Catholic Church contradicted itself on these issues

Matthew 12:31:32.

Jesus state that every sin and blasphemy can be forgiven , except speaking against the Holy Spirit, which will not be forgiven in this age or the age to come.

Deism is a hypothetical outcome? You were saying that we were all brainwashed not too long ago and that a baby if left alone would grow up to be an atheist. Now, all of a sudden, it's possible to not accept the brainwashing? Interesting.

And, incorrect, God designed Man with the free will to choose. Man chose to be fallen. The "fallen nature" is a self-inflicted wound not a design.

I already gave my proofs for God's existence, besides the Bible, as the Quinquae Viae. To which you called St. Thomas Aquinas a "comparatively well-educated 13th Century bloke."

If atheism is the opposite of theism then prove your claim. If the theist claim is "(a) god exists", then your opposite claim would be "a god does not exist", both would be positive claims requiring evidence. If you want to define your atheism as "a lack of belief" then the opposite would be "having belief" for theism, both would not be positive claims and not require evidence. Since you keep begging for evidence I will assume you mean theism to mean "God exists" (God of Abraham for my specific case), therefore atheism, being the opposite, would be "God does not exist". Hence, you likewise are making a positive claim on the universe. If you have no evidence, which it seems like you don't, then don't pull a fit when you don't like the evidence presented to you and you refuse to properly acknowledge it.

A statement of belief, e.g. "I believe in God", only refers to an internal attitude. A claim, e.g. "God exists", refers to a fact of reality. Keeping in line with the theme, if I say that I believe in God, I am merely stating an opinion, whereas, if I state that God exists, I am positing a truth claim. The difference is the presentation of the idea. To give a dumb example (sometimes they are the best):

Jim likes the color red.

Scenario 1: Bob and Mike are talking and Bob says, "I think Jim likes the color red." Here, Bob is making a statement of belief. He is not stating whether he knows Jim likes the color red, only that he thinks he does.

Scenario 2: Bob and Mike are talking and Bob says, "Jim likes the color red." In this case, Bob is not stating his opinion but rather making a truth claim. In this instance, if someone doubted, Bob would be expected to provide evidence on his knowledge of Jim's taste in colors.

It's too bad we didn't have smartphones 2000 years ago. If we did, Atheism would have started ten.

Funny that Mr Omniscient didn't have a smartphone...Being omniscient and all that...Had to make do with old Moses and a hammer and chisel.

Didn't even have a pen and paper.

And in order to debunk atheist logic Servus, you firstly have to prove theist fantasy...It's not a chicken and egg scenario...It's you that says that a magic man exists somewhere, so prove it...I don't have anything to prove...Show me God and the case is closed.

 I will not stick myself in your other arguments. 

Which other arguments? And did someone actually ask you for an opinion? If so,where?

Since you keep begging for evidence I will assume you mean theism to mean "God exists" (God of Abraham for my specific case), therefore atheism, being the opposite, would be "God does not exist".

Atheism (lack of belief) is not the opposite of theism. Specific flavors of theism make claims and each one is like particular frequency of sound. Christianity might be C#, Islam could be B♭, Judaism perhaps middle C. Atheism makes no claim and does not contribute to the cacophony.

Atheists are like the guy who lives on a cul de sac trying to sleep while all the neighbors are having loud, dissonant parties. 😉

SkepticalOne wrote:

Since you keep begging for evidence I will assume you mean theism to mean "God exists" (God of Abraham for my specific case), therefore atheism, being the opposite, would be "God does not exist".

Atheism (lack of belief) is not the opposite of theism. Specific flavors of theism make claims and each one is like particular frequency of sound. Christianity might be C#, Islam could be B♭, Judaism perhaps middle C.

LOL, this is the proclamation of your faith, it is certainly not based on evidence.

Atheism makes no claim and does not contribute to the cacophony.

By definition, Atheists make the claim that God does not exist. This "makes no claim" pillar of your faith is necessary in order support your sacred "Burden of Proof is on you" ritual.

Atheists are like the guy who lives on a cul de sac trying to sleep while all the neighbors are having loud, dissonant parties. 😉

LOL, cute, but pure fantasy.

The Internet Atheist is not trying to sleep, the internet atheist is mostly nocturnal, representing one side of the two groups of fundamentalists on the internet that are making all that loud dissonant noise. These two groups of extremist posters are, taken by themselves, inexplicable within the context of their respective positions and which do in fact represent two “polar opposite” categories of one and the same extremism. On one side of this polarity is an excessively dogmatic secular modernism that doesn’t appear to be true to science, and on the other side of the coin, it is opposed by a dogmatic religious fundamentalism that doesn’t appear to be true to Jesus.

