The Faith & Religion mega Thread

Originally Posted by Philip Lacroix 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 is the sort of pointless quibble that irritates people. In the USA, the Democratic Party is probably no more democratic that the Republican Party, and the GOP is certainly not more republican, but no-one would insist on writing "so-called Republicans". A Catholic doesn't consider the Orthodox Church to be as orthodox as their own, but they will not refer to the "Orthodox" Church. It's elementary linguistics: a name is not a description.

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 [that the Pope is] just an old man with funny garments, making magniloquent and unsupported claims.

I don't accept any of his claims, but that doesn't stop me seeing a religious man trying to do the best he can.

I do not feel that my atheism is making me a horrible person.

Probably not, but, like most atheists, you come across just as smug and self-satisfied as an evangelical Christian. Both of you "know" you have the one true word and cannot resist telling the rest of us where we are wrong.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, as Carl Sagan nicely put it.

How true! Since the overwhelming majority of the world's population are not atheists, to assert that they are all deluded is an extraordinary claim. So where's the evidence?

Originally Posted by Philip Lacroix Originally Posted by BW-userx View Post what you deem as showing off is doing nothing more then anyone else in this post. 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 could say the same about you.

Originally Posted by Philip Lacroix Originally Posted by BW-userx Quote: if what I believe in makes me moral superiority to you or anyone else then it is a direct account of what I believe in and what it turns one that believes in it to being moral superiority to others. and that is not a bad thing. you speak of it as if having morals is an evil. 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.

you said this

Originally Posted by Philip Lacroix Ok then. I guess that whatever Jesus allegedly said, according to your reference books, will apply to you as well, as you've been doing quite a bit of "showing off" your faith, devotion and moral superiority. Definitely much more than what Hazel did according to your allegations.

that is not a statement of sarcasm but an accusation using Hazel for your basis of comparison.

Regardless that truth still remains the same in what I said about how my belief system has a higher level of morals then the average person that does not hold the same beliefs as I do or has a lower set of morals then I do due to my beliefs In The Holy Trinity.

Originally Posted by Philip Lacroix Originally Posted by BW-userx Quote: why are you associating deliberately cruel or violent with Jesus? a bearded man. associating a bearded man being deliberately cruel or violent with Jesus. where in the bible do you find Jesus being deliberately cruel or violent with anyone? 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 [B} he did express some disturbing intentions along the way[/B]. 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.

So at least I get an written admittance that you believe that yes God Almighty is Jesus' Father.


as Far as the whole if you do not obey my laws you will be punished for not adhering to them issue you are having. For one the ending of your statement about me removing myself from the equation of "going to burn in Hell" is a misinterpretation of a truth you placed into your belief system about me, and or every person that lays calm to being a Christian.

First of all that consequence is for EVERYONE that has heard of Him. Not just them that refuse to believe in God therefore does not even try to adhere to His laws.

Therefore your belief here " That's why you believe that everybody here, apart of you of course, is going to burn in hell."

I do not believe that whatsoever. No part of that statement of yours is a truth. That is a misconception of the truth on your part. Not only of me but of Christianity as a whole. You are in error of your beliefs about Christianity. Directly due to a non-truth being held within your belief system as a truth.

Again I state for the record:

that is what happens when someone places a lie into ones belief system it causes them to error in judgments and actions due to it.

I find in here, people, always laying out accusations against someone without showing anything to what it is they are referring to. First one has to define the term "disturbing intentions" and look at the person that is defining it by what does this person uses for his basis of comparison to see where that is coming from. example disturbing intentions as opposed to NOT disturbing intentions.

then you go on to attribute that he [Jesus] goes on to subscribed to his Fathers "even more disturbing acts and intentions"

You seemed very disturbed by this. Whatever it is you are talking about there.

Originally Posted by Philip Lacroix Originally Posted by BW-userx Quote: it was to enorbet that that was put to not you. do you now speak for enorbet. Are you liked minded the two of you? 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.

I did not ask you for all of that. I merely asked you a simple yes or no question and that is what you tell me instead.

there is a lot to be said about someone that cannot answer a simple yes or no question, instead he that.

let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No.’ For whatever is more than these is from the evil one.
Jesus Christ.

Originally Posted by Philip Lacroix Originally Posted by BW-userx Quote: It is not so called Catholic Church, it is Called the Catholic Church. Because it is Catholic and it is a Church. Hence the Catholic Church. Their is NOTHING so-called about it other then them that speak ill of it. Blaming the Church as a whole is wrong. 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.

