WARNING:There's a troll stalking Fr. Barron's videos manufacturing fake support for himself w/ multiple aliases as a disguise & lying about his numerous credentials. He obstructs intelligent discourse w/ consistent negativity, question-evading, ignoring counterarguments, & non-stop slander in place of reasoned rebuttal. Notice the pattern: Sciencelives2000, InquiringSkeptic, BrenttheSkeptic, Nodelusionnow, Biolgist1947, ContrabassClar, theclarinet1234, bassclarinet2000, Mike96727, Nemesis00
WARNING:There's a troll stalking Fr. Barron's videos manufacturing fake support for himself w/ multiple aliases as a disguise & lying about his numerous credentials. He obstructs intelligent discourse w/ consistent negativity, question-evading, ignoring counterarguments, & non-stop slander in place of reasoned rebuttal. Notice the pattern: Sciencelives2000, InquiringSkeptic, BrenttheSkeptic, Nodelusionnow, Biolgist1947, ContrabassClar, theclarinet1234, bassclarinet2000, Mike96727, Nemesis000
REMINDER:There's a troll stalking Fr. Barron's videos manufacturing fake support for himself w/ multiple aliases as a disguise & lying about his numerous credentials. He obstructs intelligent discourse w/ consistent negativity, question-evading, ignoring counterarguments, & non-stop slander in place of reasoned rebuttal. Notice the pattern: Sciencelives2000, InquiringSkeptic, BrenttheSkeptic, Nodelusionnow, Biolgist1947, ContrabassClar, theclarinet1234, bassclarinet2000, Mike96727, Nemesis000
@ContrabassClar We have given many arguments for the existence of God, here, and not once have you defeated any, much less bothered to challenge them. Other atheists at least try, why not you? You're the chickenshit who safely taunts people from behind the fence with empty slander because you're too much of a wuss to step into the ring and contend with the big boys. So let's do it. Come on, you poser. Defeat a premise to one of these arguments. Just one! I CHALLENGE YOU.
@ContrabassClar Belief in God is not irrational at all because we can logically demonstrate he exists in numerous arguments including the argument from contingency, the fine-tuning argument, the moral argument, the argument from desire, etc. But we cannot demonstrate unicorns or fairies exist. So why do you keep talking about them? What's your hangup with unicorns and fairies? Are you mad for having found out your childhood heroes don't exist? I'm sorry, boo hoo.
@grunderlyme Any of the countless gods invented by humankind are irrational. If the existence of any of them were compellingly rational, every sane, thoughtful human would immediately concur about their existence. In fact only the most delusional humans assert that a 3 day corpse reanimated or that a Jewish virgin was impregnated by a bronze age tribal war god. Rationality is...well....rational. Such assertions are...well.....irrational!
It never ceased to amaze me how pre-occupied these atheists blockheads are w/ unicorns and Santa Claus when referring to the Unconditioned whose existence can be deduced by logical argument. I suspect the adult obsession with projecting these mythic creatures onto Christianity is the manifestation of a repressed anger at their having discovered Santa Claus didn't exist as a child. We abandoned these beliefs as children. But atheists are still hysterical about them: the "Santa Claus Syndrome"
@grunderlyme It never ceases to amaze me how difficult it is for supernaturalists to understand such literary devices as metaphor. Is it really so difficult to understand the comparison between fanciful mythological figures like unicorns and the totally fanciful mythology of the countless religions of humankind? Perhaps it's because supernaturalists are so deeply vested in CERTAINTY as a drug-like anxiolytic that clever literary devices utterly elude their ken. How amusing!
@ContrabassClar Lol! So all you got is literary rhetoric and metaphor? Do you think we are in an English Literature class discussing Shakespeare's Hamlet or something? We are not. I am talking about the logical arguments for the existence of God. A metaphorical description is not a logical argument. It's a strawman of the content of the actual arguments presented. Thanks for finally admitting you have nothing but empty polemics.
When I hear these two guys denigrate skeptics who stand miles above them intellectually, I just want to say "poor, poor baby." I know that supernaturalism has had the upper hand for thousands of years---torturing and burning dissenters who would have the temerity ever to voice disagreement. But times are different! Science has conquered. No longer will skeptics stand by idly without calling superstition, superstition and mythology, mythology. Humanity depends on it.
....God, by definition, has maximal possible power. He can do all things logically possible, including becoming a spatio-temporal object if he so desired. However, all spatio-temporal objects are finite, capable of being changed (or affected) by other other objects, and so radically contingent. Therefore, the capacity for spatio-temporal change is a mark of limitation, not power, which is exactly why God, who is maximally powerful, is not, in fact, a spatio-temporal object. QED
....you could say “John is not ignorant." But no one would say lacking ignorance was a mark of imperfection and limitation. Likewise, you could say "John is not foolish." But no one would say lacking foolishness was a mark of imperfection and limitation. So merely denying a predicate to the subject of a proposition is not what people mean by "limitation." When we say something is limited, we mean "limited with respect to some power." But....
Here is an interesting topic of discussion (about which Aquinas surely had something to say): Someone says denying the space-time existence to God is "limiting" because we put a limit on it, namely, "God is not some spatio-temporal object." But this is confused. Merely denying a predicate of the subject of a proposition does not explain why something in the real world lacking the property indicated by that predicate is “limiting.” For instance....
@grunderlyme More angels on the head of a pin? More yapping about nonsense? I've decided to start my own branch of yapping. It's called unicornology and involves endless speculation about the characteristics of unicorns. It has an entire mythology about unicorns as they both judge and love humankind and will ultimately give us all eternal life, if we believe exactly the right myths about unicorns and do exactly as unicorns have ordered us to do.
@ContrabassClar Actually,you'll never step up to the challenge. We've been challenging you for months, and no one can get passed your wooden head. You're a total waste of time. So carry on jerking yourself off all over everyone's videos. . .
@grunderlyme "We've been challenging you?" You now use the royal "we"----or have you begun schizophrenically to BECOME your many aliases? Have you added a NEW delusion to your repertoire? How amusing!!
@ContrabassClar What are you talking about? YOU are the one with multiple aliases all of whom talk to themselves. You have at least 12 of them, each of which LIES about your credentials. Sometimes you're a PhD scientist, sometimes a PhD biologist, sometimes a PhD Chemist, other times a PhD Computer Scientist.
You manufacture false support for what you post precisely because you know what you say lacks any MERIT That's why you do it!! You're pathetic.
@grunderlyme Poor baby!!! I know that it's difficult to defend the reanimation of a 3 day corpse, let alone the impregnation of a Jewish virgin by a bronze age tribal war god! Such a challenge. It occupies so many of your 4 brain cells trying to do that! There's no room for literary metaphor or even the incredible fun of pointing out the absurdities of all supernaturalism. Oh well. Face it booby buddy. There is NO rational argument for ANY of the countless gods invented by humans. NONE.
@ContrabassClar I'm sorry, but there is clear-cut historical evidence for the resurrection in mutliple documents by multiple independent authors. To just flatly deny these historical documents count as evidence without first getting your hands dirty means you abandon all ancient history for no good reason. You are irrational, irresponsible, lazy, and just plain dumb. Where is your historical evidence the resurrection never happened? Nowhere. So try again.
@grunderlyme Look, booby baby. If you WANT so desperately to believe in the reanimation of a 3 day corpse, and refuse your anti-psychotic meds (seroquel is a good one), who am I to tell you that it's all so utterly absurd? And booby, if you want to trust in the impregnation of a Jewish virgin by a bronze-age tribal war god, who am I to tell you that you are certifiably insane? You need it for anxiolysis, right? It makes you feel better, right? Go for it, booby, go for it!
--False. There is the Contingency Argument, the Fine-Tuning argument, the Ontological argument, the Moral Argument, the Historical Resurrection Argument, the Argument from Desire.
If you bothered to challenge any of these arguments, we would actually have something to discuss. Instead, like a coward you prefer to stand behind your fence and hurl insults at beliefs you cannot actually defeat. How pointless. You get nowhere.
@grunderlyme None of those arguments holds water, booby baby. None stands up to scrutiny. None is compelling. None is rational. None is convincing to most academic philosophers. None is compelling to most award-winning scientists. None is compelling to those who think, reason, or possess sanity. They convince only folks like you who DESPERATELY crave anxiolysis, certainty, and comfort in the arms of your 3 day corpse or war-god impregnated Jewish virgin. Go for it, booby...go for it!
@grunderlyme Whatever makes you happy and lowers your anxiety, booby baby. If re-animated 3 day corpses help you, go for it! If tribal war-god impregnated Jewish virgins are your thing, go for it! If creator-gods do it for you, more power to you! If upward moving re-animated corpses make you happy, believe that! Whatever evidence-free superstitious magical supernaturalist assertions lower your anxiety and make you feel that your life has meaning, go for it! Your motto: "Delusion always!"
--Hahaha! And who is the one afraid to get their hands dirty with the arguments on the table here? You're allergic to reason and evidence. Give me a single argument that God doesn't exist and miracles are impossible. Stop wasting everyone's time, and do it. Come on, you bullying loud mouth poser. Step into the ring with me. I'm waiting!
@grunderlyme What do you need me for? You've got a reanimated 3-day corpse and a tribal war-god-impregnated virgin! Isn't that enough to make you ecstatically happy? Thanks to all of that magic, your anxiety is reduced and you feel confident that you'll survive corporeal death. You should have everything you could possibly need without convincing me or other rational, sane people of your delusion. Go for it booby baby. Enjoy!!!
@ContrabassClar "Thanks to all of that magic, your anxiety is reduced and you feel confident that you'll survive corporeal death."
--Another ad hominem attack. I also feel comfortable and happy that I live in America. That doesn't mean I don't actually live in America. Oops. Try again.
@grunderlyme Oh my! Your absurd religion DOESN'T work for you? It doesn't reduce your anxiety? You don't think you'll survive corporeal death? You don't think that your 3-day corpse reanimated? You don't think that your Jewish virgin was impregnated by your tribal war god? You don't think that your life is meaningless without your creator-god? Oh my, oh my! My condolences! You do all of this ridiculous philosophizing for no purpose?!? You need another activity!!! Poor booby baby!
@grunderlyme I am so sorry that you have utterly lost your faith in supernaturalism! I know that it was everything to you and that you've found no meaning without it. You don't believe in the reanimation of 3-day corpses any longer??? You don't believe that a Jewish virgin was impregnated by a bronze-age tribal war god? Oh my, oh my! How could you change your belief so rapidly in the face of my powerful and compelling argument?? What will do for anxiolysis now? Xanax? Valium? Klonopin?
@grunderlyme I am so sorry that all of this is so very difficult for you. Do you have access to professional help at your university where you are (so you claim) a philosophy grad student? If student services is as good as they are here in the U.S., I'm sure that someone could help you with this very difficult situation that you're experiencing----being confront with rationality.
@grunderlyme You mean that you still believe that a bronze age tribal war god impregnated a Jewish virgin??? My, oh my, oh my! How amazing!!!! Of course, this is very consistent with the dozens of other gods who have impregnated humans. I guess that gods enjoy sex with cute virgins. How fun!!!
@grunderlyme My goodness you are loathe to answer simple questions about your background and beliefs. It took forever to ferret out that you'd never had enough interest in the hard sciences to take other than the minimum coursework required to graduate. And now you won't tell me whether you completely accept the Christian dogma of the impregnation of a Jewish virgin by a bronze-age tribal war god. That's in the Nicene Creed, right? Et incarnátus est.. ..Ex María Vírgine? "Still waiting."
