 |
|
|
|
 Bishop Thomas Paprocki of Illinois is planning an exorcism for the state after it approved gay marriage.
November 15th, 2013
10:10 AM ET
Illinois bishop plans gay-marriage exorcismBy Daniel Burke, Belief Blog Co-editor [twitter-follow screen_name='BurkeCNN'] (CNN) - The devil made them do it? According to a Catholic bishop in Springfield, Illinois, Satan was behind his state's recent legalization of same-sex marriage. So, next Wednesday, at about the same time Gov. Pat Quinn signs the gay marriage bill into law, Bishop Thomas Paprocki will hold an exorcism ceremony "in reparation for the sin of same-sex marriage." Paprocki, who's something of an expert on exorcism, says he's just following the Pope's marching orders. When Pope Francis, then Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio, was an archbishop in Argentina, he called that country's legalization of same-sex marriage "a 'move' of the father of lies who wishes to confuse and deceive the children of God." In a statement released on Thursday, Paprocki said: "The pope's reference to the 'father of lies' comes from the Gospel of John, where Jesus refers to the devil as 'a liar and the father of lies.' So Pope Francis is saying that same-sex 'marriage' comes from the devil and should be condemned as such." Since his election as Pope in March, Francis seems to have taken a less combative approach to homosexuality. At a news conference in July, for example, he said "Who am I to judge?" a gay person who seeks to be a good person. Illinois politicians - including Catholics - cited the Pope's words when explaining their support for the state's same-sex marriage bill. In September, the Pope said the church has no right to "interfere spiritually" in the lives of gays and lesbians and chided Catholics who "obsess" about fighting culture war issues like abortion and same-sex marriage. MORE ON CNN: Pope Francis: Church can't 'interfere' with gays But Paprocki calls same-sex marriage "contrary to the plan of God" and says all Catholics who support it - from legislators to county clerks who issue marriage licenses - are "culpable of serious sin." The bishop has invited priests and lay Catholics to his exorcism ceremony, officially called "“Prayers of Supplication and Exorcism in Reparation for the Sin of Same-Sex Marriage,” which is scheduled for November 20 at the Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception in Springfield, Illinois. Paprocki says the ceremony will follow the Catholic Church's Rite of Exorcism, which explains that Satan not only possesses people, he can also invade places and things, including the church itself. "We must pray for deliverance from this evil which has penetrated our state and our church," Paprocki said. Exorcism is experiencing something of a renaissance in the United States, with the Catholic bishops recruiting dozens of priests to perform the ancient rite. Paprocki is among the bishops leading the recruiting drive. soundoff (3,013 Responses)« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Next »
Next entry »When Pope Francis was put on laundry duty
« Previous entryProsecutor: Pope faces threat from the mafia
|
  About this blog
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.  |
|
|
|
Just how effective are exorcisms?
I have a treadmill............ very effective!
More evidence that bigotry of this kind will not be tolerated. This waitress served in the Marines for two years and is donating everything to the Wounded Warrior Project.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/15/us/new-jersey-gay-waitress-no-tip/index.html?hpt=hp_t3
Knowledge is not worth seven minutes of your life L4H too funny. Have to cite the source. NOT the silly bible.
Good News the latest news about evolution
Which you have a hard time with.
How Climate Change and Plate Tectonics Shaped Human Evolution
The development of the East African Rift valley fragmented the landscape and formed a large number of separate lake basins. The mountainous landscape makes these basins very sensitive to small changes in rainfall. Martin Trauth of Potsdam University and colleagues found geological evidence that deep, freshwater lakes existed around 2.6 million, 1.8 million and 1 million years ago – key dates in human evolutionary history.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-climate-change-and-plate-tectonics-shaped-human-evolution
Does this story at Scientific American finally demonstrate a change in kinds? Or explain how even though we'd need additional genetic information to be added to get Darwinian evolution, we only see losses of information? Or why scientists believe in evolution when science rejects it?
Please define "kind" Topher. It's not a common scientific term so couldn't supply you with evidence until I'm aware of where you are placing the goal posts.
@Science Works : How Climate Change and Plate Tectonics Shaped Human Evolution
So, scientists agree with scripture when it states that the earth was divided.
Genesis 10:25 Two sons were born to Eber: One was named Peleg, because in his time the earth was divided;
Wow the leaps you make L4H. I supposed the seating arrangement at the House of Representatives is also evidence of plate tectonics.
The bible............ make it say whatever you want it to say!
Origin of life paper.
And believe it or not this comes out of Texas, evolution is true no gods/devil required.
“This is bigger than finding any dinosaur,” Chatterjee said. “This is what we’ve all searched for – the Holy Grail of science.”