Well I do congratulate you on at least knowing what the word "Catholic" means and a rose is still a rose by any other name.

Originally Posted by Philip Lacroix Originally Posted by BW-userx Quote: Originally Posted by Philip Lacroix the so-called "catholic church" is a monarchy, and as such it is based on the authority of its king, the "pope" (i.e. "poppy", or "daddy"), No you speak of what you do not know as if you do know. when in fact you do not know. That is a lie what you spoke. the authority of its king is Jesus. Period. 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.

That has nothing to do with by what authority he speaks, and yet again here one is making accusations without anything to back up what wherever he is talking about.

as far as what someone else wears for clothing being seen as funny that is only a personal option, and bears no relevance to anything that same person might say.

Originally Posted by Philip Lacroix Originally Posted by BW-userx Quote: their is no such thing as a set of book called "the books" within the Catholic Church that are said that a court of lackeys. Which the word lackeys only means "a servant". that are allowed to interpret "the books". which there is no such thing called "the books" You must be kidding me.

No i was serious, and only correct myself as one so pointed out my error about the term "the books" and the history of how the Greek words the bible etc.. but the word lackey still only means servant. just because ones like to use that word to perhaps denote it a meaning something lesser then a human well then that is on them.

Originally Posted by Philip Lacroix Originally Posted by BW-userx Quote: have you ever wondered why people you have a deep hatred for do not talk to you much if any? 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 take it out of context what I was talking about. That was in reference to what?

You completely side track that question and did what Instead?

You took it out of context and even to the point of not even looking to what I was asking you. You instead Judged yourself by your own personal standards of how someone should be to justify your actions towards others. So your can reinforce your belief system as it stands at the time you did this. To the point of it make you feel that being an atheist is not making you a horrible person.

You are using what standards of comparison to come to the conclusion of everything you believe does not make you a horrible person.

First the term horrible person has to be defined, and your behavior then has to be pick apart in everything you do and do not do as well as believe in as a person.

Then then compared to what your definition of a horrible person is then compare it to yourself.

by that means of comparison you will never be a horrible person in your own eyes.

Everyone has a set of morals and values to go by. Some are greater then others is all, and some keep changing them so they can always be in the right in everything they do in there own eyes.

that is called self-justification. or the proper meaning of a self righteous person. Because he is the one making himself right by his own standards of conduct.

again going back to my original question concerning your statement of disbelief - I will reword it for you. Perhaps that may help you give me an straight answer to it now. Instead of you justifying your behavior towards others using your own standards of conduct.

Originally Posted by Philip Lacroix post #7513 They claim to have a direct line with the supernatural author of such books

Have you ever noticed how other people that know you have a strong dislike for do not talk to you, if any, very little?

If you state that you love everybody then we have to take a deep look into what you define as love.

Originally Posted by Philip Lacroix Originally Posted by BW-userx Quote: prove to me by ob-ting something they have in writing that states exactly what you just said. That the Catholic Church are the owners of the truth and it is protected by their authority ((usurped) illegally or by force). Show me that in writing. if you can't back it up then stop spreading lies. You are a living proof for that! You just have to read your own posts.

I do not own the truth - the true cannot be owned only possessed by the person that has it. Again you are in error of your conception of the truth that is held within your belief system that is causing you to throw out such errors of your beliefs on the Catholic Church. It only takes one error to throw off ones line of thinking. Think about it.

can the truth be owned? seriously can the truth be own by anyone person or persons?

do you not know the truth of what 2 + 2 equals?

if yes then are you soul owner of same said truth?

if yes then no one else will also know the truth of what 2 + 2 =

they will then be in error for the rest of their lives about what 2 + 2 =

now do you see the error of your belief about the Catholic Church profess to be owners of the Truth yet?
They do not even belief that nor has ever stated that.
You are in error of your beliefs on that, therefore it is throwing off your line of thought about the Catholic Church as well as me in what you believe I believe. Taken from what or where? I can only speculate.

Errors errors errors is all that is coming out of you in your conversation with me.

