Fr. Barron, I enjoy watching your videos, and I agree with what you said in this video. However, I have tried to challenge atheists, but it just doesn't work. The only thing they're interested in is throwing insults at anybody who believes in God, or defends religion. I've tried to point out the holes in their arguments, and they call me all kinds of obscene names. My question is, how can we engage these atheists when (it seems to me) all they do is throw insults at us?
Firstly YT comments forms are not great for a such a discussion because of limited character and cannot post links.
How does a non-believer supposed to respond without causing insult in the first place? I would think the very fact I don't believe you could be considered as insulting by default.
Can you give an example of a argument that you put a hole in?
No one wants to hear atheists in real life, so they all go to CNN, where fringe views and stupid news stories about dogs stuck in chimneys gets front-page billing.
@grunderlyme ...have sex whether or not we promote gay sodomy. Sex education teaches the consequences of sex and that abstinence is the best tactic against STDs and so on, but that if people are going to have sex regardless (and there always be people who will), that it is in their interests to take certain precautions. No, we haven't wiped out all the problems, but your suggested solution is both illogical and unrealistic. That is what you get from taking religious teachings that are...
@snailrace7 Are you even listening? Your contraceptive philosophy made society WORSE after the 60's. Teen pregnancy, single motherhood, abortion are as rampant are as high as they've ever been. The person who is unrealistic is YOU. Your goofy logic is like trying to discourage a drug addict from doing drugs by teaching him how to use a clean needle. You are not discouraging irresponsible sex. You are promoting it. Sex belongs in a committed marriage ONLY.
If you think being gay is a choice when did you choose to be straight? At what age did you come to your sexual crossroads where you decided that you would be attracted to women rather than men. It is a really simple question that you are ignoring.
@SpeaksToDragons Why are you still here? You already agreed with me there is no such thing as "gay marriage." And I quote: "You right their is no such thing as "gay marriage" only marriage, which should include people who are gay."
Yes. Everyone, including homoseuxals, have the right to form that time-honored bond between man and woman. So no one is denying homosexuals the right to marriage because there is no such thing as "Gay" Marriage.
@snailrace7 "ur solution is illogical, unrealistic"
--No it isn't. People had no problem following a program of abstinence before the 60's sexual revolution because we taught people how to practice the virtue of patience, prudent judgment, and the value of friendship FIRST. And it worked. Abortion, STD's, teen pregnancy, divorce, HIV were RARE back then. But after the 60's sexual revolution and the "pill," these ailments became COMMON & have since hardly changed. Who is illogical?
@SpeaksToDragons I don't need to provide sources for the obvious. Are you so dense as to require a handbook of instructions as to the proper function of your body parts? Let me remind you: the heart is for pumping blood, the stomach for digestion, the anus for pooping, and the genitalia for procreation. These organs and capacities are biologically ordered to the very functions for which they exist. Therefore, sodomy is a grave misuse of your body parts.
@grunderlyme Really, dude why do avoid this question? If being gay is a choice when did you decide to be straight? At what age did come to your sexual crossroads to be straight than gay?
@snailrace7 "have sex whether or not we promote gay sodomy. Sex education teaches the consequences of sex and that abstinence is the best tactic against STDs and so on, but that if people are going to have sex regardless (and there always be people who will), that it is in their interests to take certain precautions."
--Talk about illogical! That's like trying to discourage a drug addict from doing drugs by showing him how to "take precations" when shooting up with a clean needle.
@grunderlyme ...worsen the teen pregnancy/STD situation as a result. You say that sex education has failed. However, the fact that gay marriage has been banned this whole time hasn't made a difference either. Sex is a natural urge that has always been present; a policy of complete abstinence is not (and probably never was) realistic, especially since people can now have sex without the reproductive consequences. Heterosexuals are always going to...
@snailrace7 "However, I challenge your view that sodomy would also... worsen the teen pregnancy/STD situation as a result."
--I never said sodomy would "worsen" these things. I said promoting gay sex promotes the status quo of a disordered conception of human sexuality already running rampant in this culture which largely pursues the pleasures of sex without concern for children. FACT: 98% of abortions are used as a form of birth control.
@snailrace7 LATEST FACT I just read today: 54% of those who DO abort their children were using contraceptioin at the time right before they aborted. So your "sex education program" isn't working. It never has. You won't convince me this crap works until the number of abortions, divorces, teen-pregnancies, single motherhood, and STD's approach numbers comparable to society as it looked BEFORE the 60's sexual revolution "free love" philosophy. So far, you guys are WAY off base.
@grunderlyme It is because there is no universal requirement that marriage have not only love but also potential for children that we reject the idea that gay relationships are merely cases of "friends with benefits". As for the promotion of "disordered" sex, I accept that it is arguably true that allowing gay marriage might show a softening of attitudes towards homosexual activities in general, such as sodomy. However, I challenge your view that it would also...
@snailrace7 "Your argument rests on the assertion that marriage is not really marriage unless you have intention to produce children,"
--Nope. I said nothing about "intention." I said marriage is the loving and lifelong union of a man and a woman whose reproductive capacities are naturally ordered to the healthy procreation and rearing of children. Gay relationships lack the equipment to make a marriage. Therefore, gay relationships are not, and never will be, marriages.
@grunderlyme It is true that gays can acquire legal rights in other ways, but since there is no universal requirement that marriage have potential to produce biological children, the only remaining distinction between straight marriage and gay marriage would be the gender and sexual orientation of the participants. This would amount to mere bigotry: if straight couples can have their relationships legally recognised without biological children, then why can't homosexuals do the same?
@snailrace7 "there is no universal requirement that marriage have potential to produce biological children"
--Yes there is. This universal requirement is just what marriage IS. Marriage is the loving and lifelong union of a man and a woman whose reproductive capacities are naturally ordered to the healthy procreation and rearing of children. Gay relationships lack the equipment to make a marriage. Therefore, gay relationships are not, and never will be, marriages.