Thanks to regular and heavy comet and meteorite bombardment of Earth’s surface during its formative years 4 billion years ago
Paper No. 300-5: Impact, RNA-Protein World and the Endoprebiotic Origin of Life https://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2013AM/webprogram/Paper222699.html
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/10/131029133124.htm
lol??
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
That "Chicxulub meteorite strike near Mexico," was the first the UAW ever called. It was historic.It ticked off the male patrons of that club on the strip and commerce ground to a halt.
So what's with the phony hat, the phony clothes? It would be funny if he wasn't a Phony!!
I did what now? Sorry I was taking a nap, that darned Pope and his goodness, bleck it makes me sick. What happened to the Evil Emperor guy I had up there before? I think you might ask why God wants this cuz frankly I don't give a &&&&.
Go to hell right now!
Published on Sep 12, 2013
See the full behind-the-scenes experience: http://goo.gl/oau0g5
Vic, L4H and topher too. turtles all the way.
In partnership with the Directorate of the Galapagos National Park, The Charles Darwin Foundation, and Catlin Seaview Survey, we traveled to the archipelago to collect 360-degree Street View imagery.
Produced by B-Reel and Google
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKG2qH8778U
Sorry, but I don't view any of the videos in the blog. If you can articulate it, I'll answer. Otherwise, I'll ignore it.
A person who was interested in arguments against their position would.
I disagree. We all have limited time and unless a video is presented with an intro explaining the argument point being made I'll keep my time for myself.
Judging by the time the usual suspects spend on here, I'd have to disagree.
L4H
Evolution wins hands down no exorcism needed .
No, I can't watch it! Those darn finches that destroy my worldview! I mean ... finches that evolve into ... FINCHES! (sarcasm.)
Are you homeschooling the baby?? Otherwise they will be taught about Evolution in school and if they are fortunate enough to be around children of non-believers, they'll soon come to realize the creation story doesn't fit the evidence.
truthprevails1
"Are you homeschooling the baby??"
That's the plan, though we'll see how that works out financially. Got a long time to make that decision.
"Otherwise they will be taught about Evolution in school ..."
Must depend on the school district. I went to public school all the way through and I don't remember them specifically teaching evolution. Though they did teach some of the things that go along with it.
"and if they are fortunate enough to be around children of non-believers, they'll soon come to realize the creation story doesn't fit the evidence."
Depends on the evidence. The Creation story — and thus the Bible — lines up really well with science.
topher
From wolf to domesticated dog a change, also the English Lab was domesticated for digging up flower bulbs and now in the USA
the lab is one of the best family and bird dogs available today.
Dogs Likely Originated in Europe More Than 18,000 Years Ago, Biologists Report
Nov. 14, 2013 — Wolves likely were domesticated by European hunter-gatherers more than 18,000 years ago and gradually evolved into dogs that became household pets, UCLA life scientists report.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/11/131114142134.htm
Actually the Galapagos as depicted in many docu-mentaries doesn't exist anymore. Because in many of those videos they show these giant turtles. And we all know that Topher's ark allowed the giant turtles to die when it dropped them off at Gibraltar. There's no way they could have survived the harsh Atlantic on their way back home. He said the ark didn't have to go very far.
So really someone faked those docu-mentary videos. 🙂
@Maddy : start from argument from ignorance. That was her opening statement and a tough one to rebut.
Since she didn't present any quotes, she has presented zero evidence to support that claim. Just because she can NAME a logic fallacy doesn't mean that it applies.
So what have you presented that hasn't been easily BS over and over again here L4H?
The Argument from Ignorance is basically a naked assertion: God did it. That's it.
Premise:
Take virtually any aspect of our natural world that we don't fully understand (or that both the theist and his audience are not well-informed on), and you'll find a someone claiming God is at the end of that dimly-lit tunnel. Why is there cancer? What causes HIV? Why do people die? Why do bad things happen to good people? Why did that tsunami wreck Indonesia? How did the Red Sox win the World Series? It's God's will. What is the meaning of life? To serve God. Why should we act morally? Because God says so. How did so-and-so survive that horrible accident unscathed? It was a miracle. How did life originate on Earth? Godidit! The Argument from Ignorance is the doorway that lets God into any and all claims.
Critique:
This isn't so much an argument as it is an unsubstantiated opinion. This claim is made in virtually all other arguments for the existence of god. The theist proposes a scenario that cannot be adequately explained by science or our current level of knowledge, and "fills in the gap" with God. Whenever we don't understand something, we use God as the universal excuse to explain anything unknown.
Obviously, in earlier days, with less universal knowledge, God was more prevalent. As our knowledge expands, these "gaps" become smaller. The battle over evolution is a desperate attempt to widen this ever-tightening gap that theists have claimed is evidence for the existence of God.
The irony is that many claims theists make which create these gaps are ones that could be answered with science and reason. The "morality argument" is a good example. People have been told that without God there are no moral standards and therefore God is the true source of morality. These moral constructs can easily be explained without invoking the supernatural, but because of peoples' ignorance and conditioning, it's easier for them to conclude: it's because of God.