@ContrabassClar Our lack of credentials in the hard sciences is irrelevant to question of whether hard science has any evidence against miralces. So the give the evidence, coward. I'm Catholic, so what do you think I believe? You have no credentials in science, because you often get the discoveries of science completely wrong. I can prove it, too, because I saved your errors months ago, and will give them if you keep up this irrelevent nonsense about "scientific credentials"
@grunderlyme "Our lack of credentials"????? The royal plural again? My goodness. Confirmed: you have NO KNOWLEDGE of science.
I know many Catholics who find the idea of a bronze-age tribal war god impregnating a Jewish virgin to be the height of the ridiculous. You still refuse to answer my question? Why? You're ashamed either way? Undoubtedly!!!
You are so anal retentive as to save responses for posts months ago? And you're certain that they're from me? Are you totally insane?
@grunderlyme Your last response was actually bizarre---I mean more bizarre than your usual responses. Have you seen a counselor at your university---if you are actually attending a university?
@ContrabassClar Do you, or don't you, NOW---I'm confused---think that a bronze age tribal war god impregnated a Jewish virgin????? To quote you: "still waiting." If you fail to answer, I will conclude that you've abandoned that ridiculous belief.
@grunderlyme Do you, or don't you, NOW---I'm confused---think that a bronze age tribal war god impregnated a Jewish virgin????? To quote you: "still waiting." If you fail to answer, I will conclude that you've abandoned that ridiculous belief.
@ContrabassClar I'm not surprised. You think your hysteria constitutes an argument. For the 1000th time, where is there evidence God does not exist and miracles are impossible? I'm still waiting...
@ContrabassClar "without convincing me or other rational, sane people of your delusion."
--Delusion? Fallacy of Begging the Question. Prove to me that I am, in fact, deluded. If you cannot, then you haven't the slightest clue what you're talking about, which would make your claim also another NON-SEQUITUR FALLACY.
@ContrabassClar Man, you thrive off logical fallacy. You should adopt the name "MrFallacy" as another one of your aliases in addition to the 12 that you already have. And then you can even brag to everyone here about your having a "PhD" in this area too.
@ContrabassClar "None is compelling to those who think, reason, or possess sanity. " --False. The following peer-reviewed contemporary analytic philosophers all hold these arguments are perfectly rational: Alvin Plantinga, Robin Collins, Robert Koons, Peter Kreeft, Peter van Inwagen, Peter Geach, Marilyn Adams, Elenore Stump, Elizabeth Anscombe, Craig Evans, William Lane Craig, Gary Habermas, Bruce Metzger, John P. Meier, J.P. Moreland, Etc, etc, etc. There are more.
@ContrabassClar "Look, booby baby. If you WANT so desperately to believe in the reanimation of a 3 day corpse, and refuse your anti-psychotic meds (seroquel is a good one), "
--I'm sorry, that's not an argument, but your own emotional hysteria. Try again.
@grunderlyme Look, booby baby. I know that you NEED this. Most intelligent, rational, well-educated, thoughtful, self-actualized, and centered people do not. I don't want to deprive you of your anxiolysis from believing in reanimated corpses or war-god impregnated virgins. You NEED that! Desperately. Your life is meaningless without it. Just don't try to convince me of your delusion. I've dealt with several psychotics. Humoring them works fairly well. I'll humor you.
@ContrabassClar "Most intelligent, rational, well-educated, thoughtful, self-actualized, and centered people do not"
--False. This reminds me of the empty slogans found in advertisments: "Coke is great because most awesome people love it." Brillilant. Keep sticking your head in the sand. You're allergic to reason and evidence because you never use them. It's time to put your money where your mouth is, and defeat one of these arguments using your brain. I'm still waiting..
WARNING:There is a troll stalking Fr. Barron's videos manufacturing fake support for himself w/ multiple aliases as a disguise & lying about his numerous credentials. He obstructs intelligent discourse w/ consistent negativity, question-evading, ignoring counterarguments, & non-stop slander in place of reasoned rebuttal. Notice the pattern: Sciencelives2000, InquiringSkeptic, BrenttheSkeptic, Nodelusionnow, Biolgist1947, ContrabassClar, theclarinet1234, bassclarinet2000, Mike96727, Nemesis000
WARNING:There is a troll stalking Fr. Barron's videos manufacturing fake support for himself w/ multiple aliases as a disguise & lying about his numerous credentials. He obstructs intelligent discourse w/ consistent negativity, question-evading, ignoring counterarguments, & non-stop slander in place of reasoned rebuttal. Notice the pattern: Sciencelives2000, , InquiringSkeptic, BrenttheSkeptic, Nodelusionnow, Biolgist1947, ContrabassClar, theclarinet1234, bassclarinet2000, Mike96727, Nemesis000
WARNING:There is a troll stalking Fr. Barron's videos manufacturing fake support for himself w/ multiple aliases as a disguise & lying about his numerous credentials. He obstructs intelligent discourse w/ consistent negativity, question-evading, ignoring counterarguments, & non-stop slander in place of reasoned rebuttal. Notice the pattern: Sciencelives2000, , InquiringSkeptic, BrenttheSkeptic, Nodelusionnow, Biolgist1947, ContrabassClar, theclarinet1234, bassclarinet2000, Mike96727, Nemesis0000
@grunderlyme WARNING! Stupid supernaturalists abound commenting on Barron's videos. If it were up to them, they would make the United States into a full blown theocracy, with everyone subservient to the idiocy of the Catholic Church. Fortunately, our Founding Fathers, in particular Washington, Jefferson, Paine, and Franklin, were smarter than these supernaturalists. It won't happen! If you're a skeptic, and get blocked, REJOICE! You have been proved smarter than any of these know-nothings.
@sciencelives2000 Like I'm going to even bother? It's the same old malicious verbal abuse from you. Do you realize how hysterical and desperate you sound?
@grunderlyme Of all the supernaturalists that I've debated, and there have been many---it's an extremely common delusion----you are by far---by far---the best at accusing others of the very faults that you yourself exhibit. It's quite astonishing to me. I've never seen it quite so blatantly. Perhaps you and Barron should go commiserate and try to find some others to block?
@sciencelives2000 You haven't single a rational basis for your slander toward me, whereas EVERYONE sees through your pathetic attempts to manufacture false support with over 10 different alias congraluting yourself on your endless rhetoric. And then you LIE about your numerous credentials! Nothing could more pathetic, because it is a cry for attention from a person who knows he doesn't have the intellectualy capacity to get his hands dirty and engage charitably and rationally
@grunderlyme I can only repeat: you are the best at accusing others of the VERY FAULTS that you yourself exhibit. No other supernaturalist can hold a candle to you in that regard. Barron is the best at pretending to be open, scholarly, and genuine, while in reality being closed, reactionary, and willing to block debate instantly when beaten. But you are the best at hypocrisy. Hands down! Just think: you're better at Barron at something! That should make you proud, sweetie-pie.
@sciencelives2000 Barron and myself have logically defeated your nonsense time and again and everyone can see it. But you don't care, because you keep repeating the same self-refuting "scientism" crap which any first-year undergraduate in a logic 101 course can defeat in 10 seconds. So you HATE logic because you've repeatedly and shamelessly DENIED it.
@sciencelives2000 You're stupid enough to contend the rules of correct thinking (logic) and the Law of Causality are merely "tentative" in face of empirical realities so that it is possible 2+2=5 is true and rabbits spring magically from nothing at all. But humorously enough, not ONCE have you offered evidence from empirical reality FOR this. Also, there wouldn't BE science without logic and causality in the 1st place. Without them, there would only be unpredictable chaos
@grunderlyme You understand not a whit of real science. You and Barron together have not taken a single university course in any hard science. It's a sad thing, but all too common among supernaturalists. C.P.Snow's two cultures are alive and well today, despite the fact that science dominates every aspect of our lives.
After you've taken a few courses in science, get back to me with a real argument.
@sciencelives2000 What are you talking about?? I'm not the one so desperately manufacturing over 10 different alias in some sorry attempt to garner support for my views while LYING about my multiple PhD's! Sometimes you're a PhD Chemist, a PhD Biologist, other times a PhD physicist, etc. You do this precisely BECAUSE you know your crap won't stand on its own merit. Why else would you do it? Huh? This behavior DEFEATS your credibility, it doesn't support it. Hello!
@grunderlyme As I knew he would, the totally unscholarly Barron blocked me from his videos, but you remain to engage in your mindless ad hominem attacks, based on an intelligence that my dog easily surpasses. You'll note that none of the sites by atheists or scientists EVER blocks anyone but the supernaturalist sites censor constantly. Why might that be? Fear on the part of supernaturalists that science and secularism will ultimately destroy the delusion and ruin the profit-making (contd)
@grunderlyme As I knew he would, the totally unscholarly Barron blocked me from his videos, but you remain to engage in your mindless ad hominem attacks, based on an intelligence that my dog easily surpasses. You'll note that none of the sites by atheists or scientists EVER blocks anyone but the supernaturalist sites censor constantly. Why might that be? Fear on the part of supernaturalists that science and secularism will ultimately destroy the delusion and ruin the profit-making (contd)
WARNING: There is a troll stalking Fr. Barron's videos manufacturing fake support for himself w/ multiple aliases as a disguise & lying about his credentials. He obstructs intelligent discourse w/ consistent negativity & question-evading; ignores counterarguments & attacks your credentials in place of reasoned rebuttal. Notice the pattern: Sciencelives2000, BrenttheSkeptic, Nodelusionnow, Biolgist1947, ContrabassClar, theclarinet1234, bassclarinet2000, Mike96727, Nemesis000000
These two clowns couldn't argue themselves out of a paper bag. More and more educated intelligent people throughout the world are rejecting this kind of claptrap in favor of reasoned thinking. Notice how these two "gentlemen" denigrate thinkers who have manifold greater intelligence than they will ever possess? Denigration and ad hominem attack have become the de rigor method for theists everywhere. What's next? Burning skeptics at the stake? They did it before!
@sciencelives2000 Seriously, don't you get tired of this crap? You repeat it over and over and over again. We know who you are. You repeatedly lie about your credentials while congratulating yourself as if you were different people. You've been exposed. You're cooked, pal. I've already petitioned to get you permanently banned from here for purposefully misleading people and obstructing intelligent discourse with this rhetorical garbage.
@sciencelives2000 I could not agree more. These two guys are total clowns. They couldn't create a valid argument if their lives depended on it. They'd rather engage in discussions of the "supernatural"---discussions of nothing at all. When I think of the millions of books sold by Dawkins / Harris / Hitchens / Dennett / Stenger / Greene / Hawking and other fine scientists compared with these know-nothings, I rejoice that secularism will destroy sectarian strife---and very soon!
@InquiringSkeptic Hello, Sockpuppet #12! Did you even bother listening to the criticism of your trivial and aggressive emotionalism from people like you in the above video? This video is for you.
So, according to Barron, it's an Enlightenment idea that supernaturalists tend to engage in violence because their belief systems are intrinsically irrational. Well, those dudes of the Enlightenment were a very bright bunch. They merely examined the evidence all around them. When you haven't verifiable evidence as a gold standard of "knowing," you must rely on belief in magic and superstition. Once you do that, violence is close at hand!
These screen-names are sockpuppets of the same uneducated troll talking w/ himself as if he were different people. He refers to himself as a "PhD Scientist," or any variation thereof, delivering the same empty filler & unsubstantiated "scientism" on Barron's videos, who name-drops intelligentsia, while attacking your credentials in place of reasoned engagement:
Interesting comment about a certian type of Christianity breeding a certain type of atheism. It also seems to cycle back around: a certain type of atheism can provoke an inverse response of Christians. It's true of a lot of what I've read and seen, and even to whatever small extent to myself, that the challenge posed by New Atheism has resulted in much stronger defenses of the faith that are better reasoned, calm, versed in science and logic, and nuanced.
