Catholic Church contradicted itself on these issues

It depends on the atheist. And I may jumble my atheistic terms around, as I am not one, but there are "weak" and "strong" atheists. For those weak, if I remember correctly, they do not believe in gods but are not denying their existence (not the same as agnosticism). Strong, as its counterpart, actively denies the existence of gods. It can be said of the latter that they truly believe no gods exist. The issue that comes up with many atheists is they want to posit themselves as both, like Sgt. Lynch. He wants to say that he merely has a "lack of believe" yet also actively denies the existence of such a being (or beings). You cannot posit both.

Believe it or not, silent songs do exist. Don't ask me why, I cannot tell you. I only know of this because my friend is a musician. 🙂‍↕️ Bald can also be a hairstyle, assuming the person actively still grows hair and chooses to shave it (although one can argue that not having hair is a forced hairstyle).

Justification for believing or not believing in something is subjective. What qualifies as sufficient evidence is subjective.

It seems you're conflating belief and non-belief by blurring the lines of the hairstyle and silence analogies. Is this your actual position, or are you being a bit of a contrarian? Either way is fine, I just want to make sure we are on the same page.

As for justification being subjective, are you suggesting non-belief in or rejection of unproven claims is not warranted, or are you arguing something else?

Shoresy wrote:

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

Nope, but if you do let me know.

There are no logical proofs...The whole thing starts off with an illogical claim...So as I stated, everything that follows is irrelevant elaboration.

As for the old prove atheism argument, that is just an avoidance tactic.

So once again I ask you to unequivocally prove that Abe's god is real so that we can resolve the issue....As it stands I have nothing to prove.

As it stands, I simply conclude that as you cannot substantiate Abe's claim, his god was therefore a figment of his imagination or a deception.

Quinquae viae is just 13th century gobbledegook...Latinized word play designed to deceive...Because just as for any other latter day Abrahamic theist, substantiating the basis of Catholicism and associated religions, is an impossibility.

So, I do not believe anything...One either knows something or one doesn't...And just like you I do not know if Abe actually met an extra-universal god.

Though what I will say is, that if an extra-terrestrial influencer did happen upon a lone old man up a mountain, then said ET would be a damn site more clever and sensible than you and your ilk ever give it credit for...All that sin and salvation baloney...Get logical SD.

The Catholic Church still has over a billion Catholic members and remains the largest Christian institute.

The Quinquae Viae were the logical proofs, genius. If they're illogical then prove them as such being that you are so great and intelligent. Yet, we both know that due to the brainwashing from you parents, at least that's what you've seemed to posit, you have no clue what you're talking. You're a byproduct. If "gobbledygook" is your only objection, that says it all right there. You say you do not believe anything, yet you have sure made grandiose claims of certain beings being "fantasy". I am sure in your all-knowingness you can enlighten the class as to the evidence you have, yes? Or is it that you like making claims with nothing to show?

I'm not trying to blur the lines of your analogies, but they personally weren't very good ones, to me at least. I didn't know what you were trying to get at with them. However, I was not conflating belief and non-belief. If all someone wants to focus on is the dictionary definition of atheism, that's fine, however the dictionary isn't describing the multiple positions within atheism. Weak atheists truly lack belief, but they do not deny the existence of a god or gods. Strong atheists truly lack belief in the existence of a god or gods because they truly believe they do not exist. If we are consistent using dictionary definitions, the latter would count as belief. Maybe I can try explaining it better like this:

Theists: Assert X

Strong Atheists: Assert -X

Weak Atheists: Do not assert X, nor -X

In regard to justification and sufficient evidence, I mean that they are subjective. If we take a look at Sgt. Lynch, for example, he will only believe in God if He comes down and speaks to him, or at least that's how he has made it seem. To some, all they need is some sort of logical proof(s). For others, it could be anything. Some Chinese eye scientist became a Christian because of the complexity of the human eye. For him that was enough, for others it isn't.

