything else to do with God.

from what I remember. I used your words against you. To prove a point about you and others like you, both Christian and whatever else. More on that later as you did it again. Turned a blind eye to the truth I gave you.


what school or movies and TV programs do you watch to have learned how to talk like that? did you or are you a lawyer?

My options and my truths in here are not said to disrespect anyone. if what I say makes you feel I am being disrespectful you to,and you are innocent of being disrespectful to me any others by everything you say in here about everything.


Again why and what do I say in here make you feel disrespected? keep it in context.

Your arguments are specific but bear no proof to back it up.

anyone can accuse another of anything.

How does me giving definitions to words make it unclear to you?


In your mind only. deficiently not my in my mind. as I see to as you trying to muddy the waters with your words.

Because I researched it to be sure you are not just making up things to try and deceive. Abstract truth that is in itself a contradiction of terms. Again something cannot be abstract and a truth at the same time. They counter each other. the only truth within that term is yes it can be a truth that something is abstract. but it cannot be an abstract truth...


I find it strange that you can use $100 words to throw out accusations against me or others, and still not understand the terms you use when two words are put together to make up such terms.


I pulled it apart because it consist of two separate words that both have a distinct meaning of themselves.

Again they contradict themselves.

Abstract something that is not real.

truth something that is real.

do you not see the contradiction in that when you put the two together the meaning of each word does not magically changed. they are brought to together. Like psychoanalyze are two words brought together to indicate the meaning of analyzing the mind.

so I again looked again just for you. the term "Abstract Truth".

what world do you line in?

I never denied what the term organized religion refers to.. here let me quote myself. to prove it to you.
I will even high light the key points for you because you definitely missed them the last time.

I agreed that my Religion is organized if not then it would only be what? did you even read it.

complete disorder and confusion because that is opposite of organized. where organized is a word to describe an organization or any thing that is organized.

School is an organized institute.
College is an organized institute.
A place of business is an organized institute.
so Is the Catholic Church an is an organized institute.
Do you have even an a hint of the meaning of the word institute, or should I look that up for you too?
bold being the common factors of the Catholic Church that too make it an institution by definition.

You and others use the term "Organized Religion" as if it is an evil thing to have. Where is the evil in being organized in anything one does or believes in?

again I ask you: where is the good in that I ask you? to be disorganized.


Now you are trying to tell me that Abstract truth means what?
by who? who are the ones that generally accept that "Abstract truth" means what you are now telling me it means. When I can show you proof that it not the case of its meaning.

AS you have to have seen I do not do as you do blindly accept things given to me. I analyze them.
[/quote]

if that where a truth then why is it you cannot see a contradiction in the usages of the two words Abstract and Truth when put together to mean everyone both men and women when someone uses the word man?

I have yet to see you pick anything apart of mine and show me evidence against what I have said. all I get out of you is this.

sentences stating something without proof of what you say is a truth.

You could tell me that the term "frog thoughts" actually means something and it a common phrase or term with is know world wide.

then expect me to just believe you at face value like you are doing now in this post to me. NO evidence to prove any of your clams of anything you tell me in this post .

I give you definitions of words then explain plain logic in how terms work and you still do not see it. instead you come back to me with more empty words expecting me to just believe everything that is coming out of that mount of yours using this as your justification without sowing me any of your home work.

you words
AS you have to have seen I do not do as you do blindly accept things given to me. I analyze them.


I have not seen that whatsoever.



Have you even learned about the process of a human mind?
When it becomes so entangled in confusion it starts to unravel.

have you even heard of the term,

projecting ones own self image on to another?

have you even noticed how people just automatically believe that the other person they are with believe what he or shes believes?

that is projecting ones self image onto another.

have you ever seen someone that is in such need of understanding his own subconscious just starts screaming for help in the only way it can?

the person own soul is crying out for truth. because it is being starved of the thing it needs to live?

have you ever seen someone that wants to be like someone else but they are just to dame scared to say it. ro actually change there ways and become like that in which they actually want to be.

instead they just start to tell others they that is they way they are when in truth they are not?

Because they are just too damn scared to give in and lat go.
perhaps out of fear of what others may think of them.

Have you?

I know I have.


One I never asked you about the term Justice as being an abstract. SO why are you saying I did?