The argument from Ignorance is the "glue" for all other claims, because as you will see, there is no indisputable, tangible evidence of the existence of any God. So the other claims create a scenario where there is something "unknown" or "unexplained" into which the notion of "God" is arbitrarily inserted. If the reader can't offer an immediate legitimate explanation, the Argument from Ignorance suggests by default, God is the answer.
@truthprevails1 : God did it. That's it.
Again, this is a strawman – You don't quote your opponent, you make up their arguments and then refute them. You cannot lose.
I wasn't arguing with you, that is pointless-you are convinced you are right and nothing is likely to change your mind. I was merely pointing out what the argument is and why.
As I didn't post this to Live, I'm not going to address this.
Science is gawd
I says so.
Horus
Anyone have any good suggestions for charities to give to this holiday season? I thought we could put together a list. Anything funneled through the government is out.
– Habitat for Humanity
– Tomorrow Clubs
NORML
L.E.A.P
law enforcement against prohibition
Doctors Without Borders; UNICEF; Red Cross...if you want to do something that has more of a local effect start a program within your church to help out a local family who might be down on their luck this season...no child should be left out of the excitement of Santa and no-one should go hungry.
The Smile Foundation.
I second the Smile Foundation!
Hos pice.
For topher and his child's benefit.
Your contribution to the National Center for Science Education supports NCSE's diverse efforts to promote and defend the integrity of science education.
https://secure.commonground.convio.com/NCSE/join/
How is this a charity?
OK Vic Scalia says the devil is real should the Bishop (fruitcake from xmas past) perform an exorcism to get chase the red hor-ny devil away ?
Vic, all that you have presented in support of your god beliefs still boils down to argument from ignorance, at best. It can be summarily dismissed as such. As others have often noted here, the courageous, honest answer regarding the origin of the universe is "We don't know.", not "God did it".
We can go a step further than that with certainty, and also state that the Christian god as presented in the bible cannot possibly be the creator of our universe, for several solid reasons. Among those are the internal inconsistencies of the bible in regard to the presented characteristics of the Christian god, and the conflicts of the bible with reality via ready observables. Your reading of "Theoretical Physics" does not give you an excuse to ignore that certainty that your beliefs are simply complete hogwash.
Sue
Vic is playing the Christian apologetic cowards role today, good luck getting an honest answer from him.
Many atheists act like they "know" as well. Care to tell the atheists to stop lying to the world?
Like anyone who thinks they "know" anything (100% certainty) they are already wrong and have committed themselves so much to that position that abandoning it is almost unthinkable.
I believe many things are probably true and many things aren't and somethings I don't know yet. But on the things I don't know yet, the only honest position to take (in my opinion) is skepticism.
"courageous"? Really?
And there are no inconsistancies.
yeah, gopher, courageous.
you remain a coward
Topher
Not on topic but you probably already know that Apple Bush is writing a condensed version of the bible without all the supernatural garbage. Just so you won't be disappointed ne has already already rejected the ti tle the World According To Topher but he is trying to get you a mention, what are buddies for. Congratulations.
Charm Quark
"Not on topic but you probably already know that Apple Bush is writing a condensed version of the bible without all the supernatural garbage."
Unoriginal. It's been done ... many times over.
"Just so you won't be disappointed ne has already already rejected the ti tle the World According To Topher but he is trying to get you a mention, what are buddies for. Congratulations."
That's fine. That ti.tle wouldn't make sense since I believe what the Bible currently says. Though I'd be happy to write the foreward for him. Hint, hint, Apple. 🙂
Topher
You should pass on that kind offer to AB himself, I am sure he would be thrilled to have a fine biblical scholar such as yourself endorse his work. I hope you have become familiar with the fine effort or Thomas Jefferson in this regard, like myself a dedicated Deist.
Here's 2 I've been made aware of – When did the curtain in the Temple tear? For bonus points you can figure out why it is said to have torn when it did.
LOL... forgot the 2nd one – what were the last words of Jesus on the cross? (again, bonus points if you can explain why).
@Sue : all that you have presented in support of your god beliefs still boils down to argument from ignorance, at best. It can be summarily dismissed as such.
That not objective. Before you can dismiss something, you must be able to prove (i.e. NOT just state) a verifiable reason for the falsification of the idea.
@Sue : Among those are the internal inconsistencies of the bible in regard to the presented characteristics of the Christian god
Instead of suggesting a conflict, why don't you present your proclaimed conflict?
@Sue : the conflicts of the bible with reality via ready observables.
Ditto.
Lie4Him
Got any new or updated lies or is it same old, same old stuff, be creative.
L4H, you must be pretty stupid. ID of the fallacy Vic stated as argument from ignorance was sufficient. Do try again, but only if you have a case this time.