As an atheist, I am aware of the different versions of atheism. In my experience most people who can be classified as atheist hold an agnostic atheist view. So, when you say atheist, this is what I tend to think of. If you mean to call out gnostic atheists, it might be helpful if you made that distinction early on in a conversation.

That being said, if someone claims there are no gods, then they have a burden. If thats your point, it seems obvious and uncontroversial to me. I think it should be pointed out believing certain gods are non-existent doesnt make a person a strong atheist. I mean, believers regularly reject gods other than their own, but no one is suggesting they have a burden to prove there are no gods.

In regard to justification and sufficient evidence, I mean that they are subjective. To some, all they need is some sort of logical proof(s).

I am happy to classify logical argumentation as "evidence of gods". I just dont think it is sufficient to warrant belief. Logical proof is not existential proof. Logic can't confirm theoretical constructs exist outside the mind. So, yah, Ill probably need something much more significant than the eye.😉

Why isn't some God on Facebook?

Yes, a significant segment of her community, often referred to as "Meowists," actively worship her, referring to her as "our true god" or "Meowgod," and engage in rituals such as prayer and artistic depictions of her in Meowist uniforms.

As an atheist, I am aware of the different versions of atheism. In my experience most people who can be classified as atheist hold an agnostic atheist view. So, when you say atheist, this is what I tend to think of. If you mean to call out gnostic atheists, it might be helpful if you made that distinction early on in a conversation. That being said, if someone claims there are no gods, then they have a burden. If thats your point, it seems obvious and uncontroversial to me. I think it should be pointed out believing certain gods are non-existent doesnt make a person a strong atheist. I mean, believers regularly reject gods other than their own, but no one is suggesting they have a burden to prove there are no gods.

The only atheist I am calling out is Sgt. Lynch. I agree, believing certain gods don't exist doesn't inherently make you a string atheist, however when someone makes the claim that a god does not exist, they would, of course, need to prove it.

I am happy to classify logical argumentation as "evidence of gods". I just dont think it is sufficient to warrant belief. Logical proof is not existential proof. Logic can't confirm theoretical constructs exist outside the mind. So, yah, Ill probably need something much more significant than the eye.😉

To each their own, right? haha But that's the point I was making. Everybody has their own standard they want met, which is fine.

The only atheist I am calling out is Sgt. Lynch.

Fair enough.

I agree, believing certain gods don't exist doesn't inherently make you a string atheist, however when someone makes the claim that a god does not exist, they would, of course, need to prove it.

Agreed.

To each their own, right? haha But that's the point I was making. Everybody has their own standard they want met, which is fine.

I would question if justification is necessarily subjective, but that is a whole can of worms. 😂

We believe for everything there is a creator. Why are atheist allowed to believe the universe came from nothing?

Why are atheist allowed to believe the universe came from nothing?

Is that what atheists believe?

ServusDei wrote:

The Quinquae Viae were the logical proofs, genius. If they're illogical then prove them as such being that you are so great and intelligent. Yet, we both know that due to the brainwashing from you parents, at least that's what you've seemed to posit, you have no clue what you're talking. You're a byproduct. If "gobbledygook" is your only objection, that says it all right there. You say you do not believe anything, yet you have sure made grandiose claims of certain beings being "fantasy". I am sure in your all-knowingness you can enlighten the class as to the evidence you have, yes? Or is it that you like making claims with nothing to show?

Yep, string words together that have no scientific basis and boom there's logical proof...Such is illogic.

And as for a claim with nothing to show...Well let's start with the biggy...Abe's claim that he met a god up a mountain...So show me the god and the case is closed...Should be simple for someone regularly in touch with the big fella.

Until you can show me your god, then it just remains a "fantasy" character in a mythological tome.

Come on, enlighten me with your all-knowingness, I will be more than happy to be enlightened...Though currently with regard to knowing anything factual about creation and existence, I unashamedly know very little...In fact I do not know anything, but tend to run with ideas that come with a tad more scientific evidence, rather than just:

Abe and Thomas say that there is a big fella lives in a magical place somewhere...So there.