I think this is the key to understanding the phenomena, to say that “opposites” are “polar” is to say much more than they are opposed or separated; it is to say that they constitute a whole. There is a reciprocal, transactional relationship being described. Polar opposites don’t even exist without each other, they are contingent upon each other, you just can’t have the one without the other. Polar opposites are like the two sides of a coin, or the two ends of a stick; they reference two opposing aspects of one and the same thing.

This would certainly explain why there are more similarities than differences between the posts of a SkepticalOne and a Kermos for instance, they only appear to be opposites but are in fact inseparable opposites; they constitute a whole. Seen as mirror images of one and the same extremist, they are not mutually exclusive at all; in fact, they are mutually sustaining, reciprocal in their true nature. They are not trying to sleep, they are like an excitable little dog barking at his own inverted image in the mirror.

Funny Dogs Barking At Themselves In Mirrors Compilation 2016

"To know a person's religion, we need not listen to his profession of faith but must find his brand of intolerance." - Eric Hoffer

The theist won the battle of the Gods. Over 3/4 of the world believe in a religion and God with or without proof. The question is what has the atheist found as an alternative to God?

Atheism has no logic to it so there is nothing to disprove. I never said anything about a chicken and egg except in reference to your brainwashing theory which you also went against yourself.

I'll repeat the premise again. You claimed atheism is the opposite of theism. If I am making the claim "God exists", that means you are making the opposite claim "God doesn't exist." Both require proof. I have already given the Quinquae Viae as my evidence. You're inability to respond is not on me. If you, however, do not know what makes up the Quinquae Viae then ask and I would be glad to provide that information to you. What I find humorous is the lazy atheistic thought process of "disproving" theism. If the case for no divine being is so strong, why not just prove it? Alas, you cannot. However, and let me help you here, disproving A does not prove B.

Example:

Let's say there are 5 religions in the world. You believe no God exists. You disprove all 5 religions in this world. Does that mean no God exists? No. You've only proven 5 religions to be wrong, but you haven't proven no God to exist.

And this is the best any of you Atheists can truly hope for.

Aw is it that time of month for you little guy? Do we need to get you heavy flow pads? Wings or no wings?

I didn't claim atheism to be the opposite of theism. Adam West (Sgt. Lynch) made that claim, not me. I merely brought his claim to its conclusion. If atheism is a lack of belief, I can just as easily define theism as having belief, which would technically be true.

In regards to your scenario, the Atheist is more like the lone neighbor who blasts music in the neighborhood and thinks everyone else has the problem. 😂 But we can agree to disagree hahaha.

linate wrote:

Interest is immoral changes to excessive interest is immoral and you view yourself as taking things out of context? I can see maybe a cost of doing business interrst allowance if the original popes allowed it. But at least on the profit point its slippery logic. I think to my understanding that popes originally thought asking for profit is unchristian but suddenly its only excessively asking for profit as long as its called a time value of money

The topic of usury is an application of abstract principles to physical reality, which is complex and constantly changing. It's like a judge interpretting the language of a legal statue and applying it to specific, complex cases. Probably the best definition of usury I've ever come across is that of Saint Bernardino of Siena: profit without risk or labor. This succinctly summarizes why it's bad - it's just obfuscated theft, as actual investment requires skill and therefore risk while labor is necessary to transform goods and add value in the process.

He was writing at a time of great economic upheaval, as Europe was industrializing, trade was expanding, and institutions such as banking and shipping insurance were becoming increasingly complex. People often focus on banking and interest but insurance was also a big concern - one could argue that modern health insurance is usurious as companies take steps to eliminate risk from their business practices - like dropping people who develop expensive illnesses.

This discussion resulted in extensive and influential economic theorizing to attempt to reconcile current economic realities to a Catholic moral code. One of the results of this was bankruptcy law, which was formulated by Iberian Catholic economists to introduce risk to those who lent money at interest and offer desperate debtors a form of relief. To use a modern example, the removal of the possibility of bankruptcy for student loans makes then unambiguously usurious - there is no risk to the lender.

It also shows why usury is such an evil - stripped of risk, lenders were more than willing to hand out money for useless degrees to people they knew would likely never pay it back. This perverted the demand structure driving curriculums, with money being misallocated to useless majors that were easier and more attractive to thoughtless, financially illiterate teenagers, and destroying lives across the country. If the banks had been forced to view each student as an investment and weigh the risks they would have approved many more loans for practical, useful degrees and universities would have plowed more funding into these useful majors to fuel this demand. We would have had a workforce that was much more competitive on the world stage.

Just a small twist or perversion in demand structures towards usury can have outsized economic effects, like a few atoms in a carbon lattice distorting the shape and changing the color of the entire gem as it grows.

 Over 3/4 of the world believe in a religion and God with or without proof.