@CoryTheRaven As a skeptic, I'd settle for an iota, a scintilla, a whit of verifiable evidence for the existence of ANY of the countless gods, goddesses, angels, demons, ad infinitum ever invented by human kind. Do I ever get such verifiable evidence? Nothing. Nada. Zippo. Zilch. Oh Well.
@ContrabassClar I assume by "verifiable evidence" you mean "empirical evidence", in which case you would have to argue that empiricism has primacy as an epistemological method.
This is exactly what I'm talking about. As if in reaction to Creationists, you seem to think that you just made a good argument. In turn, those arguments helped prompt me to study things like epistemology, logic, philosophy of science and so on. Now I know that you made a terrible argument full of assumptions.
@CoryTheRaven If supernaturalists restricted their supernaturalism to the supernaturalist "sphere" (whatever that is), I'd have no quarrel whatever. Science cannot address the supernaturalist "sphere" and therefore it is utterly unimportant and irrelevant.
But---supernaturalists INSIST on supernaturalist "effects" in the natural Cosmos---such things as unassisted human parthenogenesis, reanimation of corpses, and unassisted movement of reanimated corpses upward--as just a start. (contd)
@ContrabassClar "Science cannot address the supernaturalist "sphere" and therefore it is utterly unimportant and irrelevant."
"Unimportant and irrelevant" are value judgements that betray your philosophy and do not provide any kind of meaningful objection to anything.
Now, you make a pretty garden-variety objection to miracles that only demonstrates the shallowness of your philosophy. You say that because miracles are not scientifically testable, therefore they could not have happened...
@CoryTheRaven You are not addressing the issue of supernaturalist "effects" in the natural Cosmos. That is the key here. Such "effects" are perfectly within the purview of science. When scientists address such claims, the "evidence" is not only limited but unverifiable. When the claims are tested, they do not hold up to scrutiny.
@ContrabassClar You don't get what I'm saying. A miracle is BY DEFINITION outside the purview of science. Science DOES NOT cover everything that happens in the universe. Science is a specific methodology that deals ONLY with understanding the repeating, recurring actions of natural, physical laws. Outside of that, science has nothing to say. Miracles are BY DEFINITION outside the realm of science because they are singular events contraveining natural laws. There is no scientiic way to test them.
@CoryTheRaven Is magic outside the purview of science? Is astrology outside the purview of science? Is superstition outside the purview of science? If an "effect" is claimed in the natural Cosmos, that "effect" is within the purview of science, by definition, and is subject to examination by the scientific method. Period. Deny it all you want. You cannot escape this conclusion. Miracle? magic? superstition?
@ContrabassClar You're just proving how little you know about the subject. Magic and astrology are not claimed to be miraculous. On the contrary, practitioners claim that they are very regular, cause-and-effect phenomena. Therefore those ARE scientifically testable. A one-off event of a particular Jewish man rising from the dead 2000 years ago is not scientifically testable. Yes we know that people don't normally stop being dead. That's the WHOLE FUCKING POINT.
@CoryTheRaven Ah, so now we are reduced to profanity. Let's see. "Sophistry" is an insulting term? The "F" word is not. My, my...what sophisticated and clever arguments you supernaturalists use. You love to play with definitions. Buddy---magic, superstition, and "miracles" are cut from the same cloth. All claim a natural "effect" by "unnatural" means. All such claims are in the purview of the scientific method. And all present no verifiable evidence whatever.
@ContrabassClar *sigh* You obviously have the things that you were told to think by smart-sounding old white men with British accents, and you're sure as well not going to let someone who actually practices this religion tell you that you don't understand this religion. You're welcome to your views, regardless of how inane and ignorant they happen to be.
Thank you for proving my point, as well as Fr. Barron's and Dr. Hahn's, about the quality of atheism today.
@CoryTheRaven It never ceases to amaze me how quickly supernaturalists are reduced to name calling, swearing and foul language. Do they teach you that in your philosophy and theology courses as the best way to counter the arguments of skeptics and free thinkers----or did you find that effective on your own?
@ContrabassClar FYI, if you find a consistent pattern of behaviour that you are eventually responded to rudely when you act arrogantly and ignorantly towards everything anybody who disagrees with you says, the problem might actually be you. There is only so much a person can be tolerant of. Having what you say constantly ignored by someone constantly talking down to you tends to cross that line pretty quickly.
@CoryTheRaven Personally, I have never been reduced to foul-mouthed argument. I've not found it effective at all. For me, it's not even emotionally valuable. It simply obscures the intrinsic logic of my argument.
If not agreeing with you and finding your arguments without merit is condescending, then I'm afraid, so be it. I've often thought supernaturalists to be arrogant but it is of no consequence to me. I excuse it on the grounds that many of us require "certainty" for anxiolysis.
@ContrabassClar I'm impressed that you can claim to not be condescending while using pejoratives like "supernaturalists" in the same post. The reason you've often found us to be arrogant is because we keep telling you that you don't know what you're talking about when you keep insulting us and mischaracterizing our beliefs. But you obviously have a vested interest in thinking you're above us.
And yes, I swear. I'm not a pretty little angel. I'll put a quarter in my swear jar on your behalf.
@CoryTheRaven So, let's have an inquiry about whether the term "supernaturalist" is inaccurate or condescending.
Merriam-Webster: "of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil"
Does that not describe what we're speaking about here? Is it not an excellent, general term? Is it not all-encompassing?
If you called me a "scientist," or a "skeptic"---both very general terms---no objection!
@ContrabassClar You know what else is accurate? The actual terms we use for ourselves, like say "Christian" or even "theist". "Supernaturalist" is obviously a sneering pejorative that sounds like it should be read with the same voice with which someone would say "pedophile". If you are going to be insulting, at least take some responsibility for yourself instead of hiding behind "technically correct" dictionary definitions.
@CoryTheRaven I regret that you view a perfectly inclusive, well-defined, highly descriptive, neutral English word with so much disdain.
I engage in discussions with many forms of supernaturalists. Many are neither Christian nor theist---they may be Muslims or Jeffersonian deists, for example. They may relate to the god of Einstein and Spinoza.
The term supernaturalist covers the entire front---just as does the term skeptic, which some would consider the equivalent of pedophile. So what?
@ContrabassClar Oh come off it. It's pretty pathetic if you can't even take responsibility for what you say. It's an insulting term. You know it, that's why you use it. I know it, because that's how you use it. To not take responsibility for it is not showing what a tricky rhetorician you are. It's cowardice.
@CoryTheRaven It's an excellent English word. It's well-defined, inclusive, and it accurately describes adherents to thousands of different religions and other supernatural belief systems. In my view, it's in the purview of a Christian to call himself a "Christian" or something more specific like "Catholic." I'm happy to be called a skeptic, which is far more general than an atheist, a term often re-defined by supernaturalists.
Methinks you are slightly sensitive about the word.
@ContrabassClar It's an insulting word, used as a pejorative, and what you do or don't want to be called is utterly irrelevant. If you don't want to take responsibility for it, that's fine. You're a coward.
@CoryTheRaven My goodness. You are so frequently reduced to name calling and foul language. Do you really think that it's effective in buttressing your arguments?
I'll stand with the dictionary and common English usage. "Supernaturalist" is not pejorative, it is not inaccurate, and it is not an insulting word. Good dictionaries indicate whether a term is commonly used in pejorative sense. Not the case here.
Your own language and accusations are unquestionably pejorative, however.
1. a person who lacks courage in facing danger, difficulty, opposition, pain, etc.; a timid or easily intimidated person.
adjective
2. lacking courage; very fearful or timid.
3. proceeding from or expressive of fear or timidity: a coward cry."
I wasn't being insulting. "Coward" is a perfectly good, neutral, descriptive English word. I'm sorry if you feel offended by it, but I guess that if you're offended it just means I'm right.
@ContrabassClar As you might have gleaned, I'm no longer interested in buttressing my arguments. I made my arguments, clarifying what we believe and the distinctions between terms and descriptions of ideas, and you simply denied it all. For example, when I told you explicitly the difference between magic and miracles, you simply dismissed it as wordplay. It demonstrates that you are not interested in a sincere discussion. You just want to be right, regardless of truth.
@CoryTheRaven While I'm aware that YOU want to define a difference between magic and miracles, the REALITY is that they have fundamental points of similarity. Both have an "effect" in the natural Cosmos. Both claim that the "effect" is derived from actions / forces / powers OUTSIDE the natural Cosmos---in the "supernatural" "sphere." Dictionary definition of magic: "The power of apparently influencing the course of events by using mysterious or supernatural forces." (contd)
@ContrabassClar No, it's okay. I get that you don't get it and don't want to get it. I explained the difference to you and could go into more detail about if you wanted, but that would actual entail listening (like what I did when learning about what Pagans believe from Pagans). You're not interested in listening. You want to filter everything through the lens that makes you feel good about yourself. I understand that. You don't need to keep telling me that you don't get it.
@CoryTheRaven Did you learn that tactic from your theology courses?
You supernaturalists are so very, very clever. It is such a powerful argument to assert that your opponent just doesn't "get it." That tactic places the burden on your opponent, rather than on the power and clarity of your own argument---or on the intelligence of its representation!
@ContrabassClar It's really quite simple: you want to be right, and you won't let the truth interefere with that. You want to sit there and tell me what I believe, and when I tell you you're wrong, you accuse me of engaging in clever tactics. No, no tactics here. You are simply wrong. You do not know what you are talking about and do not want to know. The only "burden" I have placed on you is to accurately understand our beliefs. You choose not to. Okay then.
@CoryTheRaven Unfortunately for you, and for the Jabberwocky, English words do have specific meanings. One cannot arbitrarily and with alacrity express one's "beliefs" ignoring the ordinary, accepted definitions of the words that you use.
You may think that "miracles" and "magic" are different but our common language defines them identically. You may think that "supernaturalist" is pejorative but it's descriptive.
That's not me failing to "get it." It's you using obfuscation and sophistry.
@ContrabassClar Since you have delicate grandmother ears, I'll just quote from G.K. Chesterton to explain why your habit of telling people what they believe is frustrating, annoying and wrong:
"There is one very vile habit that the pedants have, and that is explaining to a man why he does a thing when the man himself can explain quite well — and quite differently...
@ContrabassClar "...If I go down on all-fours to find sixpence, it annoys me to be told by a passing biologist that I am really doing it because my remote ancestors were quadrupeds. I concede that he knows all about biology, or even a great deal about my ancestors; but I know he is wrong, because he does not know about the sixpence... Scientists will talk to a man on general guess-work about things that they know no more about than about his pocket-money or his pet cat..."
@ContrabassClar "... Religion is one of them, and all the festivals and formalities that are rooted in religion. Thus a man will tell me that in keeping Christmas I am not keeping a Christmas feast, but a pagan feast. This is exactly as if he told me that I was not feeling furiously angry, but only a little sad. I know how I am feeling all right; and why I am feeling it..."