Debby wrote:

The Catholic Church still has over a billion Catholic members and remains the largest Christian institute.

Doesn't prove anything, other than one aspect of human nature...Certainly doesn't prove Abe's claim.

There are approximately 1.2 billion Hindus, so............proves exactly the same...Teach your kids nonsense and they will grow up believing in nonsense.

The 1.2 billion Hindus also believe in God the creator.

Hmmmm, because Hinduism is pluralistic, it also accommodates philosophical schools that lean toward pantheism, monism (where the individual soul, Atman, is identical to Brahman), or even non-theistic and agnostic viewpoints. According to traditional Hindu thought, a person can focus on a path of truth, ethics, and self-realization without necessarily centering their life around an external deity.

True, you can even influence your karma.

FLRW wrote:

Hmmmm, because Hinduism is pluralistic, it also accommodates philosophical schools that lean toward pantheism, monism (where the individual soul, Atman, is identical to Brahman), or even non-theistic and agnostic viewpoints. According to traditional Hindu thought, a person can focus on a path of truth, ethics, and self-realization without necessarily centering their life around an external deity.

You can be a Christian Hindu, for many Hindu People, you can follow Christianity as a Bhakti Yoga (the path of love), a lot of Hindu Christians who follow Christianity as their path to enlightenment within Hinduism. I knew a Christian Hindu family and have worshipped with them several times in the past. Some of the most interesting conversations I ever had were with them. The God of my understanding and the God of their understanding are one and the same, so we related well.

If all Christians understood Christianity the way the Hindu Christians I knew did, the world would be a much better place.

Debby wrote:

The 1.2 billion Hindus also believe in God the creator.

Well, not Abe's Mangod perhaps, but all sorts of other whacky god types.

Which just proves that the naive creation nonsense that people used to come up with still get's readily brainwashed into successive generations.

Because of Hindu reincarnation, the same story gets revived every generation.

Debby wrote:

Because of Hindu reincarnation, the same story gets revived every generation.

Just takes an oversexed human with a propensity for spicy food.

That is why reincarnation is so popular in India.

Again, my logical proof is the Quinquae Viae. I'll repeat this as many times as I need to. If you do not know what it is please state that for me to help you, as I have noticed that you seem to need a lot of it. For someone that claims that they know nothing ("I do not know anything") when it comes to creation and existence, it's very interesting how you can claim a creator as fantasy, seeing as you know nothing about creation and existence. Odd. In regard to your "magical little place", God is immaterial and eternal, you would know that if you read the Quinquae Viae, but you aren't looking to have an actual discussion on that. I blame your hypocrisy and ingenuousness on the brainwashing of your parents, don't worry.

Hmmmm...Once again, 13th century word salad does not prove the existence of the extra-universal creator of ancient Jewish mythology, nor is it logical to assume that it does...Which isn't to say that in terms of human intellectual development magic man hypotheses were not a likely outcome...Nonetheless, fast forwards several thousands of years, and human intellectual development has way exceeded assumptive hypotheses to a point where knowledge exceeds the need for a magic man by many billions of years...Though one can never discount fully the possibility of extra-terrestrial interventionism, whether this be an asteroid bearing microbial life or even a highly advanced intellectual species or technological seeder...Nonetheless, in all cases, elaborately derived human theism is nothing more than a system of ongoing people management...But it is fair to say that magic man hypotheses and elaborate theistic systems of people management were a likely evolutionary outcome...An inevitable result of naievety and ignorance.

So, I do not "know", just as you do not "know" anything about creation and existence, other than what our current situation infers.

Typically it is a theistic necessity to conflate factual knowledge with knowledge of established fantasised deistic speculation...That is to say the knowledge of ancient Jewish folk tales, myth and man-gods.

remember 3/4 of the world’s population still relieve in some religion which define life and purpose.

Prove that this "13th century word salad" isn't proof. That was your claim by the way. I don't believe you're in any place to decide what is or isn't logical Mr. Brainwashed, but please explain to the class why the use of logical proofs cannot lead one to assume the outcomes of said logic.