Originally Posted by Philip Lacroix Originally Posted by Philip Lacroix Originally Posted by Philip Lacroix It took a long time to rectify the Galileo affair because the church's arrogance has been the rule, not the exception, for centuries. At some point more and more people started to run away from it, and fortunately the use of terror to keep them quiet and pious and everything wasn't allowed anymore, at least officially. In other words, the church had to stop ruining people's lives openly. Originally Posted by BW-userx you .. oh you speak of what you do not even know of then add it to something that took place with what you tag as the "the Galileo affair" like it is some kind of book or movie. The Galileo affair is made of historical facts. The same holds for the violence, arrogance and dishonesty of the "catholic" church.

You speak of people within the Catholic Church to reference the entire Catholic Church as a whole.

If one cop is dishonest does that make the entire Police force dishonest?

by your judgments shown to me about the Catholic Church. Your answer has to be a defendant YES.

If it is a no then you are using partiality to judge thus making you what?

A super great NON Horrible person by your own personal standards because your judgments are not equal but bias.

let me see you dance around that one or completely avoid it or do what instead?

Originally Posted by Philip Lacroix Originally Posted by BW-userx I'd love to see your documents on how you get all of that into one idea that speaks of a session of events tired together all starting with Galileo and ending up with what is going on today with Christianity. 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.

Literature defined:

written works, especially those considered of superior or lasting artistic merit. books and writings published on a particular subject. leaflets and other printed matter used to advertise products or give advice.

By what you stated for me to read is any literature in a library other than what you call one sided book I worship.

That can be anything. Even a pamphlet on how to kill babies after the woman gets pregnant.

AND I do not worship books. again you're spiting out errors. Why are you not having a segmentation fault? Because you are human.

I'd not have you for my lawyer regardless if I was guilty or not of whatever I was being charged for.

You are just spiting out one error after another in your defense against me and the GOD I believe in.

Originally Posted by Philip Lacroix Originally Posted by Philip Lacroix Originally Posted by Philip Lacroix People kept asking about Galileo. sounds like something you read about. How do you know that is a truth? where you there? did you see and hear it first hand or read about it? 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.

Like I said that is a mute point with me. I have no interest in what someone or a group of people did before I was alive. That has nothing to do with the Belief in God itself.

You are only using this Galileo incident to justify you strong diastase for God. while still throwing out errors that you use to keep your strong distaste for God and anyone that even so much as says they believe in Jesus.

even that one about me worshiping books is an error you threw out at me that shows that.

Originally Posted by Philip Lacroix Originally Posted by BW-userx Quote: By using your line of rationalization in justifying it. in my world there is no Galileo, just because he was spoken of in something called "books" that means nothing to me whatsoever. I never seen him therefore he is a lie. he never happened that is just some made up person. it is an elaborate lie that a bunch of people got together and devised a plan then got others in on it then they just started writing about his person that did not and never did exist and what he did. 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.

No, I am talking about your line of thinking.

Originally Posted by Philip Lacroix Originally Posted by Philip Lacroix Originally Posted by Philip Lacroix The church swallowed its pride and did some public relations, by "apologizing" in order to clean up their product and stop people bothering. Not that the product changed much, though. Originally Posted by BW-userx what More vague terms "the Product" that is like saying . "they did it" who is they? the Product. what is the product? 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.

You are now speaking about the Protest-ants where if your are one of them types of "Christians" all one need do is state.

"I accept Jesus Christ as my own personal savor" and you're in and going to heaven hands down .. which is a lie.
or something similar as easy which is still a lie.

Originally Posted by Philip Lacroix Originally Posted by Philip Lacroix Originally Posted by Philip Lacroix Besides, given the persistent nature of religious beliefs and their stubborn resistance to facts, Originally Posted by BW-userx vagueness again. "stubborn resistance to facts" I have yet to see you in this post to me proved any real facts yourself. Just made up terms and over generalizations then you present them to me as facts and expect me to listen to you? 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.

You have never shown me any evidence whatsoever that my "dogmas" are false. just words coming out of your mouth that are mostly in error of everything you've ever said to me in this thread.

I think the only real truth that comes to mind is some what little bit of truth that lays within what you said about that one dude and the earth and sun argument.

Though I do wonder how many others (people) too did not believe Galileo in what the was saying the whole time of his life. all of the other people that were not accounted for and not Catholic. So here you are only picking out what was written about and not even taking that into consideration nor what motivations laid behind it perhaps. but again. to me this is a mute point. this look at what happened to Galileo thing, and it is only being used for your personal justifications to keep yourself from doing what?