@snailrace7 "the only remaining distinction between straight marriage and gay marriage would be the gender and sexual orientation of the participants."
--Exactly. This sexual difference is essential. M/F relationships are sexually complimentary. But M/M or F/F relationships are not. The male/female genitalia are naturally ordered to the healthy procreation and rearing of children. So M/M and F/F relationships are not "marriages." They lack the necessary equipment.
--This is stupid. That's like saying refusing to give me an NAACP scholarship because I'm white is "bigoted." I'm not black, so why would I be requesting a scholarship only given out to black people in the first place? FACT: Homosexual relationships are not, and never will be, marriages. They lack the needed equipment.
@grunderlyme ...lived happily in loving relationships without wanting children; this fact alone should demonstrate that you can be fully in love without desiring offspring, and this is why it is argued that love alone is sufficient. We distinguish incestuous relationships and relationships with animals on the grounds that they are dangerous to health; there is plenty of evidence to support this. Marriage laws can simply state that you must marry a human adult outside your family.
@snailrace7 "Love alone is sufficient for marriage."
--No it isn't. If it were, then the incestuous love father and daughter share with one another is a marriage. But incest is not a marriage. Therefore, Love is not sufficient to make a marriage. Try again.
@snailrace7 "We distinguish incestuous relationships and relationships with animals on the grounds that they are dangerous to health"
--Of course. So feelings of love are not enough to make a marriage. Sodomy and the gay sex is also dangerous to one's health, ad I can prove this medically. Oops.
@snailrace7 "Marriage laws can simply state that you must marry a human adult outside your family."
--But why? To what purpose? Aren't you discriminating against incestuous couples? If your reason for rejecting such relationships is because they are unhealthy, well heck!, that's ONE reason why we reject same-sex relationships! See this link to a huge collection of studies proving homosexual relationships do WORSE than heteroseuxal ones:
@SpeaksToDragons But you've failed time and again to give me a single rationale for why society ought to change its understanding of the meaning of marriage and family. Nor have you cited a single reason why the government should have a compelling interesting in sanctioning those types of unions which are intrinsically sterile, homosexual and heterosexual alike. So far, there is simply no rationale for your calling sodomizing reliationships "marriages." I see none whatsoever.
@grunderlyme The government should not sanction marriage especially if the reason to prevent Americans from marrying are religious and not legal. No law exists stating that marriage should lead to child bearing. Seriously do you understand this? No ones marriage has been annulled by the state because they didn't have children. So this is irrelevant to do the discussion. Being homosexual is not a choice but of biological origin. Society is not changing it is being more inclusive than exclusive.
@SpeaksToDragons "Being homosexual is not a choice but of biological origin."
--So is alcoholism. So what? We don't sanction the behavior (drunkeness) which typically arises from this disordered condition. Homosexual orientation is a disordered condition just like spinal bifada and diabetes. This approach is a total non-starter. Sorry.
@SpeaksToDragons "Homosexual is not a discorded condition and has been discarded by the American Psychological Association since 1987."
--Actually, the Board of Trustees of the APA removed homosexuality from its list of disorders in 1973 after much political pressure to do so, rather than after careful consideration of research and study. Check your history. What the APA believes is nothing more than the opinion of the APA. It isn't science.
@SpeaksToDragons "You right their is no such thing as "gay marriage" only marriage, which should include people who are gay."
--I'm glad we finally agree. Everyone, including homoseuxals, have the right to form that time-honored bond between man and woman. There is no such thing as "Gay" Marriage. Game over.
@grunderlyme Because marriage and family are subjective they change in according to the present culture. Their isn't any marriage police that has a set doctrine what marriage is and those who don't follow can't be married. Nor has any marriage been annulled by the lack of children and their isn't any law stating that marriage should lead to child bearing, their isn't any law, so you have no point.
--No, they are not "subjective." They are objective realities based on the proper function of male and female reproductive capacities which are naturally ordered to the procreation and rearing of children. Last time I checked, the anus is for pooping, genitalia are for babies. There is no such thing as "gay marriage." Try again
@SpeaksToDragons I already refuted your subjectivism two days because it entails a logical contradiction. Two changing conceptions of marriage cannot both be "right." One of them must be wrong. Logical consistency demands it.
@SpeaksToDragons "Their isn't any marriage police that has a set doctrine what marriage is."
--Why would I need police to tell me what a marriage is? Police can be wrong about things, so aren't you begging the question, what IS marriage? You still have yet to offer a coherent definition that does not also include incest and polygamy
@grunderlyme Because no one is promoting incest or polygamy which is a red herring. The only reason you keep repeating yourself in these areas is you wish to distract from the main topic. Their isn't a "rush" for children to marry their parents. Being a gay is a biological norm. No one chooses to be gay the same as no one chooses to be heterosexual.
--Yes you are. You keep saying "love between adults is sufficient for marriage." If that is the case, then it LOGICALLY FOLLOWS that incestuos and polygamous relationships are marriages. Logic 101. It's not MY fault you cannot see the logical consequences of your own definition.
"which is a red herring"
--No it isn't. It is a logical consequence of your definition. Abandon your definition if you don't like it. Duh!
@grunderlyme You don't fear gay marriage you really fear millions of people will start marrying their family members and millions of women will marry only one man. The same reasoning was used against mixed marriage, and nothing came from it. Their isn't any interest of people marrying their family members and thus your fears, "your fears" are unfounded. Which is a red hearing. Lets argue about the millions of same sex couples that wish to marry than you paranoia of incest based marriage.
