By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Movies & TV - Hollywood anti catholic bullshit needs to stop

o_O.Q on 08 January 2018
OneTime said:
Flilix said:

It's impossible to scientifically prove that something does or does not exist, if that thing doesn't have a proper definition.

 

Yup -  Religions would have to hold true as a whole, not in little bits that are convenient for what is being discussed at the time.  None of the “well that isn’t literal” or “we interpret this that way in this case”

 

that’s why the first time the Bible was shown to not be literally true throughout was such a big deal (Earth going round the Sun - Genesis paragraph 3 or so).  Now the issue is just fudged.

no explanation about the fundamental nature of our surroundings has been proven to be absolutely true or valid... every explanation religious or not has big gaping holes it in



Around the Network
ArchangelMadzz on 08 January 2018
WolfpackN64 said:
ArchangelMadzz said:
Catholicism should be made fun of, I'm sure a high percentage of priests know it's bs.

Right, many of the people who put their heart and soul in it know it's "BS". You people should have a bit more respect.

I'm sure there are genuine believers high up in the church. But there will be many that are there because they can profit from the belief of others.

Many priests who leave the church claim that they lost their belief years before they left and know others that are there that don't believe and see it as a business.



There's only 2 races: White and 'Political Agenda'
2 Genders: Male and 'Political Agenda'
2 Hairstyles for female characters: Long and 'Political Agenda'
2 Sexualities: Straight and 'Political Agenda'

WolfpackN64 on 08 January 2018
Ka-pi96 said:
WolfpackN64 said:

Right, many of the people who put their heart and soul in it know it's "BS". You people should have a bit more respect.

For con men/women? Absolutely not!

Maybe for your fellow human being? So far the level of debate here hasn't even gotten past toddler.



ArchangelMadzz on 08 January 2018
WolfpackN64 said:
Flilix said:

It's impossible to scientifically prove that something does or does not exist, if that thing doesn't have a proper definition.

When it's a necessary being, that's entirely possible.

Not unless you give it a specific definition.



There's only 2 races: White and 'Political Agenda'
2 Genders: Male and 'Political Agenda'
2 Hairstyles for female characters: Long and 'Political Agenda'
2 Sexualities: Straight and 'Political Agenda'

OneTime on 08 January 2018

Christianity branched of from Judaism. I thought that was a well know fact?!

I 

Ah ad-hominem attacks.  The religious default.

 

yes - The Sun God Rah was the most worshipped in Egypt, but the Pharos saw this as heretical (mostly because he needed to be seen as a God himself), so the believers left Egypt after speaking to Yahweh in the form of the burning bush.

That became Judaism, which became Christianity.  Which was selected by the Emporer of Rome (mostly because it was pacifist, and got rid of the Soothsayers and priests)

 

the Roman Empire was big and that’s how we got to today.

 

 

simple, rational, logical.



Around the Network
WolfpackN64 on 08 January 2018
ArchangelMadzz said:
WolfpackN64 said:

Right, many of the people who put their heart and soul in it know it's "BS". You people should have a bit more respect.

I'm sure there are genuine believers high up in the church. But there will be many that are there because they can profit from the belief of others.

Many priests who leave the church claim that they lost their belief years before they left and know others that are there that don't believe and see it as a business.

That's not very widespread amongst catholic priests now.



Flilix on 08 January 2018
WolfpackN64 said:
Flilix said:

It's impossible to scientifically prove that something does or does not exist, if that thing doesn't have a proper definition.

When it's a necessary being, that's entirely possible.

'Necessary being' sounds kinda vague, but it's a start of a definition. Do you believe that that being was only necessary for the origin of the universe, or also for its development?



WolfpackN64 on 08 January 2018
OneTime said:

Christianity branched of from Judaism. I thought that was a well know fact?!

I 

Ah ad-hominem attacks.  The religious default.

yes - The Sun God Rah was the most worshipped in Egypt, but the Pharos saw this as heretical (mostly because he needed to be seen as a God himself), so the believers left Egypt after speaking to Yahweh in the form of the burning bush.

That became Judaism, which became Christianity.  Which was selected by the Emporer of Rome (mostly because it was pacifist, and got rid of the Soothsayers and priests)

the Roman Empire was big and that’s how we got to today.

simple, rational, logical.

Wow. Dude, you really need to get some history lessons.

1. Ra has always been worshipped, especially in the old kingdom. He was surplanted as most popular god by Amon-Ra and later again by Ra in the late kingdom.

2. The Jewish believes have nothing in common with the old egyptian Gods. God and Ra are completely, absolute seperate things.



o_O.Q on 08 January 2018
vivster said:
WolfpackN64 said:

And even that completely misses the point. There is no possibility of scientific proof of God. God's essence is fundamentaly unknowable to us since it is literally everything. Even philosophers like Bertrand Russel don't bring up scientific arguments, this is exclusively a debate in the realm of theology and philosophy.

But these other institutions exist. And your logical fallacy is that if it would have been an atheïst institution, these negative things wouldn't have happend. Sorry to burst your bubble. And there is no "net negative effect". That's a popular thing to say, but the public is not always right. Think for yourself.

I do think for myself and especially on my life all religions had a terribly negative effect on me. It pains me to even think that bullshit like that still exists in an age of enlightenment.

Christian religions are constantly trying to meddle in politics that affect my life, Islam is trying to kill me directly and while I'm not much affected by Hinduism and Shinto I know those aren't that well like in their respective states either. Generally it affects me by throwing my sense of justice out of whack since one crazy person who talks with imaginary people will be sent to a medical institution, while another crazy person who talks with imaginary people will get tax breaks and special state protection and for some reason major political power.

Common sense and basic science that are meant to advance humanity are constantly under attack by people who are allowed to say thinks like "you cannot disprove my god because my god cannot be disproven. Now give me tax breaks and political power because I believe in that arbitrary thing that cannot be proven". Yes, it affects my life and that of millions of others exclusively negatively.

everyone without fail believes in bs and the reason for that is not religion, its because humans are extremely limited inherently, so it is impossible for anyone to have a complete picture of the world 

that leads to gaps and we fill those gaps with assumptions that often are proven wrong and that goes for EVERYBODY, especially scientists actively working to discover new things

 

"Common sense and basic science that are meant to advance humanity are constantly under attack by people who are allowed to say thinks like "you cannot disprove my god because my god cannot be disproven."

as i stated above, common sense and science are in constant flux and yes they should be attacked and refined into something better as we discover more

and what if you're wrong? suppose god does exist? you can't prove it does not



WolfpackN64 on 08 January 2018
Flilix said:
WolfpackN64 said:

When it's a necessary being, that's entirely possible.

'Necessary being' sounds kinda vague, but it's a start of a definition. Do you believe that that being was only necessary for the origin of the universe, or also for its development?

In the Cosmological Argument, we are all contingent beings. That means humans are both movers (beings that can act and move/influence others) and moved (we ourselves are also influenced and our actions also depend on prior actions). This could be seen as a giant chain of cause and effect, in which we are both determined and determiners. This chain however, can't go on for all eternity. At the start of the chain, you need a being which moves, but isn't moved itself. Otherwise you'd get a causel infinity (which is the traditional Christian argument) or a temporal infinity (which is the traditional Islamic argument). Both are impossible in the past (actually, even scientifically impossible). This being which moves, yet isn't moved is thus not a contingent being, but a necessary being. Aspects of a necessary being are that if it exists, it could not not exist (since it is necessary) and if it doesn't exist, it wouldn't be able to come into existance (since then it would be a contingent being).

That's the Cosmological Argument is a compressed manner.