Originally Posted by Philip Lacroix Originally Posted by BW-userx Quote: All you are doing is looking for reasons to not believe. then using fake facts to justify yourself in doing so. Abstract Truths and speaking of Organized Religion as if that is a bad thing. as I proved my case there. by you not even trying to rebuttal it. Originally Posted by Philip Lacroix 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.

You tell me "I do not have any reason to believe in some religious instance." did you forget what you just did before hand? Believed in some religious instance. By using the Galileo and Catholic Church in your defense to to keep a strong dislike for anyone belonging to the Catholic Church. You even over generalize this strong dislike to stem to a strong dislike for GOD and Jesus to the point of denying what about them?

First you admit your belief here about this, "I wasn't talking about Jesus, but about his father." then tell me you're an atheist. You confuse me now.

You have been doing nothing but spiting out Fake Facts about me and the Catholic Church within this entire post to me that I have been pointing out to you along the way.

you say a truth Galileo then toss out many errors afterwords about everything else. or some could call them Fact Facts as you call them then tell me that " there are no such things as "fake facts"" then what I am to call them? Lies, misconceptions of the truth,errors in thinking. that you use against me to lay your false clams against me. That cause you to judge me wrongly.

then earlier you tell me how you judged yourself to be a not horrible person.

You are being a very unpleasant person with all of your false beliefs about me.

Originally Posted by Philip Lacroix Originally Posted by Philip Lacroix Originally Posted by Philip Lacroix Besides, given the persistent nature of religious beliefs and their stubborn resistance to facts, I'll bet there are still at least some firm Catholics who believe that Galileo, after all, "deserved it". Originally Posted by BW-userx that is mere speculation again you just told me what about you? now you prove to me you just lied to me about it. Here's a nice example: The Swan's Song of Galileo's Myth, by Atila Sinke Guimarães.

wow what is that? let me go over what you said again then gave me this link as proof?

STILL being the KEY world in that statement I marked in BOLD. Then you give me your proof showing me something written in

In a speech delivered in Parma, Italy, March 15, 1990, even Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger endorsed the opinion of philosopher P. Feyerabend against Galileo. Ratzinger stated: “At the time of Galileo the Church remained much more faithful to reason than Galileo himself. The process against Galileo was reasonable and just” (17).

In another artical on that states this:

However, then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, defended the Church’s actions, saying its actions were understandable in the context of the times.

https://www.wired.com/2008/01/scientists-prot/

which I agree, only in, that at the time of that event one needs to take into consideration of what people believed then. as I stated I bet not everyone believed Galileo and that not everyone that still did not believe Galileo in that the earth is going around the SUN where catholic, let alone anyone that even believed in God for that matter.

People believe that the earth was flat too for how long?

and these people some of them even sailed ships over the horizon and still came back from which they went and still believed the earth was flat.

Nevertheless, that still has nothing to do with how YOU are rationalizing your strong distaste for the Catholic Church and GOD and Jesus as a whole. You are Judging and condemning everyone for what you consider one mans wrong.

as I have pointed out in here. If one man is in error of his ways does that make everybody guilty just because they wear the same uniform?


I am not in no way saying what Galileo stated about the sun and earth is wrong and that he needed to be, what happened to him? what was his punishment for stating what he did?

Did they take him out and burn him at the stake? no that was someone else.

why does man insist on making others take blame for something someone else did?
like you are.

If your brother kills or even steal something are you to be held accountable for his actions?

so why are you still holding an institution accountable for something someone else did that just happened to be part of this same institution that is not even still alive?

You are blaming an entire nations of people guilty for something a few people did that you do not agree with.

That is an injustice to anyone. God does not even do that. But you are.

Originally Posted by Philip Lacroix Originally Posted by Philip Lacroix Originally Posted by Philip Lacroix And here's the point: when you've been making lots of such "mistakes" for centuries, Originally Posted by BW-userx I have not been alive for that long. How old do you think I am? that is you blaming me for someone else actions. why? why do you blame someone else for something they did not do? I had nothing to do with the PEOPLE that were in the Catholic Church that said and did what they did pertaining to Galileo or any one else during that time. Or any time before I was born and of age to. You over generalize too much. has anyone else ever told you that? This might help you: Generic you.

so this is your proof that I have been making "mistake" for centuries when I have not even been alive that long.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_you

Here you go again blaming an entire race of people for a few individuals actions.

Ok I am going to go look at this now.

"You have" you personally are now using the generic definition of the word "you" to blame me for everybody's mistakes up to the point of my birth, and afterwords.