@SpeaksToDragons "Nor has any marriage been annulled by the lack of children"
--Duh. I've already been over this 3 times. Again, saying a marriage between a man and a woman is no longer a marriage just because they fail to produce a child is like saying a baseball team is no longer a baseball team just because it never wins a game. A baseball team is still a baseball team, even if it never wins. Likewise, a marriage is still a marriage even one of them cannot have a child.
@SpeaksToDragons ......Instead, as a minority you are trying to force the entire country to approve of your sodomizing relationships in our marriage laws. But marriage is a public institution which is intrinsically tied to children and family, not a private right. Society generally doesn't tolerate large-scale changes in its social institutions unless there is good reason for it having to do with the overall public good.....
@grunderlyme ...as democracy is conceived today, the minority rights must be protected no matter how singular or alienated that minority is from the majority society; otherwise the majority's rights lose their meaning." John Stewart Mill, (I think)
Marriage is not a public institution but a cultural institution which at times historical has prohibited people from marring examples like denying people of mixed race, religion, national origins, and now sexual orientation.
@SpeaksToDragons "Marriage is not a public institution but a cultural institution"
--A cultural institution is, by definition, a public institution existing within a culture. Duh.
And if what the majority within a culture thinks is right and wrong, which you are obviously implying, then gay "marriage" is, in fact, wrong since the majority in this culture thinks it is. So how does bringing up cultural relativism help you? It doesn't. It backfires on you.
@grunderlyme In our society minorities have rights as well because one day the majority becomes the minority.
The police a are a public institution, our legal system is a public institution, marriage is a cultural institution. No on forces you to get married but their more reasons to do so.
Culture does change you may not like it or agree with it but your not in charge are you?
@SpeaksToDragons "In our society minorities have rights as well"
--And everyone, including homosexuals, have the right to marriage, which is time-honored union of a man and a woman. So what's the problem?
"one day the majority becomes the minority."
--Well, until that day comes, your cultural relativism does not yet support gay "marriage," because the majority of voters keep knocking it down at the voting booth. Oops.
@grunderlyme Slavery was also time-honored tradition of British America and up to the 1860's it was part of culture for Christians to own another human being and prevent them from having rights. It was also tradition to deny the rights of colored people. Women didn't vote and did not have the same rights of men. People are not voting because of a religious reasons not legal ones. This has been made into a religious debate and not of a legal one.
@SpeaksToDragons "Culture does change you may not like it or agree with it but your not in charge are you?"
--I have just as much voting power as you do. Again, your cultural relativism does not yet support gay "marriage," because the majority of voters keep knocking it down at the voting booth. Oops.
@grunderlyme Again if mixed race marriage was voted in popular vote in the 60' it would have been voted down. What if the right to vote was left to a popular vote? The right for a woman to work? Slavery, separate but equal doctrines. The right of marrying a person of an other race is right not based on popular opinion because opinion changes. More people are open to gay marriage than before.
@SpeaksToDragons "the minority rights must be protected no matter how singular or alienated that minority is from the majority society;"
--I agree. And everyone, including homosexuals, have the right to marriage which in the very least involves a man and a woman. No one is discriminating against homosexuals. So what's the problem?
Oh, that's right, you mean something different by the word "marriage." I'm sorry, but I don't know what that is. What are you talking about?
@SpeaksToDragons You're also begging the the question whether there is such a thing as "gay marriage." It is not even clear whether such a thing exists, much less whether there is a corresponding "right" to it. You are not merely trying to legalize sodomy, because that's already legal. Duh....
@SpeaksToDragons "Choosing someone to marry is not in the same category of choosing someone to murder"
--But WHY is it "not in the same category"? You're just begging the question that there is nothing wrong with gay sex, when I have given you many reasons for thinking there IS. No one has the right to "marry" whomever they want. The Marriage laws throughout the land already ban polygamy and incest. So I don't even recognize what is this alleged "right" you are talking about in the 1st place
@SpeaksToDragons Finally, everyone, homosexual and heterosexual alike, have a right to marriage. The problem is that you mean something different by the word "marriage." But no one knows what that it is because your incoherent "adults" condition happens to include incestuous and polygamous relationships as well. Therefore, every time you accuse tradtionalists of denying gays the right to marriage, your statement is FALSE, and your argument INVALID, because you don't even know what marriage IS.
@grunderlyme Your argument is a complete red herring. We are talking about gay marriage, not one marrying a family member or one marrying multiple wives. We are discussing two adults of the same sex can marry like their heterosexual counterparts and share all the legal benefits of marriage.
It is legal to be gay then its legal for gays to marry, you have no argument.
@SpeaksToDragons "two adults of the same sex can marry like their heterosexual counterparts"
--But they can't. This isn't possible. Only a man and a woman can marry.
"and share all the legal benefits of marriage."
--Like what? Joint health-insurance coverage? But they already have a right to this thing. Call your insurance company. Hospital visitation rights? Call the hospital. A right to make your lover a beneificiary of your will? Call an attorney.
@SpeaksToDragons "It has nothing to do with your main topic of sex education is supposed to make it less prevalent in society."
--"Supposed to"? But sex education has failed miserably. Again, how many times do I have to say this? Before the 60's sexual revolution philosophy these large-scale social harms did not even come close to resembling the rates we find today . So the problem is your disordered PHILOSOPHY about the meaning of human sexuality, not the lack of education.
@snailrace7 "There might be very good reasons why two people don't want to have children."
--Then don't have sex! Duh! Did you not learn in biology class that children are a regular and perfectly natural result of having sex? Procreation is just as natural as digestion; the only difference is that it involves two people to make a baby. Having children are naturally what male and female genitalia are FOR. That is their function; we even name them accordingly. "Gen-"--to generate.