@CoryTheRaven Hi, would you like to sign my petition to have ContrabassClar permanently removed from Fr. Barron's videos? He is a sock-puppet among many, lying about his credentials, while cheering on his own posts as if he were two different people. Sometimes he's a PhD Biologist, other times a PhD Chemist, etc. Here are his other names. Sciencelives2000, BrenttheSkeptic, Nodelusionnow, Biolgist1947, ContrabassClar, theclarinet1234, bassclarinet2000, Mike96727, Nemesis000000
@grunderlyme Please put me down as a signatory on your petition. This guy is truly awful! He is a threat to Roman Catholicism. My goodness, his arguments are so very very powerful that he destroys all of the mythology of religion. And he does it by using only 2 of his brain cells. He's a truly amazing person. I admire him very much. But he's got to go. He puts all of the supernaturalists on YouTube to shame. It's embarrassing for them---and we just can't have that!!!
@grunderlyme As I knew he would, the totally unscholarly Barron blocked me from his videos, but you remain to engage in your mindless ad hominem attacks, based on an intelligence that my dog easily surpasses. You'll note that none of the sites by atheists or scientists EVER blocks anyone but the supernaturalist sites censor constantly. Why might that be? Fear on the part of supernaturalists that science and secularism will ultimately destroy the delusion and ruin the profit-making (contd)
@grunderlyme (2) power of the big business of supernaturalism? Of course! Blocking a correspondent on these sites is the modern-day equivalent of burning heretics, which you supernaturalists find so appealing. You burned each other and burned skeptics for centuries until the Enlightenment put a stop to it.
The delusion of supernaturalism is intellectually bankrupt. As people become better-educated, especially in science, and more economically secure, it will die (contd)
@sciencelives2000 Again, I petitioned for your removal not because of your heresy, but because of your (1) fraud, and deliberately misleading of others, (2) obstruction of intelligent discourse, (3) discouraging participation from others because you consistently lower morale with your negativity, and (4) your deliberate obfuscation of what the Church Teaches which is a form of SLANDER and LIBEL.........
@sciencelives2000 .......All 4 points SOLELY pertain to your maliciousness and deception, not to your believing something that "just happens" to be different from the Church. Give me a break. This is exactly what I'm talking about. YOU OBSTRUCT SENSIBLE DISCOURSE AT EVERY TURN.
@grunderlyme (3) a long slow death of attrition. Already, the highly developed countries of Europe, Canada, and Japan are fundamentally secular. The most economically and educationally advanced areas of the U.S. (New England) are becoming very secular.
Supernaturalism is dying. Even Ratzinger says that down-sizing is likely, especially in Europe.
You're on the losing side, sweetie-pie.
Actually, I had hoped that Barron and his minions would make interesting arguments. Nope. I get blocked.
@ContrabassClar "...When a learned man tells me that on the 25th of December I am really astronomically worshipping the sun, I answer that I am not. I am practicing a particular personal religion, the pleasures of which (right or wrong) are not in the least astronomical."
Are you maybe starting to "get it" now? Telling people what they believe, especially when you do so in an obviously pejorative manner, is self-serving and fucking annoying.
@CoryTheRaven (2) Dictionary definition of miracle: "an effect or extraordinary event in the physical world that surpasses all known human or natural powers and is ascribed to a supernatural cause."
Now, even you, so desirous of defining terms to meet your needs, must see that the two terms are cut from the same cloth, fundamentally, at their very root, identical. If anything, a miracle is merely a subset of magic.
@ContrabassClar ...For something to be scientifically testable, it must be a recurring action of a natural law. But that is NOT EVEN THE CLAIM BEING MADE FOR MIRACLES. The claim being made for miracles is that they are one-off contraventions of natural laws. That necessarily means they are scientifically untestable. In other words: no shit Sherlock, that's why they're MIRACLES...
@ContrabassClar ...Where you err is in your philosophical belief that if something cannot be verified scientifically then belief in it is totally unjustified. That is simply untrue, despite your arrogant objections that anything not scientific is unimportant and irrelevant. There could be any number of justifiable reasons for believing in something, ranging from philosophical argument to historical evidence to aesthetic appreciation to revealled truth...
@ContrabassClar ...Underpinning your whole philosophy is the belief that empiricism has epistemological primacy. That is a positive claim that requires a defense. Ironically, though, it is a defense that cannot come FROM empiricism. You cannot empirically prove that only empirical evidence arbitrates truth.
@CoryTheRaven (2) When supernaturalists claim these things, they are making SCIENTIFIC claims, and they are doing so WITHOUT verifiable evidence of any kind. They open themselves to criticism and ridicule because they have no verifiable evidence, and yet claim events which are never observed in the Cosmos. The evidence that they cite is of dubious quality and is certainly without verification.
When science has attempted to test supernaturalist claims, such as tests of the efficacy of (contd)
@CoryTheRaven (3) intercessional prayer by Christian supernaturalists, well-designed, double-blind experiments have demonstrated NO EFFECT whatever. Indeed, the "prayed for" surgical patients actually had more complications than those not "prayed for."
Scientists are open to verifiable evidence for the claims of supernaturalists--just as for the claims of astrology and other such things. When we study those claims, however, we find NO verifiable evidence whatever to support those claims.
@ContrabassClar Your argument from intercessory prayer only proves my point. The test relies on the assumption that intercessory prayer is a cause-and-effect activity like the recurring actions of a natural law. I suppose it never occured to you that if prayer could be proven to work in this way, that would actually DISPROVE that prayer was the intercession of a sovereign and personal entity that can choose to act or not act according to its own will.
@ContrabassClar And the accusation of sophistry is a typical atheist thought-terminating cliche used by those who can't be bothered to understand what is being said to them, or simply too ignorant to understand it.
Let me make it as monosyllabic as possible: if prayer is cause-and-effect, it's not done by God.
@CoryTheRaven Your verifiable evidence for your assertion? Those poor deluded Christian supernaturalists who prayed their sweet little hearts out for those cardiac surgical patients did NOT share your parochial view of the efficacy of prayer, I absolutely assure you.
@ContrabassClar OMG, do you even know what YOU are saying anymore? Exactly what "verifiable evidence" do you want for the assertion that proof of prayer's efficacy as a regular cause-and-effect event would constitute disproof that response to prayer is actually the activity of a sovereign personal entity with the will to choose whether or not to act? That's not a question of evidence: that's a question of making sensible, logical extrapolations. A God can CHOOSE to act or not.
@CoryTheRaven Can your god choose anything? Somehow I doubt that, given that there isn't a shred of verifiable evidence that it exists, and all the "effects" that you ascribe to it present no verifiable evidence either.
As those of you who follow Barron on his videos might well expect, I just got blocked by him merely for correcting his aberrant interpretation of the history of science. Barron has NO understanding of science. I suspect that he's never taken a university level course in any science whatever. He is so intent on apologetics that he cares not about historical accuracy. It's quite sad. What true scholar would ever block commentary on his scholarship? Answer: None.
@ContrabassClar If you got blocked then how did you manage to get this comment on the video? And based on word choice and writing style I take it you're sciencelives2000 as well? Or am I wrong on that?
Comment removed
ContrabassClar 16 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Add the following aliases to the list of his sockpuppets too. That's 12 and counting.
Mrmentalmadness123
MrSeekingLight
grunderlyme 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
WARNING:There's a troll stalking Fr. Barron's videos manufacturing fake support for himself w/ multiple aliases as a disguise & lying about his numerous credentials. He obstructs intelligent discourse w/ consistent negativity, question-evading, ignoring counterarguments, & non-stop slander in place of reasoned rebuttal. Notice the pattern: Sciencelives2000, InquiringSkeptic, BrenttheSkeptic, Nodelusionnow, Biolgist1947, ContrabassClar, theclarinet1234, bassclarinet2000, Mike96727, Nemesis00
grunderlyme 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Add the following aliases to the list of his sockpuppets too. That's 12 and counting.
Mrmentalmadness123
MrSeekingLight
grunderlyme 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
WARNING:There's a troll stalking Fr. Barron's videos manufacturing fake support for himself w/ multiple aliases as a disguise & lying about his numerous credentials. He obstructs intelligent discourse w/ consistent negativity, question-evading, ignoring counterarguments, & non-stop slander in place of reasoned rebuttal. Notice the pattern: Sciencelives2000, InquiringSkeptic, BrenttheSkeptic, Nodelusionnow, Biolgist1947, ContrabassClar, theclarinet1234, bassclarinet2000, Mike96727, Nemesis000
grunderlyme 1 day ago
Comment removed
ContrabassClar 1 day ago
Add the following aliases to the list of his sockpuppets too. That's 12 and counting.
Mrmentalmadness123
MrSeekingLight
How pathetic.
grunderlyme 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
REMINDER:There's a troll stalking Fr. Barron's videos manufacturing fake support for himself w/ multiple aliases as a disguise & lying about his numerous credentials. He obstructs intelligent discourse w/ consistent negativity, question-evading, ignoring counterarguments, & non-stop slander in place of reasoned rebuttal. Notice the pattern: Sciencelives2000, InquiringSkeptic, BrenttheSkeptic, Nodelusionnow, Biolgist1947, ContrabassClar, theclarinet1234, bassclarinet2000, Mike96727, Nemesis000
grunderlyme 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ContrabassClar We have given many arguments for the existence of God, here, and not once have you defeated any, much less bothered to challenge them. Other atheists at least try, why not you? You're the chickenshit who safely taunts people from behind the fence with empty slander because you're too much of a wuss to step into the ring and contend with the big boys. So let's do it. Come on, you poser. Defeat a premise to one of these arguments. Just one! I CHALLENGE YOU.
grunderlyme 1 day ago
Comment removed
grunderlyme 1 day ago
Comment removed
grunderlyme 1 day ago
@ContrabassClar Belief in God is not irrational at all because we can logically demonstrate he exists in numerous arguments including the argument from contingency, the fine-tuning argument, the moral argument, the argument from desire, etc. But we cannot demonstrate unicorns or fairies exist. So why do you keep talking about them? What's your hangup with unicorns and fairies? Are you mad for having found out your childhood heroes don't exist? I'm sorry, boo hoo.
grunderlyme 1 day ago
@grunderlyme Any of the countless gods invented by humankind are irrational. If the existence of any of them were compellingly rational, every sane, thoughtful human would immediately concur about their existence. In fact only the most delusional humans assert that a 3 day corpse reanimated or that a Jewish virgin was impregnated by a bronze age tribal war god. Rationality is...well....rational. Such assertions are...well.....irrational!
ContrabassClar 1 day ago
It never ceased to amaze me how pre-occupied these atheists blockheads are w/ unicorns and Santa Claus when referring to the Unconditioned whose existence can be deduced by logical argument. I suspect the adult obsession with projecting these mythic creatures onto Christianity is the manifestation of a repressed anger at their having discovered Santa Claus didn't exist as a child. We abandoned these beliefs as children. But atheists are still hysterical about them: the "Santa Claus Syndrome"
grunderlyme 2 days ago
@grunderlyme It never ceases to amaze me how difficult it is for supernaturalists to understand such literary devices as metaphor. Is it really so difficult to understand the comparison between fanciful mythological figures like unicorns and the totally fanciful mythology of the countless religions of humankind? Perhaps it's because supernaturalists are so deeply vested in CERTAINTY as a drug-like anxiolytic that clever literary devices utterly elude their ken. How amusing!
ContrabassClar 1 day ago
@ContrabassClar Lol! So all you got is literary rhetoric and metaphor? Do you think we are in an English Literature class discussing Shakespeare's Hamlet or something? We are not. I am talking about the logical arguments for the existence of God. A metaphorical description is not a logical argument. It's a strawman of the content of the actual arguments presented. Thanks for finally admitting you have nothing but empty polemics.
grunderlyme 1 day ago
When I hear these two guys denigrate skeptics who stand miles above them intellectually, I just want to say "poor, poor baby." I know that supernaturalism has had the upper hand for thousands of years---torturing and burning dissenters who would have the temerity ever to voice disagreement. But times are different! Science has conquered. No longer will skeptics stand by idly without calling superstition, superstition and mythology, mythology. Humanity depends on it.