REALLY are you serious?

I let me use your rationalization against you. You're mistakes over the centuries.
Atheism_and_Mass_Murder

Hitler and everything he did to try to eliminate a nation of Jewish people, and everyone else he put to death just because he did not like them.

Every Child killed in the womb of it mother.

Joseph Stalin and everyone he put to death because he didn't like them.

where Stalin ordered the Red Army to blockade certain regions and take grain by force. It is estimated that the famine of 1931-33 killed 6-7 million people, while 20 million starved.

and everyone else he put to death by whatever means he used to do so that was not recorded in the history books you love to use for your facts.


the list goes on even until this century

You are guilty of all of it.

Just like you are doing with the Catholic Church and me personally.


that is by your rationalization. By the way. not mine.

But you do not have a God to go to. All you have is your own thoughts you put into your own head then tell yourself this is truth. Which can change at a moments notice.

Originally Posted by Philip Lacroix Originally Posted by Philip Lacroix Originally Posted by Philip Lacroix and when it takes centuries to recognize one of them, Originally Posted by BW-userx how do you know it took them centuries to recognize a mistake? are you diffidently sure that is the case? or perhaps it was recognize centuries before someone actually made a public announcement about that mistake. I should have said "aknowledged publicly".

Yes you should have.

but so what, that was done only because of people like you that love to blame others for something that someone else did.

Originally Posted by Philip Lacroix Originally Posted by Philip Lacroix Originally Posted by BW-userx define "innocent "mistakes" 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.

and your point is?

Originally Posted by Philip Lacroix Originally Posted by Philip Lacroix Originally Posted by Philip Lacroix and they start to appear more and more clearly as deliberate, vicious manoeuvres to maintain some vicious form of power. Originally Posted by BW-userx deliberately cruel or violent form of power. that is what you mean when you state that the Catholic Church is using "innocent "mistakes"" to deliberately maintain a form of power that is cruel or violent. Yes.

Wrong. People within the Catholic Church did somethings that were wrong.

NOT the entire CATHOLIC CHURCH.

again you are blaming an entire institution along with everybody belonging to it guilty for something not everybody did.

Condemning (Killing) the masses for one mans mistakes. I'd hate to have you for a king in the land I had to live in.

Originally Posted by Philip Lacroix Originally Posted by BW-userx I only see in the news others killing Catholics that is an act of cruelty to insert their power over the Catholic to the point of causing their death. That's probably because you only care about "catholics", and the news you're watching are appropriately biased.

that is your illogical assumption about me. along with I do not write the news.

Originally Posted by Philip Lacroix Originally Posted by BW-userx you are delusional about the Catholic Faith. The Catholic Church is against violence and cruelty. 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?

AGAIN I state: you are delusional about the Catholic Faith.

your over generalization to cause you to blame an entire race of people for something the entire race did not do is definitely an unjust act by you.


Your lack of understanding of the facts too causes you to be unjust in your conclusions about God.

[ comment removed ]

Due to reasoning telling me that is a good idea.

MOD:

where did that comment about using Logic and this would all have been done with post go????

the one that was just above this one post.

its a mystery to me. I didn't think one could completely delete ones own post. if that is what took place.

Originally Posted by DavidMcCann ...

...

Smug as ever here; one is common sense (stabs with rules, best WE know right\wrong ie school) the other is stabs at the dark, never probabil further provable makebelieve in many directions and forms obvious... just look into your christalball! The brain uses drugs so do WE!

If you don't want to evolve why you using Linux‽

Originally Posted by DavidMcCann Probably not, but, like most atheists, you come across just as smug and self-satisfied as an evangelical Christian. Both of you "know" you have the one true word and cannot resist telling the rest of us where we are wrong.

When someone does not believe in the existence of a deity, I call him or her an "atheist." When said person chooses to get into "a religious argument" about it, and/or begins to criticize others who choose to hold religious beliefs, I call that person instead an "antitheist." (And, sometimes I just can't help noticing just how religiously(!) such positions can be held.)

It's all right by me for either a religious person or an atheist to explain and even to defend their respective position, and to engage in what is known by both parties to be "a debate."

"Where the line gets crossed," in my book, is when either party starts to condemn the other. When they assert that the contrary opinion – and the person holding it – is "wrong," "stupid," "<<insert_perjorative_adjective_here>>."