@Ted : ID of the fallacy Vic stated as argument from ignorance was sufficient. Do try again, but only if you have a case this time.
So you admit that you have no evidence?
L4H, no, you are the one who needs to present evidence, or at least an argument without an obvious, basic fallacy in it.
Try again, stupid. At least read up on basic fallacies first though.
Lie4Him
Providing evidence to someone like you that would reject it is an exercise in futility, for example refuting the evidence of the scientist that discovered the "soft dinosaur tissue" as being 68 million years old and twisting that into a young earth theory is dishonest, a lie, that is what you do
You have to love Live4Him's agility in jumping to conclusions by putting words in someone's mouth. What a fraud. Someone said she was honest. Her pits to Ted was clearly disingenuous, showing her innate dishonesty.
@Ted : you are the one who needs to present evidence
Hate to say it, but you're wrong here. The person advocating a position has the responsibility to buttress their postulate.
Sue (and presumably you since you've been defending her position) advanced the postulate of Among those are the internal inconsistencies of the bible. Since both of you are unable to support your argument, then it must be dismissed for lack of evidence.
@Ted : Try again, stupid. At least read up on basic fallacies first though.
I already know them. For example, this quote is a perfect example of argumentum ad hominem. Don't you know the fallacies yourself?
@Ancient Texan : putting words in someone's mouth.
Let me quote Sue AGAIN.
Sue : Among those are the internal inconsistencies of the bible.
So, I didn't put words into her mouth, but I did comprehend what she wrote.
Live4him start from argument from ignorance. That was her opening statement and a tough one to rebut. Not really an evidence thing but examine the statement re logic.
Sue : "all that you have presented in support of your god beliefs still boils down to argument from ignorance, at best. It can be summarily dismissed as such."
L4H: "Hate to say it, but you're wrong here. The person advocating a position has the responsibility to buttress their postulate."
LOL. Sounds pretty much like Sue was not buying whatever claim you were making, L4H. Regardless, it's the Bible's extraordinary claims that you keep trying to support. Because of your failure to convince, you somehow think it's someone else's responsibility to support it for you–to successfully convince others for you? Good luck with that.
@Doris : Sounds pretty much like Sue was not buying whatever claim you were making, L4H
Your reading comprehension skills are lacking. She was addressing her comments to someone named Vic.
Perhaps you missed this part, L4H:
Regardless, it's the Bible's extraordinary claims that you keep trying to support. Because of your failure to convince, you somehow think it's someone else's responsibility to support it for you–to successfully convince others for you? Good luck with that.
Talk about reading comprehension.
Sin, free will, absolute "truths". All necessary notions for certain religions. Not at all necessary for many outside of those religions. More and more in the global information age, people are realizing they can have a positive role in society without being tied to religion; which of course includes the often outdated moral specifics of such religions. When religious belief flies in the face of current science, it becomes even more obvious that religious belief is not as firm a basis for anything and not a requirement for morality. And so we are seeing the change before our eyes. Perhaps not as fast in the U.S. as elsewhere, but change nevertheless. What is on the side of those in the U.S. who follow the bark of liberty is the wall of separation; the "wall" established in the Consti-tution by our very Deistic founders of the government.
"[If] the nature of... government [were] a subordination of the civil to the ecclesiastical power, I [would] consider it as desperate for long years to come. Their steady habits [will] exclude the advances of information, and they [will] seem exactly where they [have always been]. And there [the] clergy will always keep them if they can. [They] will follow the bark of liberty only by the help of a tow-rope." –Thomas Jefferson
"The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.
Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind." –John Adams
The belief in libertarian free will is one of the most dangerous aspects of Christianity as it causes most Christians, even non-fundamentalists, to ignore large aspects of behavioral science, from psychology to social theory and economics. Even after people leave Christianity behind it often takes them years to shed this artifact of their old belief system, leaving us with frightening right wing atheists who are sometimes more "Christian" in this area than many self-described Christians.
I'll have to ponder that one a bit.
A Christian, for example, has an entire moral system worked out for him by generations of Christians and based on a book that is the inerrant word of his God. I don't think a vacuum is left where that is when he realizes that the basis is imaginary. Its replacement takes a lot of time and thought.
@Tom, Tom, the Other One : A Christian, for example, has an entire moral system worked out for him by generations of Christians and based on a book that is the inerrant word of his God.
True. And unlike atheism, it doesn't change at the slightest breeze.
@Tom, Tom, the Other One : when he realizes that the basis is imaginary.
Weelll... lay it all out. What evidence do YOU have that it is all imaginary? (drum roll ... Now is for the time for the fallacy of presumptive proof.)
Do you need proof that people have realized that it is imaginary? That's not something you are aware of?