@snailrace7 ....trying to discourage an activity (sex) among irresponsible people by teaching them how to engage in it (putting on a condom), is just as illogical as trying to discourage a drug addict from shooting up by teaching him how to use a clean needle. It is your philosophy about the meaning of sexuality that is disordered, not the lack of education. Your method has already been tried and found wanting over and ever again.
"The demoniac talking shelter of insatiable lust, pride & false prestige, & being thus illusioned, are always sworn to unclean work, attracted by the impermanant(material nature)."
"They believe that to gratify the senses unto the end of life is the prime neccesity of human civilization. Thus there is no end to their anxiety. Being bound by hundreds & thousands of desires, by lust & anger, they secure money by illegal means for sense gratification." -Sri Krishna:Bhagavad gita [ch.16. tx11-12]
little herods is a compliment for this priest, i say he is a big herod hows that. Who ordered jesus killed btw? oh priests and that is not a metaphor. Big herod indeed.
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
This is coming from an atheist. Those who argue are extremists, most of us are born without a religion or converted. I do not argue that there is no God, I don't give a damn if people believe in a floating head. This guy is so biased I am tired of it. My teacher shows these videos (I go to a catholic school) and I disagree with 70% of his opinions. K bye thats my rant.
@androidddddevvvv Well, rants might make you feel better, but they don't really advance the conversation. Why don't you tell me precisely where you disagree with me?
@androidddddevvvv By the nature of disagreeing with his videos, you formulate an argument, albeit it silently. Argument (that is intellectually expressed) is very good, and should be encouraged, and I would hope that you provide counters to Father Barron, not because I necessarily want you to disagree with him (I agree with him on many things, disagree on others), but because you truly hope to find objective truth in this life. This from a Protestant student in a secular university.
Obviously, I cannot speak for any other person, atheist or not, but I can assure you that I personally do not believe that your God can even possibly exist. I am not interested in God at all. What I am interested in are PEOPLE that believe in God or other gods. That's it.
In other words, I believe you and I know you won't ever change your mind. Why can't you accept the opposite? Do you not believe that I have good reasons (even if they are not good for you) to support my position?
Lucky for you that HE believes in YOU; otherwise you would not exist. Question: Where did those people you care so much COME from? Any, more importantly, WHY do you care about them?
Father Barron, once in a while I come to watch your videos because you are a very good speaker and I find your views interesting, even though I am not religious at all.
On this June 2011 video however (sorry to be late for the party) you make a few comments at the end that really annoyed me. The problem is that you don't seem to believe people who don't believe in God. You say that they are still listening and interested in God.
Of course, because if you really, truly, believed (or disbelieved, I guess) what you espouse you would NOT protest so much... if you believed what you say you think it wold be like arguing with me that the Easter Bunny is not real. Why waste your time with someone who actually believed in a ginat rabbit distributing chocolate eggs?
father i dont get it i'm questioned about my faith and i answer the questions to the best of my ability and if i don't know the answer i look it up on the internet and then i tell them.but Father this makes me think why don't atheists try to seek the answer instead of mock us catholics and criticise us?
@whymortification Christians aren't in anyone's business, they just do not express their religion privately. Actually I recall atheists as the one's calling for the removal of such expression, which is far more being in someone's business than someone who chooses not to hide their faith.
I just discovered your videos and love them. Very rational, clear and true to Catholicism. I wish more priests were as good at explaining Catholicism.
I understand now! Hitchens spent a large portion of his adult life criticizing the claims of religion not because he had good reason to, but because he was a closet theologian!
One of the things that strikes me about the atheism vs. religion debate is how there are people on both sides who refuse to understand that there are different kinds of atheists and different kinds of religious people. The extent to which some have a monolithic conception of "THE ATHEIST" or "THE RELIGIOUS PERSON" is truly breathtaking. I think Fr. Barron says things here that help dispel the rather cartoonish image some of us Christians have about many atheists.
Religious people are usually extremely dishonest when attempting to 'debate' with atheists. A blind willingness to ignore facts in the face whilst offering a reflection of their brain washed mentality. And as for the same arguments from atheists continuing to crop up...that's not a bad thing. Merely proves that not only can these arguments not be explained or refuted, it represents and eternal point. Never fix anything if it isn't broken.
A materialist has no reason to postulate an invisible world - It is not clear, from that POV, that a non-existent deity is any different from a transcendent one. IMO, apologetics is too inclined to rationalism; People cannot be argued into faith - & it is only faith that is large enough to unite faith with reason. Reason simply not enough. Faith is irreducibly personal - one has to exercise it oneself; faith in Christ is not a spectator sport. Apologetics is man-centred anyway.
There are myriad reasons I'm interested in religion: my upbringing, its dominance in our culture and history, my need to coexist with religious people every day, an interest in ideas with high social stakes, etc.
You are so quick to accuse atheists of condescension, and yet you condescend to us all the time. You hate it when I posit unconscious motives in you, and yet you assert them in me. Your position is shamelessly elitist, no doubt based in your faith's "objective" moral superiority.
@vkorchnoifan Some good authors to look up would be Joseph Ratzinger, Keith Ward, John Lennox, Ravi Zacharias, N.T. Wright, Alister Mcgrath, William Lane Craig, Alvin Plantinga, Dallas Willard, and Eleonore Stump. These ppl all have a wide variety of publications and books that put Christianity in logical perspective. There's also classical authors like C.S. Lewis, G.K. Chesterton, and John Paul II. Or you can listen to their lectures here on youtube like this one.
@vkorchnoifan The last superstition by Edward Feser is a great one. Any book written by a Catholic Thomistic philosopher would be recommended. And of course the first part of the Summa Theologica by St Thomas Aquinas is the greatest source.