ContrabassClar 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
....God, by definition, has maximal possible power. He can do all things logically possible, including becoming a spatio-temporal object if he so desired. However, all spatio-temporal objects are finite, capable of being changed (or affected) by other other objects, and so radically contingent. Therefore, the capacity for spatio-temporal change is a mark of limitation, not power, which is exactly why God, who is maximally powerful, is not, in fact, a spatio-temporal object. QED
grunderlyme 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
....you could say “John is not ignorant." But no one would say lacking ignorance was a mark of imperfection and limitation. Likewise, you could say "John is not foolish." But no one would say lacking foolishness was a mark of imperfection and limitation. So merely denying a predicate to the subject of a proposition is not what people mean by "limitation." When we say something is limited, we mean "limited with respect to some power." But....
grunderlyme 5 days ago
Comment removed
grunderlyme 5 days ago
Comment removed
grunderlyme 5 days ago
Here is an interesting topic of discussion (about which Aquinas surely had something to say): Someone says denying the space-time existence to God is "limiting" because we put a limit on it, namely, "God is not some spatio-temporal object." But this is confused. Merely denying a predicate of the subject of a proposition does not explain why something in the real world lacking the property indicated by that predicate is “limiting.” For instance....
grunderlyme 5 days ago
@grunderlyme More angels on the head of a pin? More yapping about nonsense? I've decided to start my own branch of yapping. It's called unicornology and involves endless speculation about the characteristics of unicorns. It has an entire mythology about unicorns as they both judge and love humankind and will ultimately give us all eternal life, if we believe exactly the right myths about unicorns and do exactly as unicorns have ordered us to do.
ContrabassClar 4 days ago
@ContrabassClar Actually,you'll never step up to the challenge. We've been challenging you for months, and no one can get passed your wooden head. You're a total waste of time. So carry on jerking yourself off all over everyone's videos. . .
grunderlyme 1 day ago
@grunderlyme "We've been challenging you?" You now use the royal "we"----or have you begun schizophrenically to BECOME your many aliases? Have you added a NEW delusion to your repertoire? How amusing!!
ContrabassClar 1 day ago
@ContrabassClar What are you talking about? YOU are the one with multiple aliases all of whom talk to themselves. You have at least 12 of them, each of which LIES about your credentials. Sometimes you're a PhD scientist, sometimes a PhD biologist, sometimes a PhD Chemist, other times a PhD Computer Scientist.
You manufacture false support for what you post precisely because you know what you say lacks any MERIT That's why you do it!! You're pathetic.
grunderlyme 1 day ago
@grunderlyme Poor baby!!! I know that it's difficult to defend the reanimation of a 3 day corpse, let alone the impregnation of a Jewish virgin by a bronze age tribal war god! Such a challenge. It occupies so many of your 4 brain cells trying to do that! There's no room for literary metaphor or even the incredible fun of pointing out the absurdities of all supernaturalism. Oh well. Face it booby buddy. There is NO rational argument for ANY of the countless gods invented by humans. NONE.
ContrabassClar 1 day ago
@ContrabassClar I'm sorry, but there is clear-cut historical evidence for the resurrection in mutliple documents by multiple independent authors. To just flatly deny these historical documents count as evidence without first getting your hands dirty means you abandon all ancient history for no good reason. You are irrational, irresponsible, lazy, and just plain dumb. Where is your historical evidence the resurrection never happened? Nowhere. So try again.
grunderlyme 1 day ago
@grunderlyme Look, booby baby. If you WANT so desperately to believe in the reanimation of a 3 day corpse, and refuse your anti-psychotic meds (seroquel is a good one), who am I to tell you that it's all so utterly absurd? And booby, if you want to trust in the impregnation of a Jewish virgin by a bronze-age tribal war god, who am I to tell you that you are certifiably insane? You need it for anxiolysis, right? It makes you feel better, right? Go for it, booby, go for it!
ContrabassClar 1 day ago
@ContrabassClar "There is NO rational argument"
--False. There is the Contingency Argument, the Fine-Tuning argument, the Ontological argument, the Moral Argument, the Historical Resurrection Argument, the Argument from Desire.
If you bothered to challenge any of these arguments, we would actually have something to discuss. Instead, like a coward you prefer to stand behind your fence and hurl insults at beliefs you cannot actually defeat. How pointless. You get nowhere.
grunderlyme 1 day ago
@grunderlyme None of those arguments holds water, booby baby. None stands up to scrutiny. None is compelling. None is rational. None is convincing to most academic philosophers. None is compelling to most award-winning scientists. None is compelling to those who think, reason, or possess sanity. They convince only folks like you who DESPERATELY crave anxiolysis, certainty, and comfort in the arms of your 3 day corpse or war-god impregnated Jewish virgin. Go for it, booby...go for it!
ContrabassClar 1 day ago
@ContrabassClar "None of those arguments holds water,"
--Undefendeded assertion. Hence a non-sequitur fallacy.
"None stands up to scrutiny."
--Too bad you didn't scrutinize anything. Another unedefended assertion. Hence another non-sequitur fallacy.
"None is compelling."
--WHY are they not compelling? Another non-sequitur fallacy.
"None is rational. "
--WHY are they "not rational"? Another undefended assertion. Hence another non-sequitur fallacy.
grunderlyme 1 day ago
@grunderlyme Whatever makes you happy and lowers your anxiety, booby baby. If re-animated 3 day corpses help you, go for it! If tribal war-god impregnated Jewish virgins are your thing, go for it! If creator-gods do it for you, more power to you! If upward moving re-animated corpses make you happy, believe that! Whatever evidence-free superstitious magical supernaturalist assertions lower your anxiety and make you feel that your life has meaning, go for it! Your motto: "Delusion always!"
ContrabassClar 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ContrabassClar "Whatever makes you happy and lowers your anxiety, booby baby. If re-animated 3 day corpses help you, go for it!................"
--This is not an argument for anything. It's only your emotional hysteria again.
grunderlyme 1 day ago
@ContrabassClar "Your motto: "Delusion always!"
--Hahaha! And who is the one afraid to get their hands dirty with the arguments on the table here? You're allergic to reason and evidence. Give me a single argument that God doesn't exist and miracles are impossible. Stop wasting everyone's time, and do it. Come on, you bullying loud mouth poser. Step into the ring with me. I'm waiting!
grunderlyme 1 day ago
@grunderlyme What do you need me for? You've got a reanimated 3-day corpse and a tribal war-god-impregnated virgin! Isn't that enough to make you ecstatically happy? Thanks to all of that magic, your anxiety is reduced and you feel confident that you'll survive corporeal death. You should have everything you could possibly need without convincing me or other rational, sane people of your delusion. Go for it booby baby. Enjoy!!!
ContrabassClar 1 day ago
@ContrabassClar "Thanks to all of that magic, your anxiety is reduced and you feel confident that you'll survive corporeal death."
--Another ad hominem attack. I also feel comfortable and happy that I live in America. That doesn't mean I don't actually live in America. Oops. Try again.
grunderlyme 1 day ago
@grunderlyme Oh my! Your absurd religion DOESN'T work for you? It doesn't reduce your anxiety? You don't think you'll survive corporeal death? You don't think that your 3-day corpse reanimated? You don't think that your Jewish virgin was impregnated by your tribal war god? You don't think that your life is meaningless without your creator-god? Oh my, oh my! My condolences! You do all of this ridiculous philosophizing for no purpose?!? You need another activity!!! Poor booby baby!
ContrabassClar 1 day ago
@ContrabassClar "Oh my! Your absurd religion DOESN'T work for you?............"
--I'm sorry, this is not an argument for anything. It's just your emotioinal hysteria again.
grunderlyme 1 day ago
@ContrabassClar "all of this ridiculous philosophizing for no purpose?!?"
--What is ridiculous about it? Undefended assertion. Hence another non-sequitur fallacy.
"You need another activity!!! Poor booby baby!"
--You sound like an emotionally hysterical woman. Are you going to start "shaming" me too?
grunderlyme 1 day ago
@grunderlyme I am so sorry that you have utterly lost your faith in supernaturalism! I know that it was everything to you and that you've found no meaning without it. You don't believe in the reanimation of 3-day corpses any longer??? You don't believe that a Jewish virgin was impregnated by a bronze-age tribal war god? Oh my, oh my! How could you change your belief so rapidly in the face of my powerful and compelling argument?? What will do for anxiolysis now? Xanax? Valium? Klonopin?
ContrabassClar 1 day ago
@ContrabassClar You're being emotionally hysterical again.
grunderlyme 1 day ago
@grunderlyme I am so sorry that all of this is so very difficult for you. Do you have access to professional help at your university where you are (so you claim) a philosophy grad student? If student services is as good as they are here in the U.S., I'm sure that someone could help you with this very difficult situation that you're experiencing----being confront with rationality.
ContrabassClar 1 day ago
@ContrabassClar Same old rhetorical garbage.
Where is the evidence God does not exist and miracles are impossible? I'm still waiting....
grunderlyme 1 day ago
@grunderlyme You mean that you still believe that a bronze age tribal war god impregnated a Jewish virgin??? My, oh my, oh my! How amazing!!!! Of course, this is very consistent with the dozens of other gods who have impregnated humans. I guess that gods enjoy sex with cute virgins. How fun!!!
ContrabassClar 1 day ago
@ContrabassClar Still waiting....
grunderlyme 1 day ago
@grunderlyme My goodness you are loathe to answer simple questions about your background and beliefs. It took forever to ferret out that you'd never had enough interest in the hard sciences to take other than the minimum coursework required to graduate. And now you won't tell me whether you completely accept the Christian dogma of the impregnation of a Jewish virgin by a bronze-age tribal war god. That's in the Nicene Creed, right? Et incarnátus est.. ..Ex María Vírgine? "Still waiting."
ContrabassClar 14 hours ago
@ContrabassClar Our lack of credentials in the hard sciences is irrelevant to question of whether hard science has any evidence against miralces. So the give the evidence, coward. I'm Catholic, so what do you think I believe? You have no credentials in science, because you often get the discoveries of science completely wrong. I can prove it, too, because I saved your errors months ago, and will give them if you keep up this irrelevent nonsense about "scientific credentials"
grunderlyme 13 hours ago
@grunderlyme "Our lack of credentials"????? The royal plural again? My goodness. Confirmed: you have NO KNOWLEDGE of science.
I know many Catholics who find the idea of a bronze-age tribal war god impregnating a Jewish virgin to be the height of the ridiculous. You still refuse to answer my question? Why? You're ashamed either way? Undoubtedly!!!
You are so anal retentive as to save responses for posts months ago? And you're certain that they're from me? Are you totally insane?
ContrabassClar 6 hours ago
@grunderlyme Your last response was actually bizarre---I mean more bizarre than your usual responses. Have you seen a counselor at your university---if you are actually attending a university?
ContrabassClar 6 hours ago
@ContrabassClar Do you, or don't you, NOW---I'm confused---think that a bronze age tribal war god impregnated a Jewish virgin????? To quote you: "still waiting." If you fail to answer, I will conclude that you've abandoned that ridiculous belief.
ContrabassClar 1 day ago
Comment removed
grunderlyme 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@grunderlyme Do you, or don't you, NOW---I'm confused---think that a bronze age tribal war god impregnated a Jewish virgin????? To quote you: "still waiting." If you fail to answer, I will conclude that you've abandoned that ridiculous belief.