" it doesn't change at the slightest breeze."
that's silly, L4H. what evidence do you have that it doesn't change? even if you could try to answer, it is still just your interpretation. we know the interpretation has changed (even quite a bit right in our time). now if you could prove or demonstrate in some way that the "true" meaning is there somewhere independent of any interpretation, then you might have a point. can you perform that demonstration?
Ridiculous! He is an idolater and idolatry is precisely what brings about all of these other sins with it. He needs an exorcism himself to get rid of the funny hat and the weird vestments. Idolatry is a very grave and serious SIN that carries within itself all of these other abhorrence and abnormal anti-natural SINS.
(My BS is better than your BS)
It certainly is. He'll bring out his buddies His panic and Salero21 next.
I'm such an Idolater but I'm having too much fun with my priest to admit it!
Mandy rocks, name thief. Go to hell where you belong.
Actually I agree. Mandy rocks.
MADDY, you ignorant buffoons. MADDY rocks. You're now unfriended.
NO WAY my BS is better than your BS!
name borrower rears its foolish head again...
You fool it is you not me
MY BS IS BY FAR SUPERIOR TO YOUR BS
OK, I admit I'm full of it
I hear science has some wild ideas about burning fossils for fuel. How's that gonna work?? God has a much hotter fire. He can burn em.
If there was such a god complete with it's talking snakes and hell, by all means, submit your idea to get us out of this energy mess pronto. I'm sure the Dept. of Energy would love to hear from you.
LOL! That's funny.
How about liquifying coal, that's a clean source of energy?
Here's the problem with energy solutions: The overwhelming greed of those already established. They actively lobby to crush all newcomers and suppress all innovation outside of their control / profit.
Most energy production is based upon heat. A nuclear reactor does nothing but create heat which turns generators.
Coal-burning plants do the same thing. Steam is used because it has great mechanical potential.
But there are exceptions: Hydro-electric dams use water pressure to turn generators, wind-power turns generators, solar panels take UV and turn a small percentage directly into electrical current.
We live on a molten planet covered with a thick layer of rock. Heat is everywhere, wind blows in many places, UV sunlight, mechanical energy like water flowing downhill, waves on the ocean, high-altitude winds have more speed, etc.
It's raining soup and all we are given are golden thimbles to catch it in by those who refuse to ramp up energy production using non-oil/coal resources. They want all the money they can get, gouging everyone while keeping energy costs high as possible, polluting as much as possible before they are stopped from poisoning everyone. Greed wins again, we lose.
The Catholic Catechism's sets out its official position on matters. Here is its position on exorcism:
"When the Church asks publicly and authoritatively in the name of Jesus Christ that a person or object be protected against the power of the Evil One and withdrawn from his dominion, it is called exorcism. Jesus performed exorcisms and from him the Church has received the power and office of exorcizing...In a simple form, exorcism is performed at the celebration of Baptism. The solemn exorcism, called "a major exorcism," can be performed only by a priest and with the permission of the bishop. The priest must proceed with prudence, strictly observing the rules established by the Church. Exorcism is directed at the expulsion of demons or to the liberation from demonic possession through the spiritual authority which Jesus entrusted to his Church. Illness, especially psychological illness, is a very different matter; treating this is the concern of medical science. Therefore, before an exorcism is performed, it is important to ascertain that one is dealing with the presence of the Evil One, and not an illness"
I love this bit, "Illness, especially psychological illness, is a very different matter; treating this is the concern of medical science. Therefore, before an exorcism is performed, it is important to ascertain that one is dealing with the presence of the Evil One, and not an illness"
It's like a psychiatrist saying, "before I treat this person's mental delusion, I better check and make sure that the CIA is NOT beaming messages to him through his toaster."
Daniel Dennett, Lawrence Krauss and Massimo Pigliucci discuss The Limits Of Science. This is a wonderful video. Included in the discussion are the notions of knowledge and consensus.
Published on Nov 5, 2013
00:00 Introduction
07:07 Limits of Science
19:40 God & the Supernatural
31:20 Science & Morality
50:11 Something out of Nothing
1:03:42 The Value of Philosophy
1:20:59 Cognitive Limits
1:35:43 Questions:
– 1:35:56 Science & Politics
– 1:43:33 The Status of Economics
– 1:48:17 Does Consciousness Exist?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tH3AnYyAI8
How do you guys keep track of all these people that post under several names? And reply after reply after reply, with no "reply" button. By the time I've gotten to the bottom of some of these posts with all their replies, I've forgotten what the original post was about. Makes my brain hurt!
The earth is only 6,000 years old and God put the fossils here to test our faith in him! Seems more believable than what atheists believe. Everything came from some random explosion yet they actually can't prove we exist without a creator. Atheism loses again. And they want to teach their version of their beliefs in our science classrooms..how dare they!