The really big ones with metal clasps & metal caps on each edge might be good for giving a concussion, if they weren't too heavy to lift. The word "Bible-bashing" exists for a reason. For bashing an atheist, get an 1860s family Bible, with presentation page, references, concordances, coloured engravings, index, chronology of Bible History & Church History from 4004 BC to 2016 AD, & zillions of maginal notes explaining why the world will end in 1866 or 2016 :)
ALOT of younger atheists are very uneducated in their attacks on religion. Many love to state that ALL Christians are idiots when they have never heard of CS Lewis, GK Chesterton, Saint Thomas Aquinas, Desmond Tutu and so many others. If you're going to attack something, make sure you throughly research it.
@saderin "Many love to state that ALL Christians are idiots"
Most of the chirstains on youtube usually are... That might not be a case in real life -but prior to youtube I never knew there were such thing as "young earth creationist" and nutjob like the "westboro baptist church"
In real life chirstains dont acutally argue about evoultion an how the world is only 6000 years etc.. that only happens on youtube
"Many love to state that ALL Christians are idiots when they have never heard of CS Lewis, GK Chesterton, Saint Thomas Aquinas, Desmond Tutu and so many others."
Youtube might have something to do with that.. because it expose you to more "nutjob" christains -- ( like young earth creationsit)
@badpanda84 oh dude, seriously? you can't be that naive! Communists, The League of Militant Atheists, claiming all religious people must die. Heck I think they had to shut down the Richard Dawkins blog at least for a time because atheists were calling for homocidal actions. Look dude, every group has their crazies, thats a fact, even if atheism is true, that doesn't mean that all atheists are sane, and it doesn't mean that everyone else is crazy.
@badpanda84 Oh and you do hear about atheists who believe that aliens visited them in their sleep, or atheists who believe in government conspiracy, or atheists who believe that every planet in the solar system has been like Earth or will be like Earth at some point. I could go on but you get my point.
@badpanda84 Yea there are. There's a kid in my math class that's a self-professed atheist, and he simultaneously rejects evolution. You think that people's atheism is ONLY dependent upon the validity of evolution. And although this is true for, I think, the vast majority of atheists, deriving your atheism because of your intellectual assent to evolution is roundly and wholly fallacious. Thus, we have "New Atheism." And I think this is atheism's Achilles' Heel -and I have fun exposing it. ;)
In my opinion, there have only ever been two original critics of Christianity. The better of the two was Nietzsche, who could have cared less about Christians and went right for the jugular of Christ. He knew what Christ taught quite well, understood what it meant, and quite courageously launched an attack on everything it meant. He didn't just attack "the God hypothesis": he attacked compassion, universal fraternity, equality, charity, and the virtues of what he called "slave morality"...
@CoryTheRaven ...The other, more popular one, was the Roman Celsus. He didn't know anything of Christian doctrine and contented himself with attacking Christians for being icky, tacky people: the young, the old, the slaves and the women, all the lesser classes of people who were beneath that pinacle of human history, the White European Male. Because of the ease of its fundamental egotism, it has been inherited by New Atheism and constitutes its whole argument.
Of course, it is true that many atheists like to "listen in" on Christian sites, myself also, though there are some who listen in on "Muslim" sites. That said, I have known Christians both Catholic and protestant that are drawn to atheist sites. I am not sure that all this can be put down to some unconscious desire for God by atheists. I am disappointed by the amount of vitriol that some atheists indulge in on YouTube. I am also pleased at the Father's call for Christians to educate themselves.
Actually, many atheists and agnostics whom I know, point to what can be considered as the very bad witness given by those of us who are Christian. While some people flock to fundamentalist churches because of excessively lax Catholicism, others flee to atheism and agnosticism because of what they see as excessively ridged traditionalism or even "Catholicized" protestant fundamentalism. As the pope has recently said the worst dangers are within not outside the Catholic community.
@chopzi I dont regard religious folks as enemies in any way. And believe me I dont have a secret need to believe. I rid myself of that years ago and am free! It's just that I post on this sort of debate because people feel they can post nonsense unchallenged. The world has changed. Religions have much to be ashamed of and people are now mature enough and less intimidated to make comments. what you believe privately is your business but dont be surprised if people respond when you go public!
@chopzi There's more to it than just knowing your enemy. Why do atheists even bother to argue and debate as much as they do and as passionately as they do? They can simply just live their life happily and ignore Christianity and religion, but they don't ;)
Because religious people subvert education and spread superstition.If you subvert the critical faculties of the people, we return to Dark Ages. This is what I'm most afraid and as an atheist and scientist I'll passionately debate every Christian in public and debunk their fallacies! Let them come as more as they like...
@lachezar43 But what makes you want to speak so passionately about something that you believe does not exist in the first place? I don't waste a second of my time debating with people about UFOs and ghosts because I don't believe in them, so it hardly triggers any kind of passionate response, for or against it. I think deep down, you and other atheists want Christianity to exist because you enjoy the passion you receive from being on that topic, whether you realize it or not.
I'm afraid you did not understand my previous answer. If someone who believe in UFOs and ghosts comes in the classroom and subvert education you'll be pretty disturb as well, aren't you? Similarly, Christians teach tiny children to have ''faith'' - believe without evidence...It's shame we live in such enlightened times, where science is everywhere and yet, we are still that narrow minded.
@lachezar43 I can't find the exact quote from Fr. Barron, but no one is dismissing science or having to choose one over the other. I believe he said something to the affect of, religion focuses on the spiritual, moral, and metaphysical, whereas science has its own place.
Well, Roman Catholic Church indeed try not to argue with science. That is wise decision on their part, I admit that. However, this Fr. Barron is mistaken to believe religion doesn't subvert science. If religion didn't interfere with scientific understanding I wouldn't be opposed to their teachings, at all. The same way you so wisely do not have discussion about UFOs. If only they stop teaching ''faith''. Why they have never said something like:
@SplatteredRemnants Our Universe is more subtle, more grandeur than we have believed. But no, we want our God, to be little and petty God... Why don't they popularize scientific way of life - believing in evidence, studying Nature. We need knowledge, kindliness and courage not superstitions, ignorance and cruelty.