ContrabassClar 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ContrabassClar I'm not surprised. You think your hysteria constitutes an argument. For the 1000th time, where is there evidence God does not exist and miracles are impossible? I'm still waiting...
grunderlyme 1 day ago
@ContrabassClar "without convincing me or other rational, sane people of your delusion."
--Delusion? Fallacy of Begging the Question. Prove to me that I am, in fact, deluded. If you cannot, then you haven't the slightest clue what you're talking about, which would make your claim also another NON-SEQUITUR FALLACY.
grunderlyme 1 day ago
@ContrabassClar Man, you thrive off logical fallacy. You should adopt the name "MrFallacy" as another one of your aliases in addition to the 12 that you already have. And then you can even brag to everyone here about your having a "PhD" in this area too.
grunderlyme 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ContrabassClar "None of those arguments holds water,"
--Undefended assertion. Hence a non-sequitur fallacy.
"None stands up to scrutiny."
--Too bad you didn't "scrutinize" anything. Another undefended assertion. Hence another non-sequitur fallacy.
"None is compelling."
--WHY are they not compelling? Another non-sequitur fallacy.
"None is rational. "
--WHY are they "not rational"? Another non-sequitur fallacy.
grunderlyme 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ContrabassClar "None of those arguments holds water,"
--Undefended assertion. Hence a non-sequitur fallacy.
"None stands up to scrutiny."
--Too bad you didn't "scrutinize" anything. Another undefended assertion. Hence another non-sequitur fallacy.
"None is compelling."
--WHY are they not compelling? Another non-sequitur fallacy.
"None is rational. "
--WHY are they "not rational"? Another non-sequitur fallacy.
grunderlyme 1 day ago
@ContrabassClar "None is compelling to most award-winning scientists."
--Fallacy of Appeal to Authority--the WRONG kind\
grunderlyme 1 day ago
Comment removed
grunderlyme 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
grunderlyme 1 day ago
@ContrabassClar "Look, booby baby. If you WANT so desperately to believe in the reanimation of a 3 day corpse, and refuse your anti-psychotic meds (seroquel is a good one), "
--I'm sorry, that's not an argument, but your own emotional hysteria. Try again.
grunderlyme 1 day ago
@grunderlyme Look, booby baby. I know that you NEED this. Most intelligent, rational, well-educated, thoughtful, self-actualized, and centered people do not. I don't want to deprive you of your anxiolysis from believing in reanimated corpses or war-god impregnated virgins. You NEED that! Desperately. Your life is meaningless without it. Just don't try to convince me of your delusion. I've dealt with several psychotics. Humoring them works fairly well. I'll humor you.
ContrabassClar 1 day ago
@ContrabassClar "Most intelligent, rational, well-educated, thoughtful, self-actualized, and centered people do not"
--False. This reminds me of the empty slogans found in advertisments: "Coke is great because most awesome people love it." Brillilant. Keep sticking your head in the sand. You're allergic to reason and evidence because you never use them. It's time to put your money where your mouth is, and defeat one of these arguments using your brain. I'm still waiting..
grunderlyme 1 day ago
@ContrabassClar "You NEED that! Desperately. Your life is meaningless without it."
--Ad hominem fallacy.
"Just don't try to convince me of your delusion.'
--Fallacy of Begging the Question. Give a single valid argument that what I believe is a delusion. I'm still waiting....
"I've dealt with several psychotics."
--Another pointless ad hominem.
grunderlyme 1 day ago
Comment removed
grunderlyme 1 day ago
@grunderlyme What? You don't think Seroquel(r) is a good anti-psychotic??
ContrabassClar 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
WARNING:There is a troll stalking Fr. Barron's videos manufacturing fake support for himself w/ multiple aliases as a disguise & lying about his numerous credentials. He obstructs intelligent discourse w/ consistent negativity, question-evading, ignoring counterarguments, & non-stop slander in place of reasoned rebuttal. Notice the pattern: Sciencelives2000, InquiringSkeptic, BrenttheSkeptic, Nodelusionnow, Biolgist1947, ContrabassClar, theclarinet1234, bassclarinet2000, Mike96727, Nemesis000
grunderlyme 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
WARNING:There is a troll stalking Fr. Barron's videos manufacturing fake support for himself w/ multiple aliases as a disguise & lying about his numerous credentials. He obstructs intelligent discourse w/ consistent negativity, question-evading, ignoring counterarguments, & non-stop slander in place of reasoned rebuttal. Notice the pattern: Sciencelives2000, , InquiringSkeptic, BrenttheSkeptic, Nodelusionnow, Biolgist1947, ContrabassClar, theclarinet1234, bassclarinet2000, Mike96727, Nemesis000
grunderlyme 2 weeks ago
WARNING:There is a troll stalking Fr. Barron's videos manufacturing fake support for himself w/ multiple aliases as a disguise & lying about his numerous credentials. He obstructs intelligent discourse w/ consistent negativity, question-evading, ignoring counterarguments, & non-stop slander in place of reasoned rebuttal. Notice the pattern: Sciencelives2000, , InquiringSkeptic, BrenttheSkeptic, Nodelusionnow, Biolgist1947, ContrabassClar, theclarinet1234, bassclarinet2000, Mike96727, Nemesis0000
grunderlyme 2 weeks ago
@grunderlyme WARNING! Stupid supernaturalists abound commenting on Barron's videos. If it were up to them, they would make the United States into a full blown theocracy, with everyone subservient to the idiocy of the Catholic Church. Fortunately, our Founding Fathers, in particular Washington, Jefferson, Paine, and Franklin, were smarter than these supernaturalists. It won't happen! If you're a skeptic, and get blocked, REJOICE! You have been proved smarter than any of these know-nothings.
sciencelives2000 2 weeks ago
@sciencelives2000 You sure know how to dig that hole, don't you, punchy? Keep digging!
grunderlyme 2 weeks ago
@grunderlyme That's it? That's all you can say when I accuse you of seeking theocracy through supernaturalist idiocy? You don't deny it?
sciencelives2000 2 weeks ago
@sciencelives2000 Like I'm going to even bother? It's the same old malicious verbal abuse from you. Do you realize how hysterical and desperate you sound?
grunderlyme 2 weeks ago
@grunderlyme Of all the supernaturalists that I've debated, and there have been many---it's an extremely common delusion----you are by far---by far---the best at accusing others of the very faults that you yourself exhibit. It's quite astonishing to me. I've never seen it quite so blatantly. Perhaps you and Barron should go commiserate and try to find some others to block?
sciencelives2000 2 weeks ago
@sciencelives2000 You haven't single a rational basis for your slander toward me, whereas EVERYONE sees through your pathetic attempts to manufacture false support with over 10 different alias congraluting yourself on your endless rhetoric. And then you LIE about your numerous credentials! Nothing could more pathetic, because it is a cry for attention from a person who knows he doesn't have the intellectualy capacity to get his hands dirty and engage charitably and rationally
grunderlyme 2 weeks ago
@grunderlyme I can only repeat: you are the best at accusing others of the VERY FAULTS that you yourself exhibit. No other supernaturalist can hold a candle to you in that regard. Barron is the best at pretending to be open, scholarly, and genuine, while in reality being closed, reactionary, and willing to block debate instantly when beaten. But you are the best at hypocrisy. Hands down! Just think: you're better at Barron at something! That should make you proud, sweetie-pie.
sciencelives2000 2 weeks ago
@sciencelives2000 Barron and myself have logically defeated your nonsense time and again and everyone can see it. But you don't care, because you keep repeating the same self-refuting "scientism" crap which any first-year undergraduate in a logic 101 course can defeat in 10 seconds. So you HATE logic because you've repeatedly and shamelessly DENIED it.
grunderlyme 2 weeks ago
@sciencelives2000 You're stupid enough to contend the rules of correct thinking (logic) and the Law of Causality are merely "tentative" in face of empirical realities so that it is possible 2+2=5 is true and rabbits spring magically from nothing at all. But humorously enough, not ONCE have you offered evidence from empirical reality FOR this. Also, there wouldn't BE science without logic and causality in the 1st place. Without them, there would only be unpredictable chaos
grunderlyme 2 weeks ago
@grunderlyme You understand not a whit of real science. You and Barron together have not taken a single university course in any hard science. It's a sad thing, but all too common among supernaturalists. C.P.Snow's two cultures are alive and well today, despite the fact that science dominates every aspect of our lives.
After you've taken a few courses in science, get back to me with a real argument.
BrenttheSkeptic 2 weeks ago
@BrenttheSkeptic What did I say that was incorrect? Explain. Don't just blow smoke up everyone's ass.
grunderlyme 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
grunderlyme 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
grunderlyme 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sciencelives2000 What are you talking about?? I'm not the one so desperately manufacturing over 10 different alias in some sorry attempt to garner support for my views while LYING about my multiple PhD's! Sometimes you're a PhD Chemist, a PhD Biologist, other times a PhD physicist, etc. You do this precisely BECAUSE you know your crap won't stand on its own merit. Why else would you do it? Huh? This behavior DEFEATS your credibility, it doesn't support it. Hello!
grunderlyme 2 weeks ago
Add "InquiringSkeptic" to the list of sockpuppets. 12 and counting....
grunderlyme 2 weeks ago
@grunderlyme As I knew he would, the totally unscholarly Barron blocked me from his videos, but you remain to engage in your mindless ad hominem attacks, based on an intelligence that my dog easily surpasses. You'll note that none of the sites by atheists or scientists EVER blocks anyone but the supernaturalist sites censor constantly. Why might that be? Fear on the part of supernaturalists that science and secularism will ultimately destroy the delusion and ruin the profit-making (contd)
sciencelives2000 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@grunderlyme As I knew he would, the totally unscholarly Barron blocked me from his videos, but you remain to engage in your mindless ad hominem attacks, based on an intelligence that my dog easily surpasses. You'll note that none of the sites by atheists or scientists EVER blocks anyone but the supernaturalist sites censor constantly. Why might that be? Fear on the part of supernaturalists that science and secularism will ultimately destroy the delusion and ruin the profit-making (contd)
sciencelives2000 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
WARNING: There is a troll stalking Fr. Barron's videos manufacturing fake support for himself w/ multiple aliases as a disguise & lying about his credentials. He obstructs intelligent discourse w/ consistent negativity & question-evading; ignores counterarguments & attacks your credentials in place of reasoned rebuttal. Notice the pattern: Sciencelives2000, BrenttheSkeptic, Nodelusionnow, Biolgist1947, ContrabassClar, theclarinet1234, bassclarinet2000, Mike96727, Nemesis000000
grunderlyme 2 weeks ago
These two clowns couldn't argue themselves out of a paper bag. More and more educated intelligent people throughout the world are rejecting this kind of claptrap in favor of reasoned thinking. Notice how these two "gentlemen" denigrate thinkers who have manifold greater intelligence than they will ever possess? Denigration and ad hominem attack have become the de rigor method for theists everywhere. What's next? Burning skeptics at the stake? They did it before!
sciencelives2000 2 weeks ago
@sciencelives2000 Seriously, don't you get tired of this crap? You repeat it over and over and over again. We know who you are. You repeatedly lie about your credentials while congratulating yourself as if you were different people. You've been exposed. You're cooked, pal. I've already petitioned to get you permanently banned from here for purposefully misleading people and obstructing intelligent discourse with this rhetorical garbage.
grunderlyme 2 weeks ago
@sciencelives2000 I could not agree more. These two guys are total clowns. They couldn't create a valid argument if their lives depended on it. They'd rather engage in discussions of the "supernatural"---discussions of nothing at all. When I think of the millions of books sold by Dawkins / Harris / Hitchens / Dennett / Stenger / Greene / Hawking and other fine scientists compared with these know-nothings, I rejoice that secularism will destroy sectarian strife---and very soon!