Please confirm you are an atheist making fun of a believer. The Internet devise you are communicating with didn't come from prayer, it came from math, science, and engineering.
If you think the Earth is only 6k old, then why are you not relying upon your 'god' for food in the wilderness like Elijah?
Do you live in a fracking-polluted area? Then you can already make water burn and only need a good supply of grasshoppers.
Atheism is wrong. I'm right. Science is on my side!
Thanks for the confirmation.
No problem😀
Sarcasm, if you really want to see it done well may I recommend "The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster." Bobby Henderson knows how to do it.
That's the devil's religion.
This must be someone like Salero. Even dino soft tissue paper doesn't sound this ridiculous.
The Poe troll "L" is back.
Be gone devil worshiper!
Begone, Poe. Told you yesterday I'm not an atheist.
You lack reading comprehension. Typical of a troll.
The only troll here is you.
Nope. I've been posting here for over 2 years, first under Maddy Gascar, then just Maddy.
Try not to project your own behavior onto others.
Stop lying foul demon!
When trolls don't have a leg to stand on, the project their lying behavior onto others.
If anyone is foul, it's you and your odious posts, Good without a theism L.
It's good without atheism...are people this stupid?
If one is too stupid to use the space bar, you will have that. People read what you write.
There isn't 't a limit on the number of characters you can use in your user name.
The stupid one seems to be you.
Say it with me Goodwithoutatheism. Good without a theism DOESN'T make sense.. I swear people are getting dumber and dumber.
the·ism
ˈTHēˌizəm/
noun
1.
belief in the existence of a god or gods, esp. belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures.
So, good without a theism would mean good without a
belief in the existence of a god or gods, esp. belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures.
Simple.
Use the space bar for brevity.
You're just a troll who can't read.
No, you are a troll who cannot articulate clearly.
And a stubborn one at that.
Stop projecting, and start taking responsibility for your mistakes.
Use the space bar. You'll have slightly more credibility.
Objective evidence for the Christian/Abrahamic God:
The Bibles. Archeological evidence of the people that believed in it that is roughly continuous.
Objective evidence that the Christian/Abrahamic God does not exist outside the mind of some humans:
The errors in the bibles; errors of fact, errors of omission, moral errors. Factual errors include (but not limited to) the creation myth, mythological creatures, animals incorrectly classified, etc. errors of omission like no mention of any aspect of the real universe that was unknown to humans at the time, like microbes, galaxies, etc. moral errors include defining rules of slavery, defining women at lower status, etc.
The scientific advancements in the last few centuries have removed many of the mysterious questions answered incorrectly by Abrahamic religions. Lots of questions remain, but there is no indication that our universe is anything other than natural. Not knowing what dark energy is, is NOT evidence of a supernatural agent, much less the Abrahamic one.
The stories in the bible have uncanny similarity to myths from other earlier belief systems. This is not only evidence that the bibles are man created, but that they are not original.
The radiation and proliferation of Abrahamic sects, each with their own definition of Truth is evidence that they are man made, and manipulated to be used for power over other men.
The list goes on and on.
Analysis:
All the objective evidence for God is indistinguishable from evidence that man created god to explain a mysterious universe and then exploited the success to exercise power over other men. To maintain Abrahamic beliefs in the face of mounting scientific knowledge, people devise more and more logically strained explanations. This is extremely weak as objective evidence for the Abrahamic God.
The evidence against this God is enormous, logical, and growing every day. The scientific knowledge base grows exponentially and never supports the case for God and often is in conflict with it. Science is constantly improving our understanding of the universe, always consistent with natural explanations. When science discovers errors, they are fixed, but never need supernatural elements to fix it. It raises new questions all the time, but none indicate supernatural forces.
Conclusion:
Supernatural explanations were all we had when there was no natural explanations. They have been supplanted by science and many more questions have been posed and answered than those people could have imagined. With virtually no solid objective evidence for the Abrahamic God, and a growing mountain of objective evidence against, the only rational conclusion is the Abrahamic/Christian G do does not exist outside the minds of the believers.
Other thought:
Any notion that Pascal's Wager comers to the rescue is similarly unfounded. It only rests on the parochial notion that your God is the only God. There is an infinitude of possible Gods, and infinite subset of those are jealous Gods just like the Abrahamic God. If you don't follow them and them only, you are doomed for eternity by them.
Pascal's Wager is always an attempt by someone to use fear to inspire belief. God inspires belief. Only God does that.
Desperation inspires belief.
Oh, and eternal life inspires belief.
Brad,
I'm afraid you are factually wrong. I don't believe in god. Did I get that belief from God? If so, then how can I be penalized for it?
I don't think lack of belief is belief. That's an interesting idea though. Are you being penalized for lack of belief?
Brad,
I affirmatively believe there is no God. Same argument ensues.