And I forgot to respond to other question of yours... I dream for times when there is no more religion. Considering the current trends, upon extrapolation, I might say that after 50 years atheists will be majority and after 150 years, no more religion... At least I hope (I assume you do not share that hope).
@lachezar43 Of course I do not hope for that, but you and I will both no longer be living here on this planet 150 years from now, and since you don't believe in an afterlife, anything that happens 150 years from now should not matter to you whatsoever once you've expired from this world as it will not affect you. Why do you care that far into the future?
You believe since I'm an atheist I do not care about the future. I must say I have never been that insulted in my life. Why bother living then, since I'll die? Why study Nature, why work at all if all these efforts are futile? Don't you understand? Man can only be happy by helping other men. If you calculate the probability to ever live in this world you'll find out that it is such a small number. How small? Well imagine 1/100. This is small...But I'm talking about much
@SplatteredRemnants number. The zeros in the denumerator are so many that if you want to write them you'll need so paper to wrap the entire galaxy. Therefore to be alive it is equivalent to have won lottery billions and billions of times. I want that so rare event to have some meaning. I'm the one who gives meaning to my life, not the ignorant priests of some ancient creed
@lachezar43 LOL! So the chance of living or being born as you claim, scientifically, is so slim that it's all an.... *drum roll* accient that we're alive? I'm sorry, but that is such an ignorantly funny statement. How something so rare and impossible is possible should tell you something about the existence of God. And you came up with that scientifically LOL.
@SplatteredRemnants Well, I have told you that the probability for particular individual to be born is so small. Instead of you ther could have been billions others - better musician than Mozart, better scientists than Einstein...It's so incredible. But surely, there must be someone and it so happens that it's you. I'll try to explain your logical fallacy. You can calculate the probability of your existence but it is pointless after you already exist. If it wasn't you, somebody else could have
@lachezar43 Yes, it could have been many others but it's me, and you, and the Einsteins and Mozarts instead of other better scientists and composers. Is this really a "coincidence?"
@SplatteredRemnants You can calculate it by implying simple model of increasing the number of people. Start several million years ago. Calculate the combinations of humans (in each sexual act there are several hundred thousands spermatozoids) and take the reciprocal number. It is elementary indeed. The difference between you and me is that I'm trying to understand how we got here... You just give up and most importantly sometimes religious people even deter science...How horrible is that...
@lachezar43 "You just give up" I don't understand what this means. On one hand you and people with your mentality state that religious people claim to have all the answers and then on the other hand you state that religious people claim to "just give up" and not know and shout Faith! Which one is it, sir?
As a matter of fact you do both - you claim to have ultimate understanding and you do not proceed further, i.e. give up. But your so called explanation (God) doesn't stand elementary scrutiny. I do not wish to offend you or anything, but it is time to terminate the conversation. Neither can convince the other.
@lachezar43 "As a matter of fact you do both - you claim to have ultimate understanding and you do not proceed further, i.e. give up"
So is the same for science. Science claims to have "logical answers" for everything, yet when it's backed into a corner it claims that it doesn't have all the answers and doesn't have a problem with admitting that. Or perhaps it's just the people behind the science who make these contradictory claims.
@SplatteredRemnants It is futile effort of my part to supply you with knowledge. If you are fortunate enough, you'll start educating yourself in science - I suggest you start with the Carl Sagan's book - Demon Haunted World. I suppose it will give you great pleasure.
@lachezar43 But no, I'm sorry, your life has no meaning without God. You can't take your experiements or your degrees or your accomplishments or your money anywhere else once you've deteriorated on this planet. Life is limited and short, so what is the point? The universe is so vast you won't even begin to understand it in this lifetime, one could argue that you've wasted your time.
Once you have deteriorated what is left of you is your work and the influence over the other people. You live the through others. Others after you can step on your shoulders and continue further. That is the point. Surely you'll die. But that doesn't matter. Do you remember when you weren't born? Of course not. Sometimes while you sleep, you don't remember anything at all. This is death. You will not suffer, neither worry... You just don't know since you do not exist...
I'm sorry that you don't like it. Better live in a real world rather than imaginary. Only then you face it frankly and reveal its true beauty and its true ugliness. Only then progress will continue
@lachezar43 LOL You're confusing yourself here. The world in which Christians live in is not imaginary, it's real, and sometimes it's grim and ugly. The road we follow as Christians is a hard one, which is why many people wish to ignore that road and justify their reasons ignorantly for not taking it.
@lachezar43 If anyone is in an imaginary world it is people like yourself. Keep telling yourself there's no God, no afterlife, no consequences, so you don't have to let that thing called a "conscience" bother you in this life. Unless of course you don't believe there's a conscience either, because there's no verifiable evidence of it =P
Hah...I'm sorry to inform you but you are not aware of modern computational theory of mind and artificial intelligence (Read for example the bestseller - ''How the mind work. There you'll find out why most certainly there is no such thing as soul!) If you read more carefully this book - you'll understand that in fact in the past 5 years we have finally understood what conscience is. (Another fail of religion...it turn out to be wrong again :D).
@lachezar43 " you'll understand that in fact in the past 5 years we have finally understood what conscience is"
And in 20 years you'll be coming back to this topic of conscience and most likely be re-evaluating your opinion on it when some new scientific discovery is made that trumps this current way of thinking.
@SplatteredRemnants About the details - yes.About this fact - most likely not.You do not understand how science works.In the beginning it is always difficult.But once started it will not stop.After several years you'll have the possibility to grow new legs, if you like. Isn't that wonderful?And the prospect of understanding the mind is even more interesting.We must change until we got the answer.But, be pretty sure, if you bet to science you'll win - look around you - electricity, technology...