InquiringSkeptic 2 weeks ago
@InquiringSkeptic Hello, Sockpuppet #12! Did you even bother listening to the criticism of your trivial and aggressive emotionalism from people like you in the above video? This video is for you.
grunderlyme 2 weeks ago
So, according to Barron, it's an Enlightenment idea that supernaturalists tend to engage in violence because their belief systems are intrinsically irrational. Well, those dudes of the Enlightenment were a very bright bunch. They merely examined the evidence all around them. When you haven't verifiable evidence as a gold standard of "knowing," you must rely on belief in magic and superstition. Once you do that, violence is close at hand!
ContrabassClar 2 weeks ago
These screen-names are sockpuppets of the same uneducated troll talking w/ himself as if he were different people. He refers to himself as a "PhD Scientist," or any variation thereof, delivering the same empty filler & unsubstantiated "scientism" on Barron's videos, who name-drops intelligentsia, while attacking your credentials in place of reasoned engagement:
Sciencelives2000,
Nodelusionnow,
Biologist1947,
ContrabassClar,
theclarinet1234,
bassclarinet2000,
Mike96727
Nemesis000000
grunderlyme 3 weeks ago
Interesting comment about a certian type of Christianity breeding a certain type of atheism. It also seems to cycle back around: a certain type of atheism can provoke an inverse response of Christians. It's true of a lot of what I've read and seen, and even to whatever small extent to myself, that the challenge posed by New Atheism has resulted in much stronger defenses of the faith that are better reasoned, calm, versed in science and logic, and nuanced.
CoryTheRaven 4 weeks ago
@CoryTheRaven As a skeptic, I'd settle for an iota, a scintilla, a whit of verifiable evidence for the existence of ANY of the countless gods, goddesses, angels, demons, ad infinitum ever invented by human kind. Do I ever get such verifiable evidence? Nothing. Nada. Zippo. Zilch. Oh Well.
ContrabassClar 4 weeks ago
@ContrabassClar I assume by "verifiable evidence" you mean "empirical evidence", in which case you would have to argue that empiricism has primacy as an epistemological method.
This is exactly what I'm talking about. As if in reaction to Creationists, you seem to think that you just made a good argument. In turn, those arguments helped prompt me to study things like epistemology, logic, philosophy of science and so on. Now I know that you made a terrible argument full of assumptions.
CoryTheRaven 4 weeks ago
@CoryTheRaven If supernaturalists restricted their supernaturalism to the supernaturalist "sphere" (whatever that is), I'd have no quarrel whatever. Science cannot address the supernaturalist "sphere" and therefore it is utterly unimportant and irrelevant.
But---supernaturalists INSIST on supernaturalist "effects" in the natural Cosmos---such things as unassisted human parthenogenesis, reanimation of corpses, and unassisted movement of reanimated corpses upward--as just a start. (contd)
ContrabassClar 4 weeks ago
@ContrabassClar "Science cannot address the supernaturalist "sphere" and therefore it is utterly unimportant and irrelevant."
"Unimportant and irrelevant" are value judgements that betray your philosophy and do not provide any kind of meaningful objection to anything.
Now, you make a pretty garden-variety objection to miracles that only demonstrates the shallowness of your philosophy. You say that because miracles are not scientifically testable, therefore they could not have happened...
CoryTheRaven 4 weeks ago
Comment removed
CoryTheRaven 4 weeks ago
@CoryTheRaven You are not addressing the issue of supernaturalist "effects" in the natural Cosmos. That is the key here. Such "effects" are perfectly within the purview of science. When scientists address such claims, the "evidence" is not only limited but unverifiable. When the claims are tested, they do not hold up to scrutiny.
ContrabassClar 4 weeks ago
@ContrabassClar You don't get what I'm saying. A miracle is BY DEFINITION outside the purview of science. Science DOES NOT cover everything that happens in the universe. Science is a specific methodology that deals ONLY with understanding the repeating, recurring actions of natural, physical laws. Outside of that, science has nothing to say. Miracles are BY DEFINITION outside the realm of science because they are singular events contraveining natural laws. There is no scientiic way to test them.
CoryTheRaven 4 weeks ago
@CoryTheRaven Is magic outside the purview of science? Is astrology outside the purview of science? Is superstition outside the purview of science? If an "effect" is claimed in the natural Cosmos, that "effect" is within the purview of science, by definition, and is subject to examination by the scientific method. Period. Deny it all you want. You cannot escape this conclusion. Miracle? magic? superstition?
ContrabassClar 4 weeks ago
@ContrabassClar You're just proving how little you know about the subject. Magic and astrology are not claimed to be miraculous. On the contrary, practitioners claim that they are very regular, cause-and-effect phenomena. Therefore those ARE scientifically testable. A one-off event of a particular Jewish man rising from the dead 2000 years ago is not scientifically testable. Yes we know that people don't normally stop being dead. That's the WHOLE FUCKING POINT.
CoryTheRaven 4 weeks ago
@CoryTheRaven Ah, so now we are reduced to profanity. Let's see. "Sophistry" is an insulting term? The "F" word is not. My, my...what sophisticated and clever arguments you supernaturalists use. You love to play with definitions. Buddy---magic, superstition, and "miracles" are cut from the same cloth. All claim a natural "effect" by "unnatural" means. All such claims are in the purview of the scientific method. And all present no verifiable evidence whatever.
ContrabassClar 4 weeks ago
@ContrabassClar *sigh* You obviously have the things that you were told to think by smart-sounding old white men with British accents, and you're sure as well not going to let someone who actually practices this religion tell you that you don't understand this religion. You're welcome to your views, regardless of how inane and ignorant they happen to be.
Thank you for proving my point, as well as Fr. Barron's and Dr. Hahn's, about the quality of atheism today.
CoryTheRaven 4 weeks ago
@CoryTheRaven It never ceases to amaze me how quickly supernaturalists are reduced to name calling, swearing and foul language. Do they teach you that in your philosophy and theology courses as the best way to counter the arguments of skeptics and free thinkers----or did you find that effective on your own?
ContrabassClar 4 weeks ago
@ContrabassClar FYI, if you find a consistent pattern of behaviour that you are eventually responded to rudely when you act arrogantly and ignorantly towards everything anybody who disagrees with you says, the problem might actually be you. There is only so much a person can be tolerant of. Having what you say constantly ignored by someone constantly talking down to you tends to cross that line pretty quickly.
CoryTheRaven 4 weeks ago
@CoryTheRaven Personally, I have never been reduced to foul-mouthed argument. I've not found it effective at all. For me, it's not even emotionally valuable. It simply obscures the intrinsic logic of my argument.
If not agreeing with you and finding your arguments without merit is condescending, then I'm afraid, so be it. I've often thought supernaturalists to be arrogant but it is of no consequence to me. I excuse it on the grounds that many of us require "certainty" for anxiolysis.
ContrabassClar 4 weeks ago
@ContrabassClar I'm impressed that you can claim to not be condescending while using pejoratives like "supernaturalists" in the same post. The reason you've often found us to be arrogant is because we keep telling you that you don't know what you're talking about when you keep insulting us and mischaracterizing our beliefs. But you obviously have a vested interest in thinking you're above us.
And yes, I swear. I'm not a pretty little angel. I'll put a quarter in my swear jar on your behalf.
CoryTheRaven 4 weeks ago
@CoryTheRaven So, let's have an inquiry about whether the term "supernaturalist" is inaccurate or condescending.
Merriam-Webster: "of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil"
Does that not describe what we're speaking about here? Is it not an excellent, general term? Is it not all-encompassing?
If you called me a "scientist," or a "skeptic"---both very general terms---no objection!
ContrabassClar 4 weeks ago
@ContrabassClar You know what else is accurate? The actual terms we use for ourselves, like say "Christian" or even "theist". "Supernaturalist" is obviously a sneering pejorative that sounds like it should be read with the same voice with which someone would say "pedophile". If you are going to be insulting, at least take some responsibility for yourself instead of hiding behind "technically correct" dictionary definitions.
CoryTheRaven 4 weeks ago
@CoryTheRaven I regret that you view a perfectly inclusive, well-defined, highly descriptive, neutral English word with so much disdain.
I engage in discussions with many forms of supernaturalists. Many are neither Christian nor theist---they may be Muslims or Jeffersonian deists, for example. They may relate to the god of Einstein and Spinoza.
The term supernaturalist covers the entire front---just as does the term skeptic, which some would consider the equivalent of pedophile. So what?
ContrabassClar 4 weeks ago
@ContrabassClar Oh come off it. It's pretty pathetic if you can't even take responsibility for what you say. It's an insulting term. You know it, that's why you use it. I know it, because that's how you use it. To not take responsibility for it is not showing what a tricky rhetorician you are. It's cowardice.
CoryTheRaven 4 weeks ago
@CoryTheRaven It's an excellent English word. It's well-defined, inclusive, and it accurately describes adherents to thousands of different religions and other supernatural belief systems. In my view, it's in the purview of a Christian to call himself a "Christian" or something more specific like "Catholic." I'm happy to be called a skeptic, which is far more general than an atheist, a term often re-defined by supernaturalists.
Methinks you are slightly sensitive about the word.
ContrabassClar 4 weeks ago
@ContrabassClar It's an insulting word, used as a pejorative, and what you do or don't want to be called is utterly irrelevant. If you don't want to take responsibility for it, that's fine. You're a coward.
CoryTheRaven 4 weeks ago
@CoryTheRaven My goodness. You are so frequently reduced to name calling and foul language. Do you really think that it's effective in buttressing your arguments?
I'll stand with the dictionary and common English usage. "Supernaturalist" is not pejorative, it is not inaccurate, and it is not an insulting word. Good dictionaries indicate whether a term is commonly used in pejorative sense. Not the case here.
Your own language and accusations are unquestionably pejorative, however.
ContrabassClar 4 weeks ago
@ContrabassClar "cow·ard /ˈkaʊərd/
noun
1. a person who lacks courage in facing danger, difficulty, opposition, pain, etc.; a timid or easily intimidated person.
adjective
2. lacking courage; very fearful or timid.
3. proceeding from or expressive of fear or timidity: a coward cry."
I wasn't being insulting. "Coward" is a perfectly good, neutral, descriptive English word. I'm sorry if you feel offended by it, but I guess that if you're offended it just means I'm right.
CoryTheRaven 4 weeks ago
@ContrabassClar As you might have gleaned, I'm no longer interested in buttressing my arguments. I made my arguments, clarifying what we believe and the distinctions between terms and descriptions of ideas, and you simply denied it all. For example, when I told you explicitly the difference between magic and miracles, you simply dismissed it as wordplay. It demonstrates that you are not interested in a sincere discussion. You just want to be right, regardless of truth.
CoryTheRaven 4 weeks ago
@CoryTheRaven While I'm aware that YOU want to define a difference between magic and miracles, the REALITY is that they have fundamental points of similarity. Both have an "effect" in the natural Cosmos. Both claim that the "effect" is derived from actions / forces / powers OUTSIDE the natural Cosmos---in the "supernatural" "sphere." Dictionary definition of magic: "The power of apparently influencing the course of events by using mysterious or supernatural forces." (contd)
ContrabassClar 4 weeks ago
@ContrabassClar No, it's okay. I get that you don't get it and don't want to get it. I explained the difference to you and could go into more detail about if you wanted, but that would actual entail listening (like what I did when learning about what Pagans believe from Pagans). You're not interested in listening. You want to filter everything through the lens that makes you feel good about yourself. I understand that. You don't need to keep telling me that you don't get it.