I should have capitalized belief. Belief as in Belief in the existence of God. I know you can believe in fairies or the color blue without the inspiration of God. Are you being penalized for your positive belief that God does not exist?
Brad,
If only God can inspire belief, and I believe there are no Gods, the Christian God sends me to hell (penalty) for believing what only He could inspire.
Doesn't seem very fair to me.
Do you believe in hell? I have no evidence that there is such a thing.
Brad,
Of course I don't. It is a logical argument. If your defense is that Christianity has no hell, then you are a member of a very small sect of Christianity that believes that.
Hell is a human construct. Always has been.
A nicely-written but too-short argument there, bostontola. But now you are sounding like you have "evolved" in some way.
Am I wrong?
Crom,
It is absolutely a reader's digest version intentionally to not be over wrought. My ideas are evolving all the time but I'm not sure what in particular you are referring to.
I had thought that you were severely agnostic in insisting that the lack of a god or gods was 'unknowable' and could not articulate (or never had a chance, perhaps) your reasoning for such a position when I had asked you for it before.
But here you have an argument that appears to be a non-agnostic argument showing that there are no gods or supernatural anythings – 'readers digest' version notwithstanding.
Thoughts?
Crom,
No change on that front. No one can positively know if there is or isn't some kind of god. My argument was about the vast evidence against the Christian/Abrahamic god, and the paucity for it. In that sense I am have been an agnostic atheist. I believe there are no gods, but can't prove it (and have not seen a proof of it).
So the engineering aspects of physics don't sway you at all?
There is no gain/loss of energy in physics but everything retains the total amount already present.
There are no indications of anything beyond physics in our physical reality.
All of physics works in only one way. No deviations have ever been reported that even suggest anything outside of straightforward physics.
Should you examine human events objectively, nothing but physics is apparent as being present in any form.
No indications of outside manipulation exist in any form outside of schizophrenic bias.
The definition of a 'god' precludes any possibility based upon all solid physical evidence.
The only things you have left as possibilities are:
• Initial and only influence in the event culminating in the "Big Bang". (and thus does not meet definition of a 'god' that interacts or influences anything after that initial event / action.)
• A "matrix" type of feedback-illusion where our brains are somewhere else entirely.
• An insane and illogical 'god' that makes no sense whatsoever.
What I tried to ask you before was along the lines of: "okay, you say you have a reason for holding up ignorance as a form of proof, an argument from ignorance, so you must have a solid knowledgeable basis from which to insist that there is some tiny crack where a god could be possible." or something like that, yet you never came back with a response that explained your positive claim that ignorance is somehow proof of the possibility of any sort of god existing.
Right?
Ignorance is not an affirmative proof of anything. I never tried to prove anything, just look at evidence and draw conclusions.
But aren't the conclusions you draw good enough for you yet?
You demand proof and I give it and you ignore it and say you haven't seen any proof.
Imagine my frustration and try to see where I'm going with this when you argue using the totality of scientific knowledge as proof and acknowledge the paucity of any indication of any gods whatsoever, yet retain some strange insistence that a god still remains possible in some way.
To have such a position, you must have something positive in the way of proof beyond your own schizophrenic bias or you are just an ignorant person insisting that your own ignorance is more compelling as evidence than all the scientific knowledge in the world, even as you argue otherwise in your original post!!
Perhaps the problem here is that you cannot grasp or analyze your own environment to the required degree and thus have as your argument your own insecurity – holding it up like a shield against all facts to the contrary.
Tell me I'm wrong. Explain what the hell you are about, if you would be so kind....
Crom,
I repeat, I never offered proof and don't have one, just evidence.
In my view, theists believe in god based on blind faith (no objective evidence, certainly no proof), atheists believe there is no god based on evidence (not proof), pure agnostics don't engage for whatever reasons they have.
So you must have some definition of "proof" that goes beyond a totality of evidence available.
You said, above, "No one can positively know if there is or isn't some kind of god."
That, sir, is a positive claim for which I have not seen any proof from you yet, or even "evidence" or whatever you want to call it.
You are making a positive claim that these things are unknowable, therefore you MUST have evidence or proof that supports this position of yours or you are just arguing from ignorance, your own, and no one else's. Yes?
Crom,
1. My statement that there is no proof is merely a statement of fact. There is none. If you claim that a condition where all evidence supports a claim and none refutes it consti tues a proof, you don't know what a proof is (see Goldbach's conjecture).
2. As to my not spending every minute here, get a life.
3. As to your labeling me an agnostic, you labor under a gross misunderstanding: you must think I remotely care what you think. You have earned no respect given your demonstrated weak critical thinking skills. Therefore no one should care about your opinion.
A "statement of fact" must have supporting proof or you're just blowing a lot of BS around.
Yeah, you're a lying sack of shit, I guess. You say something is a "fact" yet have NO supporting evidence or proof of said "fact".