@lachezar43 Electricity, technology- material things. As a non-materialistic person, those things are nice, but they are not everything in life. Growing new legs is great for people who need them, but if something positive should result from an act of evil, that is a big "No No" in my opinion.
Comment removed
grunderlyme 11 hours ago
Comment removed
grunderlyme 13 hours ago
Fr. Barron, I enjoy watching your videos, and I agree with what you said in this video. However, I have tried to challenge atheists, but it just doesn't work. The only thing they're interested in is throwing insults at anybody who believes in God, or defends religion. I've tried to point out the holes in their arguments, and they call me all kinds of obscene names. My question is, how can we engage these atheists when (it seems to me) all they do is throw insults at us?
joetufano719 22 hours ago
@joetufano719
Firstly YT comments forms are not great for a such a discussion because of limited character and cannot post links.
How does a non-believer supposed to respond without causing insult in the first place? I would think the very fact I don't believe you could be considered as insulting by default.
Can you give an example of a argument that you put a hole in?
SpeaksToDragons 20 hours ago
No one wants to hear atheists in real life, so they all go to CNN, where fringe views and stupid news stories about dogs stuck in chimneys gets front-page billing.
Nonamearisto 23 hours ago
@grunderlyme ...out of step with modern society and trying to bend the rules of logic to fit them.
I'm done. If you still don't understand what I'm talking about then this is a waste of our time.
snailrace7 1 day ago
@grunderlyme ...have sex whether or not we promote gay sodomy. Sex education teaches the consequences of sex and that abstinence is the best tactic against STDs and so on, but that if people are going to have sex regardless (and there always be people who will), that it is in their interests to take certain precautions. No, we haven't wiped out all the problems, but your suggested solution is both illogical and unrealistic. That is what you get from taking religious teachings that are...
snailrace7 1 day ago
@snailrace7 Are you even listening? Your contraceptive philosophy made society WORSE after the 60's. Teen pregnancy, single motherhood, abortion are as rampant are as high as they've ever been. The person who is unrealistic is YOU. Your goofy logic is like trying to discourage a drug addict from doing drugs by teaching him how to use a clean needle. You are not discouraging irresponsible sex. You are promoting it. Sex belongs in a committed marriage ONLY.
grunderlyme 13 hours ago
Comment removed
grunderlyme 10 hours ago
@grunderlyme
If you think being gay is a choice when did you choose to be straight? At what age did you come to your sexual crossroads where you decided that you would be attracted to women rather than men. It is a really simple question that you are ignoring.
SpeaksToDragons 6 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SpeaksToDragons "If you think being gay is a choice when did you choose to be straight?"
--I never said being gay was a choice. Try again.
"It is a really simple question that you are ignoring."
--You've asked me this same irrelevant question about 5 times, and I've answered you 5 times. Give it up, already. yawn....
grunderlyme 6 hours ago
Comment removed
grunderlyme 6 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SpeaksToDragons Why are you still here? You already agreed with me there is no such thing as "gay marriage." And I quote: "You right their is no such thing as "gay marriage" only marriage, which should include people who are gay."
Yes. Everyone, including homoseuxals, have the right to form that time-honored bond between man and woman. So no one is denying homosexuals the right to marriage because there is no such thing as "Gay" Marriage.
Game over.
grunderlyme 6 hours ago
@snailrace7 "ur solution is illogical, unrealistic"
--No it isn't. People had no problem following a program of abstinence before the 60's sexual revolution because we taught people how to practice the virtue of patience, prudent judgment, and the value of friendship FIRST. And it worked. Abortion, STD's, teen pregnancy, divorce, HIV were RARE back then. But after the 60's sexual revolution and the "pill," these ailments became COMMON & have since hardly changed. Who is illogical?
grunderlyme 10 hours ago
@grunderlyme Everything you said wasn't rare if you are going to repeat yourself endlessly provide your source.
SpeaksToDragons 6 hours ago
@SpeaksToDragons I don't need to provide sources for the obvious. Are you so dense as to require a handbook of instructions as to the proper function of your body parts? Let me remind you: the heart is for pumping blood, the stomach for digestion, the anus for pooping, and the genitalia for procreation. These organs and capacities are biologically ordered to the very functions for which they exist. Therefore, sodomy is a grave misuse of your body parts.
grunderlyme 6 hours ago
@grunderlyme You seem to be more focused on the sexual side of gay sex, who has the problem?
SpeaksToDragons 5 hours ago
@grunderlyme Really, dude why do avoid this question? If being gay is a choice when did you decide to be straight? At what age did come to your sexual crossroads to be straight than gay?
SpeaksToDragons 4 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@snailrace7 "have sex whether or not we promote gay sodomy. Sex education teaches the consequences of sex and that abstinence is the best tactic against STDs and so on, but that if people are going to have sex regardless (and there always be people who will), that it is in their interests to take certain precautions."
--Talk about illogical! That's like trying to discourage a drug addict from doing drugs by showing him how to "take precations" when shooting up with a clean needle.
grunderlyme 8 hours ago
@grunderlyme ...worsen the teen pregnancy/STD situation as a result. You say that sex education has failed. However, the fact that gay marriage has been banned this whole time hasn't made a difference either. Sex is a natural urge that has always been present; a policy of complete abstinence is not (and probably never was) realistic, especially since people can now have sex without the reproductive consequences. Heterosexuals are always going to...
snailrace7 1 day ago
@snailrace7 "However, I challenge your view that sodomy would also... worsen the teen pregnancy/STD situation as a result."