Well, it's an established scientific fact, that penguins are more intelligent than humans .

Hmm, seems I struck a nerve. It was never meant to be upsetting. 😉

For atheism and theism to be opposites, you'd really need to define atheism in a way that most atheists wouldnt recognize it.

If you want to say strong atheism/gnostic atheism and gnostic theism were opposites, I would be sympathetic to that view.

SkepticalOne wrote:

Hmm, seems I struck a nerve. It was never meant to be upsetting. 😉

For atheism and theism to be opposites, you'd really need to define atheism in a way that most atheists wouldnt recognize it.

If you want to say strong atheism/gnostic atheism and gnostic theism were opposites, I would be sympathetic to that view.

The burden of proof is on you lol.

I didn't claim atheism to be the opposite of theism.

I see. In that case, you have my apologies.

If atheism is a lack of belief, I can just as easily define theism as having belief, which would technically be true.

I wasnt aware there is a way to define theism absent belief. Maybe you meant something different?

The burden of proof is on you lol.

I'm not sure what you are referring to.

You're good. You don't have to apologize.

If atheism is a lack of belief, I can just as easily define theism as having belief, which would technically be true.

I wasnt aware there is a way to define theism absent belief. Maybe you meant something different?

What I meant was that if someone like Sgt. Lynch can use a definition to get out of proving a claim then so can I. Would he allow me to do that? No, but I would just be following his example.

What I meant was that if someone like Sgt. Lynch can use a definition to get out of proving a claim then so can I. Would he allow me to do that? No, but I would just be following his example.

If he made a claim, then, by all means, point out his burden. On the other hand, if he didnt make a god claim, you dont get to define one for him and all atheists.

I'm not sure if this applies to you. I think it is important to learn what positions people hold before attempting to force a burden on them. This is fairly common tactic pushed against non-believers in general.

Anyway, feel free to get back to the thread. I have no intention of derailing it.

You're not derailing anything. Honestly, you seem to be the first sane person I've met on this website. None of us made any god claim funny enough. He merely stated, multiple times, that there was no proof that one could provide and to provide some. Yet, he has ignored those and that's when he made his comment which has caused us all to be conversing.

Anyone can make up any claim and therefore any such claim can be neither proven or disproven...Though it's fair to expect that the initial claim should be unequivocally proven to be true...And of course, if proven to be true then any contention becomes irrelevant anyway.

So several thousand years ago a bloke whose credibility can never be judged, claims to have met a magical god up a mountain....This is the basis of your theism, so prove this and the case is closed.

I do not need to either prove or disprove anything...I simply will remain unconvinced of the initial claim, until such times when you can unequivocally substantiate the initial claim.

Further, until you do unequivocally substantiate Abe's claim and therefore the existence of an extra-universal god, any ensuing theistic dogma, literature, organisation or ritualism is merely incidental...Neither here nor there in respect of the initial claim or any reasonable contention arising.....Same with any other world religion based upon abstract metaphysical concepts.

So you don't know if there is a divine being?

Shoresy wrote:

So you don't know if there is a divine being?

Does anyone?

I'd say it's unlikely, but I can't be sure

The majority of the world population believe in religion and a divine being with or without proof.

I gave you logical proofs. They either follow logically or they do not. Do you have anything intelligent to say or are you going to continue to complain? Also, an initial claim isn't unequivocally true. Noone should expect that. What fantasy do you live in?

The initial claim you placed on us to show whether the Abrahamic religion was logical or factual (although we made no claims, at least not I). Those were your words, not ours. I have posited the Quinquae Viae as my evidence for such. You have yet to disprove the logical proofs of St. Thomas Aquinas, although I do not believe you are even capable of doing so.

You keep begging for proof of a belief I have, yet when I do the same to you, you cower away behind some arbitrary reason you want to follow (I blame the brainwashing of your parents). What is the reason for such hypocrisy? Will you continue to blame brainwashing or outside influence?

I do try to unequivocally substantiate it, but the fact you do not want to first acknowledge logical proofs makes it very difficult to have any sort of conversation. As I said a while back in this thread that even if I showed proof you wouldn't care. You are sadly proving me to be correct. Until you can respond to the Quinquae Viae there can be nothing else to discuss.

Again, I do find it quite humorous how, in all your perceived intelligence, you can't show your evidence for there being no God. 'Tis a shame but not surprising.

Again, I do find it quite humorous how, in all your perceived intelligence, you can't show your evidence for there being no God.

So, you are suggesting non-belief is a belief? Isn't that like saying silence is a genre of music or bald is a hairstyle. 🤔

Besides that, wouldn't the justification for not believing in a god start with the fact that the existence of gods have not been demonstrated to exist?