Remember: "Heaven is presumably a climate-controlled place, and that requires a boiler room!"

there is only one truth,

A != A = NOT A

If A is not equal to A then it is not itself. if not itself. Then what is it if it is not itself?

Originally Posted by DavidMcCann This is the sort of pointless quibble that irritates people. In the USA, the Democratic Party is probably no more democratic that the Republican Party, and the GOP is certainly not more republican, but no-one would insist on writing "so-called Republicans". A Catholic doesn't consider the Orthodox Church to be as orthodox as their own, but they will not refer to the "Orthodox" Church. It's elementary linguistics: a name is not a description.

Whereas a description can be used as a name, like "catholic church" for instance. Since the adjective "catholic" has indeed a meaning, I can legitimately disagree about its attribution to a given church. However, it seems that in certain contexts some people prefer to ignore meanings altogether, and be "irritated" instead by the occasional use of the adjective "so-called", turning this and other "quibbles" into obfuscated and unreadable text bombs of logarithmic scale, in order to fill all the available space, while twisting the original point all the way to hell.

I don't accept any of his claims, but that doesn't stop me seeing a religious man trying to do the best he can.

That might happen, but that was not the point of my reply.

Probably not, but, like most atheists, you come across just as smug and self-satisfied as an evangelical Christian. Both of you "know" you have the one true word and cannot resist telling the rest of us where we are wrong.

David, you cannot resist either it seems: in fact that's not how it works. Religious LQ members who subscribe to this thread, and expect to meet only people who will agree with them, should probably look somewhere else, for a more "protected" environment, with less interference from erethics, geeks and bloody atheists. A church for example. You claim that I "know", but what should I know? That your god is not? Or gods, since you are a hellenic polytheist?

I don't know if supernatural beings called Poseidon or Zeus or Dionysus do exist. I don't think they do, there's nothing that suggests to me that they do, but if you don't want to hear that, then you should not tell me about it in the first place, or post about it in a public forum. You obviously believe that they do exist, but if you insist with me that they do, then you should at least provide something convincing in support of that. Since you haven't been insisting, we didn't argue.

However, if you declare publicly that Poseidon and Zeus and Dionysus make you more special than everybody else, then don't expect to receive many friendly responses from non hellenic polytheists, since you have yet to provide any shareable and convincing evidence in support of your first claims. If you go on from there, and declare that I'm going to be judged by Zeus and Poseidon and Dionysus after my death, according to your own set of beliefs, then I'm going to be even less friendly with you. Why? That's not difficult to understand. If you don't, then I will try to explain it to you.

Then you will start whining and say that I don't understand anything about your faith. You might try to twist logic, turn it upside down, use fallacious arguments, dismiss science, or explode endless walls of twisted and obfuscated text in my face (see examples above). Eventually I'll be labeled as "smug", "liar", "antitheist", "dogmatic", I will be asked to provide "evidence" of your gods not existing, etc. Then will come a worshipper of the old Chinese Teapot, or any other conceivable supernatural thing, and the loop will start over again, and again, ad nauseam.

How true! Since the overwhelming majority of the world's population are not atheists, to assert that they are all deluded is an extraordinary claim. So where's the evidence?

According to your argument, a few centuries ago the Sun was actually revolving around the Earth, because the majority believed so. This is called argumentum ad populum, and it's a well known fallacy, not a proof.

Originally Posted by BW-userx there is only one truth, A != A = NOT A If A is not equal to A then it is not itself. if not itself. Then what is it if it is not itself?

Non Sequitur and nonsense. The most fundamental part of Logic is utterly reductive such as simple Identity. Without A = A, or in another form, if A != A, then it follows that 1 != 1, which means 1 + 1 != 2 and all of Mathematics is based on a false premise and falls completely apart having zero reliability nor consistency. Identity is a Self Evident fact since if it is not, we can know literally Nothing. If one concludes we can know nothing, then how can you even know that? A completely foolish argument.

AKA -

Garbage In = Garbage Out.

I, too, have very little patience with the "the eternal carrot or the eternal stick" focus that some Christians seem to be very preoccupied with. If you don't believe this-or-that, you'll spend the rest of forever in the very same "lake of fire" that is "reserved for the devil and his angels" – this in return for "at most seventy-odd years of screw-ups." Or (tah dahhh...) you will instead spend the rest of forever singing the praises of what must be the universe's biggest narcissist, in a place where gold is so cheap it's used for paving stones. That is, when you're not hanging out in your mansion.