As for critical thinking skills, I'd say you're the one with a serious deficiency. You can't even support your own statements.
Bah.
Furnish the proof and I'll concede.
Yes, you are one of those who sidesteps every question. A sleaze-ball. Couldn't even come up with anything but suddenly wants me to explain what I've already explained.
We get lots of people like you, bostontola. Every single one a sleaze. The lowest form of human on the planet.
Facts:
Jupiter is the largest planet in our solar system.
There is no proof of Goldbach's conjecture.
There is no proof that there are no gods.
Simple facts, no proof required. When someone proves Goldbach's conjecture, thevstatement will cease to be a fact. Same thing if someone provides a proof of no gods.
You don't understand the simplest things. You don't matter.
The simplest thing here is that you are nothing but a religitard, believing in things without proof, and when faced with many proofs that you are wrong, you retreat into ad hominem and sidestep every question.
A sleazeball, just like I said. You are no better than Chad. A real piece of filth who cannot man up and face the questions and the proofs put before you day after day.
I wanted answers and got evasions from you instead.
You don't have a fucking clue how to be honest, do you?
People like you are worth nothing in this world, because you all suck as human beings. Go act like a child somewhere else and get the hell out of here and don't fucking come back. We already have more than enough liars like you and Chad here. You are no atheist, just a liar. No liar is worth the air or space you take up. Go die in a fire already.
You're right about 1 thing, I believe many things without proof. You almost certainly do also, but apparently you don't even realize it.
As to rest of your rant, anyone can read this thread and see you accuse others of your own immature behavior.
No, I have an idea of what you mean, but then you are being deliberately coy and evasive, so I'm more than right about more than one thing. You suck as a human being. Your god doesn't exist but you're too scared to talk about it.
Calm down, little fellah. You won't feel a thing and won't exist after death. Couldn't come too soon, either.
What were you saying about ad hominem? Too funny. I couldn't make this thread up. Please tell me you are only trolling, I'd hate to think an actual person is as deluded as your character in this thread.
Once you've abdicated any honor and start the insults sans argument, I am free to condemn your actions and call you every name in the book, as you have already refused to discuss this intelligently. You made the decision to avoid an answer while using childishly coy attempts to derail and evade my questions and arguments.
I am not the one making stuff up and pretending it is real. I am the one pointing out the fact that you suck as a human being, so that is not an ad hominem. Perhaps you should look it up and learn a thing or two.
I am still willing to argue, but you never were willing to be honest or argue honestly. Thus there is no ad hominem on my part.
You cannot blame me for your refusal to face the discussion squarely. My conscience is clear. You have failed again.
bostontola, why engage this black hole of negativity? While I agree with Crom about as much as I disagree with it, its mind is diseased with rage. It has its purposes, perhaps, but to this degree?
Crom,
Thanks for your continued contribution of evidence of my position. You keep doing what you accuse others of. Like I said, I hope you are just trolling.
Capt,
You're probably right. I'm trying to learn if this character is real or just trolling. You're also right that its a waste of time, but I was playing patty cake in between workout sets.
So your sockpuppet comes to the rescue! LOL
Here's some of your mistakes:
You don't know the definition of an ad hominem, a 'god', you know nothing of physics, and you don't care. You enjoy your ignorance and wallow in it. Like a pig.
Enjoy your filth, Sw(a)ine. A delusional idiot like you cannot hide your schizophrenia when you keep displaying it for all to see. You are a believer in an "infinite number of gods" but pretend to be an atheist. You say so clearly enough.
Another fail. You should change your name to "bustinoutlies" or change back into Uncouth Swain. Whatever.
Maybe U.S. is someone else who sounds very much like you. Coincidence? Perhaps.
You still suck, either way, and your little sockpuppet, too.
Crom,
Again, thanks for proving my point. I can't engage in a logical argument with you because your demonstrated lack of critical thinking skills renders that impossible.
Your constant hurling of insults that reflect your own immature behavior is amusing though.
Here, I guessed I missed this other positive claim of yours above where you said, "There is an infinitude of possible Gods, and infinite subset of those are jealous Gods just like the Abrahamic God."
You make the claim you'd better have something backing that up or admit you are a fool for making things up without any real reason to do so.
Come on and explain yourself. You claim no one's ignorance and belief in possible gods other than your own, thus you must have a basis for that.
What is the basis for that? You are fooled by your emotional responses like any religitard or not? Spill the beans, man!
I guess bostontola has run away to hide, or ran out of time again. Funny how this happens every time with bostontola....
Now I have run out of time. But I'll be back and I doubt bostontola will have anything supporting his claims, either.
ttfn.
Still nothing. And no other agnostic idiot want to step in to help bostontola, either. Sad.
Do you believe the stories of Scientology, or Mormonism? No? Do you have any proof of that?