I only put to Question at the most was your use of the term "ABSTRACT TRUTH" Now we can use this term Abstract for Justice and also use it to destroy your definition of the term "Abstract Truth. meaning that when someone uses the word. Man in certain sentences he is talking about both women and men at the same time. which is being NON gender specific.

An abstract noun is a word for something that can't be experienced by any of the five senses; it can't be seen, heard, smelled, tasted, or touched. An abstract noun is a word


JUSTICE is known by what means?


As something that is not Abstract is something one can define as real or truth by the use of ones senses. If one can see something done they can call it justice. Because it was right for that someone to do it.

So is now Justice still an abstract because one used one of his senses to see an action preformed rightfully.

it is what some preforms that is called into question if it is an actual just act or not. Because mankind can justify everything he or she does. It is out of these acts that are preformed on another or ones self si where we and others see justice in action. theretofore justice is not an abstract idea. something always wants but can never obtain. Because abstract is what?

Justice can be obtained. It is an actual thing that justifies our and others own actions. But again!

It is what mankind can do to justice that to the one preforming this act believes he or she is right in what they do. therefore they are now justified by their own authority.

That does not necessarily make it a truth that it was indeed a just act.

So where is the justice in that? How does one gauge Justice when man can justify anything he does?

Because he can use his own authority to do so, and when he does that. Justice is not always had.

the killing of anyone just because someone decided he or she no longer deserves to live. SO they either order there deaths, and let someone else kill them. Or they kill that other by there own doing.

Maybe because he killed someone so kill him too. an eye for an eye.

they are now turning themselves into the thing they hate.

I know or have my strong suspicions you have no understanding of what I just said, even though you an use really big words in a sentence.





ABSTRACT TRUTH

NO WHERE within any of these outside links that tell of the usage of the words 'man' and or 'mankind' does anyone use the term "Abstract Truth" that you sate is a common term that describes what it is you are now using to try and justify you just throwing out that term and just expecting me not to question it.

Instead just believe it a truth all because you said so and by who's authority did you use to do that?


You state it is a well known term meaning both woman and men whenever someone uses the word man or mankind

Gender neutrality in English


The Word ‘Man’ was Originally Gender Neutral

Mankind, Humankind, and Gender

Think twice before using "mankind" to mean "all humanity," say scholars
http://io9.gizmodo.com/5962243/think...y-say-scholars

do you see how mankind changes to suit his needs when ever he wants to?

read this again and maybe you will catch it the second time if you missed it the first time.

Think twice before using "mankind" to mean "all humanity," say scholars
http://io9.gizmodo.com/5962243/think...y-say-scholars

Here is something that tells you that you are a lair, not me but them becuse they are the ones that are now
contradicting what you said "Abstract Truth" is NOT I..


I do hope you can understand that one who uses 300 dollar words to try and shame me without proof to back it up.

abstract truth definition, abstract truth meaning

No where within that definition does it state ANYWHERE what you lay clam to in what its meaning really is by your self proclaimed definition.



I hope I touch all of basis of your allegations falsehoods and what ever else

allegations
a claim or assertion that someone has done something illegal or wrong, typically one made without proof.

All your questions were answered so exactly?

#7522 If a lie is provable, yes it is a lie plus conversely in all directions! Fool yourselfs for now... passively taught and not actively thinking == blind ie brainwashed(.) :jawa: ((We all are in some ways but) I'd be cool with that if you weren't blowing people up and sh!t!?. Belief does that not facts!)

Damn right peace‽ :doh:

Hmmm thought I answered that with to do my bit to try to leave this world a little better than before I existed. One way is by encouraging others to require evidence before coming to a conclusion and not just blindly accept Tradition.

Thought I made that clear, too. It was only as bad as "losing" Santa Claus to begin with and I thought I made it clear that hurt was not the motivating factor. To borrow a phrase, "Can you hear me now?"

True but it seems to get really convenient for religious types to write off large segments of the population as somehow less than human and therefore up for grabs, if they don't conveniently fit in some narrow definition of Chosen People. For me there simply are NO chosen people, so all deserve respect and decency by default and only retribution for those who see that as weakness and prey on it.