Likewise the "Rapture" business and being "left behind." It made me very uncomfortable to see people snapping Tim LaHey's books off the shelves and positively gloating at the thought of sitting in the celestial grandstands watching everyone else being tortured and brutally killed. (Once again, "for seventy-odd years of screw-ups.")

I smile politely and change the subject immediately when that sort of talk crops up. Of far more interest to me is: "what are you doing for your fellow sojourner, right here, right now?" The last-judgement scene always impressed me in that regard, since the condemned people were obviously "very 'religious' folks" who had "performed miracles." The saved people, on the other hand, couldn't understand why they were picked.

We really don't know what – if anything – happens after we die. But we do know that "we are not dead yet!" And we do know that there are other people around us, who are not dead yet either, who could use a helping hand, a morsel of food, a change of clothes, or what have you. This is something that you can do. Right here. Right now. With no thought of reward.

I remember encountering a man who couldn't keep an air conditioner in his house: he kept pulling it out and giving it away to someone else who didn't have one. (And if you've ever lived in Tennessee in August, you know what I'm talking about.) I knew another elderly retired lady who worked in a soup kitchen every day, and yet she looked hungry. She was hungry. People had to keep telling her to get off the serving line, where she was tirelessly serving whoever came in, sit down herself, and eat. Likely as not she'd leave a half-finished bowl someplace. Working at that shelter was her life. Her concern and love for those who had nothing was palpable. Both of these people have passed on now, and, if there is anywhere beyond life to go to, as described that the religion that both of them followed, then I know where both of them went.

"Religiosity" that is focused on "pie in the sky, by and by," is of no use to me. Likewise people who just sit around telling everyone else that they're wrong. If you're doing that while changing bedsheets that are crawling with lice, on the other hand, that's just conversation to pass the time. These aren't things that are done with an eye toward accumulating celestial Brownie points: they're done because someone else needs help to survive.

You've never lived until you've hauled one forty-pound container of hot soup after another from a kitchen to a serving room and watched every single drop of it being hungrily eaten. Every now and then one of those people will look at you. And suddenly you just don't need heaven to be "someday." It's right here.

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs ... "Where the line gets crossed," in my book, is when either party starts to condemn the other. When they assert that the contrary opinion – and the person holding it – is "wrong," "stupid," "<<insert_perjorative_adjective_here>>." Remember: "Heaven is presumably a climate-controlled place, and that requires a boiler room!"

Things are condemned if you don't educate true-provable truth that's why us majorities say no to religions in schools we want a better world, religions do not!
Kids evolve faster than even education can...

Pascal's Wager states kill your firstborn children and smear their blood on your doorsteps!!!

The only charity needed is education and practice at it, how else walk or use GNU\Linux!

Originally Posted by enorbet Non Sequitur and nonsense. The most fundamental part of Logic is utterly reductive such as simple Identity. Without A = A, or in another form, if A != A, then it follows that 1 != 1, which means 1 + 1 != 2 and all of Mathematics is based on a false premise and falls completely apart having zero reliability nor consistency. Identity is a Self Evident fact since if it is not, we can know literally Nothing. If one concludes we can know nothing, then how can you even know that? A completely foolish argument. AKA - Garbage In = Garbage Out.

yeah I hear a lot of that in here. that's for sure... lmao hahahahaha

so like whatever I never said I was a math head.

Originally Posted by Philip Lacroix However, if you declare publicly that Poseidon and Zeus and Dionysus make you more special than everybody else, then don't expect to receive many friendly responses from non hellenic polytheists, since you have yet to provide any shareable and convincing evidence in support of your first claims. If you go on from there, and declare that I'm going to be judged by Zeus and Poseidon and Dionysus after my death, according to your own set of beliefs, then I'm going to be even less friendly with you.

You have got too used to baiting Christians to understand Pagans! I haven't attempted to convert anyone to my beliefs — unlike you. I only have a religious signature as a modest response to another member of this forum who has one warning those who disagree with him that they'll go to hell. I couldn't care less what atheists, Christians, or Muslims believe: I just object to their assertions of correctness. Nor do I claim that you will be "judged by Zeus". I don't think that either of us will be judged by anyone, and, since you pay no attention to Zeus, why should he pay attention to you?

Then will come a worshiper of the old Chinese Teapot…

.
Did I mention the condescending rudeness of atheists?