CoryTheRaven 4 weeks ago
@CoryTheRaven So is this a new tactic of argumentation? "I'm right. You don't agree. Therefore, logic dictates that you don't get it"
Fascinating. You supernaturalists are so very, very clever!
ContrabassClar 4 weeks ago
@ContrabassClar New?!? Where have you been?! I've been telling you this whole time that you don't understand our beliefs.
CoryTheRaven 4 weeks ago
@CoryTheRaven Did you learn that tactic from your theology courses?
You supernaturalists are so very, very clever. It is such a powerful argument to assert that your opponent just doesn't "get it." That tactic places the burden on your opponent, rather than on the power and clarity of your own argument---or on the intelligence of its representation!
My goodness. How useful it must be to you!!!
ContrabassClar 4 weeks ago
@ContrabassClar It's really quite simple: you want to be right, and you won't let the truth interefere with that. You want to sit there and tell me what I believe, and when I tell you you're wrong, you accuse me of engaging in clever tactics. No, no tactics here. You are simply wrong. You do not know what you are talking about and do not want to know. The only "burden" I have placed on you is to accurately understand our beliefs. You choose not to. Okay then.
CoryTheRaven 4 weeks ago
@CoryTheRaven Unfortunately for you, and for the Jabberwocky, English words do have specific meanings. One cannot arbitrarily and with alacrity express one's "beliefs" ignoring the ordinary, accepted definitions of the words that you use.
You may think that "miracles" and "magic" are different but our common language defines them identically. You may think that "supernaturalist" is pejorative but it's descriptive.
That's not me failing to "get it." It's you using obfuscation and sophistry.
ContrabassClar 4 weeks ago
@ContrabassClar Since you have delicate grandmother ears, I'll just quote from G.K. Chesterton to explain why your habit of telling people what they believe is frustrating, annoying and wrong:
"There is one very vile habit that the pedants have, and that is explaining to a man why he does a thing when the man himself can explain quite well — and quite differently...
CoryTheRaven 4 weeks ago
@ContrabassClar "...If I go down on all-fours to find sixpence, it annoys me to be told by a passing biologist that I am really doing it because my remote ancestors were quadrupeds. I concede that he knows all about biology, or even a great deal about my ancestors; but I know he is wrong, because he does not know about the sixpence... Scientists will talk to a man on general guess-work about things that they know no more about than about his pocket-money or his pet cat..."
CoryTheRaven 4 weeks ago
@ContrabassClar "... Religion is one of them, and all the festivals and formalities that are rooted in religion. Thus a man will tell me that in keeping Christmas I am not keeping a Christmas feast, but a pagan feast. This is exactly as if he told me that I was not feeling furiously angry, but only a little sad. I know how I am feeling all right; and why I am feeling it..."
CoryTheRaven 4 weeks ago
@CoryTheRaven That's your argument?
ContrabassClar 4 weeks ago
@CoryTheRaven Hi, would you like to sign my petition to have ContrabassClar permanently removed from Fr. Barron's videos? He is a sock-puppet among many, lying about his credentials, while cheering on his own posts as if he were two different people. Sometimes he's a PhD Biologist, other times a PhD Chemist, etc. Here are his other names. Sciencelives2000, BrenttheSkeptic, Nodelusionnow, Biolgist1947, ContrabassClar, theclarinet1234, bassclarinet2000, Mike96727, Nemesis000000
grunderlyme 2 weeks ago
@grunderlyme Please put me down as a signatory on your petition. This guy is truly awful! He is a threat to Roman Catholicism. My goodness, his arguments are so very very powerful that he destroys all of the mythology of religion. And he does it by using only 2 of his brain cells. He's a truly amazing person. I admire him very much. But he's got to go. He puts all of the supernaturalists on YouTube to shame. It's embarrassing for them---and we just can't have that!!!
sciencelives2000 2 weeks ago
@sciencelives2000 Oops, you're rambling again. Time the for the pills and the straighjacket...
grunderlyme 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@grunderlyme As I knew he would, the totally unscholarly Barron blocked me from his videos, but you remain to engage in your mindless ad hominem attacks, based on an intelligence that my dog easily surpasses. You'll note that none of the sites by atheists or scientists EVER blocks anyone but the supernaturalist sites censor constantly. Why might that be? Fear on the part of supernaturalists that science and secularism will ultimately destroy the delusion and ruin the profit-making (contd)
sciencelives2000 2 weeks ago
@grunderlyme (2) power of the big business of supernaturalism? Of course! Blocking a correspondent on these sites is the modern-day equivalent of burning heretics, which you supernaturalists find so appealing. You burned each other and burned skeptics for centuries until the Enlightenment put a stop to it.
The delusion of supernaturalism is intellectually bankrupt. As people become better-educated, especially in science, and more economically secure, it will die (contd)
sciencelives2000 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
grunderlyme 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sciencelives2000 Again, I petitioned for your removal not because of your heresy, but because of your (1) fraud, and deliberately misleading of others, (2) obstruction of intelligent discourse, (3) discouraging participation from others because you consistently lower morale with your negativity, and (4) your deliberate obfuscation of what the Church Teaches which is a form of SLANDER and LIBEL.........
grunderlyme 2 weeks ago
@sciencelives2000 .......All 4 points SOLELY pertain to your maliciousness and deception, not to your believing something that "just happens" to be different from the Church. Give me a break. This is exactly what I'm talking about. YOU OBSTRUCT SENSIBLE DISCOURSE AT EVERY TURN.
grunderlyme 2 weeks ago
@grunderlyme (3) a long slow death of attrition. Already, the highly developed countries of Europe, Canada, and Japan are fundamentally secular. The most economically and educationally advanced areas of the U.S. (New England) are becoming very secular.
Supernaturalism is dying. Even Ratzinger says that down-sizing is likely, especially in Europe.
You're on the losing side, sweetie-pie.
Actually, I had hoped that Barron and his minions would make interesting arguments. Nope. I get blocked.
sciencelives2000 2 weeks ago
@ContrabassClar "...When a learned man tells me that on the 25th of December I am really astronomically worshipping the sun, I answer that I am not. I am practicing a particular personal religion, the pleasures of which (right or wrong) are not in the least astronomical."
Are you maybe starting to "get it" now? Telling people what they believe, especially when you do so in an obviously pejorative manner, is self-serving and fucking annoying.
CoryTheRaven 4 weeks ago
@CoryTheRaven ..."Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him."
tcalcut 3 weeks ago
@ContrabassClar And how old are you, 80? "My goodness, such a foul mouth on you young man! Tisk tisk!"
CoryTheRaven 4 weeks ago
@CoryTheRaven (2) Dictionary definition of miracle: "an effect or extraordinary event in the physical world that surpasses all known human or natural powers and is ascribed to a supernatural cause."
Now, even you, so desirous of defining terms to meet your needs, must see that the two terms are cut from the same cloth, fundamentally, at their very root, identical. If anything, a miracle is merely a subset of magic.
ContrabassClar 4 weeks ago
@ContrabassClar ...For something to be scientifically testable, it must be a recurring action of a natural law. But that is NOT EVEN THE CLAIM BEING MADE FOR MIRACLES. The claim being made for miracles is that they are one-off contraventions of natural laws. That necessarily means they are scientifically untestable. In other words: no shit Sherlock, that's why they're MIRACLES...
CoryTheRaven 4 weeks ago
@ContrabassClar ...Where you err is in your philosophical belief that if something cannot be verified scientifically then belief in it is totally unjustified. That is simply untrue, despite your arrogant objections that anything not scientific is unimportant and irrelevant. There could be any number of justifiable reasons for believing in something, ranging from philosophical argument to historical evidence to aesthetic appreciation to revealled truth...
CoryTheRaven 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ContrabassClar ...Underpinning your whole philosophy is the belief that empiricism has epistemological primacy. That is a positive claim that requires a defense. Ironically, though, it is a defense that cannot come FROM empiricism. You cannot empirically prove that only empirical evidence arbitrates truth.
CoryTheRaven 4 weeks ago
@CoryTheRaven (2) When supernaturalists claim these things, they are making SCIENTIFIC claims, and they are doing so WITHOUT verifiable evidence of any kind. They open themselves to criticism and ridicule because they have no verifiable evidence, and yet claim events which are never observed in the Cosmos. The evidence that they cite is of dubious quality and is certainly without verification.
When science has attempted to test supernaturalist claims, such as tests of the efficacy of (contd)
ContrabassClar 4 weeks ago
@CoryTheRaven (3) intercessional prayer by Christian supernaturalists, well-designed, double-blind experiments have demonstrated NO EFFECT whatever. Indeed, the "prayed for" surgical patients actually had more complications than those not "prayed for."
Scientists are open to verifiable evidence for the claims of supernaturalists--just as for the claims of astrology and other such things. When we study those claims, however, we find NO verifiable evidence whatever to support those claims.
ContrabassClar 4 weeks ago
@ContrabassClar Your argument from intercessory prayer only proves my point. The test relies on the assumption that intercessory prayer is a cause-and-effect activity like the recurring actions of a natural law. I suppose it never occured to you that if prayer could be proven to work in this way, that would actually DISPROVE that prayer was the intercession of a sovereign and personal entity that can choose to act or not act according to its own will.
CoryTheRaven 4 weeks ago
@CoryTheRaven Given the hope of the supernaturalists for a favorable effect, to fulfill the promises of their god, your response is sophistry.
ContrabassClar 4 weeks ago
@ContrabassClar And the accusation of sophistry is a typical atheist thought-terminating cliche used by those who can't be bothered to understand what is being said to them, or simply too ignorant to understand it.
Let me make it as monosyllabic as possible: if prayer is cause-and-effect, it's not done by God.
CoryTheRaven 4 weeks ago
@CoryTheRaven Your verifiable evidence for your assertion? Those poor deluded Christian supernaturalists who prayed their sweet little hearts out for those cardiac surgical patients did NOT share your parochial view of the efficacy of prayer, I absolutely assure you.
ContrabassClar 4 weeks ago
@ContrabassClar OMG, do you even know what YOU are saying anymore? Exactly what "verifiable evidence" do you want for the assertion that proof of prayer's efficacy as a regular cause-and-effect event would constitute disproof that response to prayer is actually the activity of a sovereign personal entity with the will to choose whether or not to act? That's not a question of evidence: that's a question of making sensible, logical extrapolations. A God can CHOOSE to act or not.
CoryTheRaven 4 weeks ago
@CoryTheRaven Can your god choose anything? Somehow I doubt that, given that there isn't a shred of verifiable evidence that it exists, and all the "effects" that you ascribe to it present no verifiable evidence either.
ContrabassClar 4 weeks ago
God bless and keep Father Barron and Dr. Hahn.
cathoman7 1 month ago 10
As those of you who follow Barron on his videos might well expect, I just got blocked by him merely for correcting his aberrant interpretation of the history of science. Barron has NO understanding of science. I suspect that he's never taken a university level course in any science whatever. He is so intent on apologetics that he cares not about historical accuracy. It's quite sad. What true scholar would ever block commentary on his scholarship? Answer: None.
ContrabassClar 1 month ago
@ContrabassClar If you got blocked then how did you manage to get this comment on the video? And based on word choice and writing style I take it you're sciencelives2000 as well? Or am I wrong on that?
TheFutureengineer20 1 month ago 4