It seems to me that human population growth is just a fact of Nature and there can likely be only one of two outcomes - flourish or go extinct. Since the percentage of all species to go extinct is in the high 90 percentile group, our odds aren't very good, so if we really do care about our species, it behooves us to unlearn destructive behavior like Tribal Fear of "Others" and learn cooperation and collaboration... unless you think your odds are good you can wipe out all somehow definable as "not like you". I think those odds are abysmally low and barely worthy of consideration. How 'bout you?

@ BW-userx - I will try to wade through your latest dance around the point shortly but this is pressing business.

You quoted me thusly

Those are not my words and not posted by me in 500+ pages here. Please correct your "quotation" if not your"analysis" and dissertation.

Also you have once again called me a liar and since I can find no evidence of my willful deceit (and I meant none, I assure you. Lies are for the weak and insecure and neither of those terms describes me) I ask you to refrain from attributing unfounded descriptions of my moral behaviour, not to mention devotion to Logic... and yes I did formally study Symbolic Logic in college at George Washington University, but no, I didn't study Law. My majors were Engineering and English Literature.

burp -- removed because of pressing issues with Trump

Just to make things clear, you're the one who pointed the finger at other people, whom you said were "showing off" their devotion. Of course you were doing the same, only with a greater zeal.

I wasn't saying that you are morally superior, or that you have any morals. I was doing some little sarcasm based on your previous claims.

I wasn't talking about Jesus, but about his father. Regarding Jesus, apart from pigs and trees, according to the authors of the christian holy books he did express some disturbing intentions along the way. And of course he subscribed to many of his father's even more disturbing acts and intentions. That's why you believe that everybody here, apart of you of course, is going to burn in hell.

You are writing in a public place, hence your essays are accessible to everyone, me included. Of course I cannot speak for Enorbet, even if we do share very similar positions regarding the exciting and colourful topics discussed here.

A church that calls itself "catholic", which means "universal", is not going to be recognized as such by those who do not subscribe to its system of beliefs. I do not subscribe to them, hence I do not buy into their universalistic claims either.

This might make some sense if you believed that Jesus and all the related ontology actually existed. If you don't, then what you see is just an old man with funny garments, making magniloquent and unsupported claims.

You must be kidding me.

You're out of track. I do not hate anyone, and I do not have any problems talking with people, which is something I enjoy. Since people talk with me as well, I do not feel that my atheism is making me a horrible person. What I do not like, on the other hand, is being virtually sent to hell by a fanatical subscriber to one of the wildly numerous instances of alleged "One-True-Faith".

You are a living proof for that! You just have to read your own posts.

The Galileo affair is made of historical facts. The same holds for the violence, arrogance and dishonesty of the "catholic" church.

The literature is full of what you're looking for. Just walk into a library and read something else than the one-sided books you're worshipping.

At the time of the church's "apology", people had been writing and talking about Galileo for more than 350 years, and I'm surprised that you didn't hear, nor read anything about it.

You seem to be seriously confused about the difference between historical facts and unsupported claims for which there are no reliable documents, if any at all.

If you are a church and are obsessed with having as many followers as possible, then you have to make sure that what you offer to your worshippers is not too disgusting. Otherwise you're not going to have many followers, unless you are able to acquire them against their will.

If you're dogmatic then you're going to refuse any evidence that might show you that your dogmas are false. On a side note, you're forgetting that you are the one who has yet to present a single factual proof in support of your claims. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, as Carl Sagan nicely put it.

I'm not sure what you are talking about, but let me tell you something: there are no such things as "fake facts". A given state of affairs is either a fact, or it isn't, depending on whether it is actually there in the real world. Regarding your first sentence, you're putting it the wrong way: I do not have any reason to believe in some religious instance. Period, it is as simple as that.

Here's a nice example: The Swan's Song of Galileo's Myth, by Atila Sinke Guimarães.

This might help you: Generic you.

I should have said "aknowledged publicly".

I was being sarcastic. You cannot be innocent when you threaten to torture and kill somebody if he doesn't humiliate and contradict himself in public, declaring and subscribing what you want him to declare and subscribe.

Yes.

That's probably because you only care about "catholics", and the news you're watching are appropriately biased.

I wasn't aware that Walt Disney had published their own version of "the bible", and also of history books! I'll bet that a new version ad usum Delphini of the song "La vie en rose" is also available?

Was that a beer burp? What's your "brand"?

If rules of logic were strictly enforced;
all these arguing would have been settled in two pages.
:)