According to your argument, a few centuries ago the Earth was actually flat, because the majority believed so. This is called argumentum ad populum, and it's a well known fallacy, not a proof.

Never use arguments from history, unless you actually know some. The evidence for the Earth being a sphere was known to the Greeks and taught to every medieval student. Under certain conditions, consensus gentium works: see the writings of Thomas Reid and Ludwig Wittgenstein.

Oh how I love it when people talk about me behind my back right in front of me. what is to be said of that?

Originally Posted by Philip Lacroix Whereas a description can be used as a name, like "catholic church" for instance. Since the adjective "catholic" has indeed a meaning, I can legitimately disagree about its attribution to a given church.

Only because you lack understanding only because you do not even want to actually understand. You only want to stay stuck on .. whats that word again?



The word Catholic meaning Universal as you already at lest know that much. It CAN be used for the CATHOLIC CHURCH because Christianity is for everyone. It not not selective, therefore UNIVERSAL.

Universal defined:

of, affecting, or done by all people or things in the world or in a particular group; applicable to all cases.

That is what Christianity is. True Christianity. Just because you do not want to believe does not make it NOT SO.

Originally Posted by Philip Lacroix However, it seems that in certain contexts some people prefer to ignore meanings altogether, and be "irritated" instead by the occasional use of the adjective "so-called",

Therefore, your using of the term "so-called" is not valid.

Originally Posted by Philip Lacroix turning this and other "quibbles" into obfuscated and unreadable text bombs of logarithmic scale, in order to fill all the available space, while twisting the original point all the way to hell.

projecting one self image is a common trait in all humans.

Originally Posted by Philip Lacroix That might happen, but that was not the point of my reply.

Originally Posted by Philip Lacroix David, you cannot resist either it seems: in fact that's not how it works. Religious LQ members who subscribe to this thread, and expect to meet only people who will agree with them, should probably look somewhere else, for a more "protected" environment, with less interference from erethics, geeks and bloody atheists.

this is and can only be said because it is the bloody atheists are stepping into this thread when it clearly states The Faith & Religion mega Thread NOT
I believe I have no faith, and I have no GOD to tell me what is right or wrong. I make up my own rule and moral standards to live by that can change at a moments notice. Just to suit me at the moment I decided to change them to suit me where the bloody atheists, as you call them, will have a place of there own to ridicule, lay down false accusations and just plain try to cause chaos and try to tear down everyone but themselves in there. but where i the fun it that for them?

Always wanting to be right.

It is a God trait in every man and woman.

if called a lair regardless if they do it on purpose or it is them deceiving both themselves and perhaps the others he or see tells it to, it is still a lie simply because it is a non truth, that deceives them that take it as a truth they get upset and demand they are the truth and not GOD!

When God is TRUTH not Man.

etc ...

Originally Posted by Philip Lacroix A church for example. You claim that I "know", but what should I know?

yes everyone should know the True God. but that is not the case. Not that it is not attainable to man, only that the man that loves to deny Him just so he can be his own god instead.

Originally Posted by Philip Lacroix That your god is not? Or gods, since you are a hellenic polytheist?

def not pertaining to me

Originally Posted by Philip Lacroix removed due to not pretaing to my eleive and it was personalize to someone else personally.

Originally Posted by Philip Lacroix According to your argument, a few centuries ago the Earth was actually flat, because the majority believed so. This is called argumentum ad populum, and it's a well known fallacy, not a proof.

that is illogical. That too is the basis for argument between believers and non-belevers.

just because you do not believe it does not make it not true.

But to think that the earth was once flat only because a large group of people thought it was flat, does not make it so. When the "all of a sudden" someone or some others some how figured out it is round?

that is like saying.

once people believed the earth is flat so it was. then they believed the earth was round so it was. what is next? then they believed the earth was a triangle so it was?

if that where a truth then this earth would always be changing its shape.

If we categorize everyone enough we come up with: http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/

...and now we are at an Ultimate Abstract Truth. Before the Earth existed and long past it's fate of being swallowed by the Sun, A = A, 1 = 1, was and will be True. More simply put in concrete terms Any One Thing is Itself, and one Thing considered with another One thing equals Two Things.

This is why so many Philosophers, Scientists, Theorists and Mathematicians state some form of "If God exists, He/She/It is a Mathematician" because the very concept that if even One Thing exists it has Identity and if another is added/created there are Two Things.

QED - Therefore Mathematics exists even if no God, No Universe, No Thing exists to recognize it.