--I never said sodomy would "worsen" these things. I said promoting gay sex promotes the status quo of a disordered conception of human sexuality already running rampant in this culture which largely pursues the pleasures of sex without concern for children. FACT: 98% of abortions are used as a form of birth control.
grunderlyme 8 hours ago
@snailrace7 LATEST FACT I just read today: 54% of those who DO abort their children were using contraceptioin at the time right before they aborted. So your "sex education program" isn't working. It never has. You won't convince me this crap works until the number of abortions, divorces, teen-pregnancies, single motherhood, and STD's approach numbers comparable to society as it looked BEFORE the 60's sexual revolution "free love" philosophy. So far, you guys are WAY off base.
grunderlyme 8 hours ago
@grunderlyme It is because there is no universal requirement that marriage have not only love but also potential for children that we reject the idea that gay relationships are merely cases of "friends with benefits". As for the promotion of "disordered" sex, I accept that it is arguably true that allowing gay marriage might show a softening of attitudes towards homosexual activities in general, such as sodomy. However, I challenge your view that it would also...
snailrace7 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@snailrace7 "Your argument rests on the assertion that marriage is not really marriage unless you have intention to produce children,"
--Nope. I said nothing about "intention." I said marriage is the loving and lifelong union of a man and a woman whose reproductive capacities are naturally ordered to the healthy procreation and rearing of children. Gay relationships lack the equipment to make a marriage. Therefore, gay relationships are not, and never will be, marriages.
grunderlyme 11 hours ago
@grunderlyme It is true that gays can acquire legal rights in other ways, but since there is no universal requirement that marriage have potential to produce biological children, the only remaining distinction between straight marriage and gay marriage would be the gender and sexual orientation of the participants. This would amount to mere bigotry: if straight couples can have their relationships legally recognised without biological children, then why can't homosexuals do the same?
snailrace7 1 day ago
@snailrace7 "there is no universal requirement that marriage have potential to produce biological children"
--Yes there is. This universal requirement is just what marriage IS. Marriage is the loving and lifelong union of a man and a woman whose reproductive capacities are naturally ordered to the healthy procreation and rearing of children. Gay relationships lack the equipment to make a marriage. Therefore, gay relationships are not, and never will be, marriages.
grunderlyme 11 hours ago
@snailrace7 "the only remaining distinction between straight marriage and gay marriage would be the gender and sexual orientation of the participants."
--Exactly. This sexual difference is essential. M/F relationships are sexually complimentary. But M/M or F/F relationships are not. The male/female genitalia are naturally ordered to the healthy procreation and rearing of children. So M/M and F/F relationships are not "marriages." They lack the necessary equipment.
grunderlyme 11 hours ago
@snailrace7 "This would amount to mere bigotry:"
--This is stupid. That's like saying refusing to give me an NAACP scholarship because I'm white is "bigoted." I'm not black, so why would I be requesting a scholarship only given out to black people in the first place? FACT: Homosexual relationships are not, and never will be, marriages. They lack the needed equipment.
grunderlyme 11 hours ago
@grunderlyme ...lived happily in loving relationships without wanting children; this fact alone should demonstrate that you can be fully in love without desiring offspring, and this is why it is argued that love alone is sufficient. We distinguish incestuous relationships and relationships with animals on the grounds that they are dangerous to health; there is plenty of evidence to support this. Marriage laws can simply state that you must marry a human adult outside your family.
snailrace7 1 day ago
@snailrace7 "Love alone is sufficient for marriage."
--No it isn't. If it were, then the incestuous love father and daughter share with one another is a marriage. But incest is not a marriage. Therefore, Love is not sufficient to make a marriage. Try again.
grunderlyme 11 hours ago
@snailrace7 "We distinguish incestuous relationships and relationships with animals on the grounds that they are dangerous to health"
--Of course. So feelings of love are not enough to make a marriage. Sodomy and the gay sex is also dangerous to one's health, ad I can prove this medically. Oops.
grunderlyme 11 hours ago
@snailrace7 "Marriage laws can simply state that you must marry a human adult outside your family."
--But why? To what purpose? Aren't you discriminating against incestuous couples? If your reason for rejecting such relationships is because they are unhealthy, well heck!, that's ONE reason why we reject same-sex relationships! See this link to a huge collection of studies proving homosexual relationships do WORSE than heteroseuxal ones:
frc [dot] org/get [dot] cfm?i=IS04C02
grunderlyme 10 hours ago
@SpeaksToDragons But you've failed time and again to give me a single rationale for why society ought to change its understanding of the meaning of marriage and family. Nor have you cited a single reason why the government should have a compelling interesting in sanctioning those types of unions which are intrinsically sterile, homosexual and heterosexual alike. So far, there is simply no rationale for your calling sodomizing reliationships "marriages." I see none whatsoever.
grunderlyme 2 days ago
@grunderlyme The government should not sanction marriage especially if the reason to prevent Americans from marrying are religious and not legal. No law exists stating that marriage should lead to child bearing. Seriously do you understand this? No ones marriage has been annulled by the state because they didn't have children. So this is irrelevant to do the discussion. Being homosexual is not a choice but of biological origin. Society is not changing it is being more inclusive than exclusive.
SpeaksToDragons 2 days ago
Comment removed
grunderlyme 11 hours ago
@SpeaksToDragons "Being homosexual is not a choice but of biological origin."
--So is alcoholism. So what? We don't sanction the behavior (drunkeness) which typically arises from this disordered condition. Homosexual orientation is a disordered condition just like spinal bifada and diabetes. This approach is a total non-starter. Sorry.
grunderlyme 8 hours ago
@grunderlyme, huh? Homosexual is not a discorded condition and has been discarded by the American Psychological Association since 1987.
SpeaksToDragons 7 hours ago
Comment removed
grunderlyme 6 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SpeaksToDragons "Homosexual is not a discorded condition and has been discarded by the American Psychological Association since 1987."
--Actually, the Board of Trustees of the APA removed homosexuality from its list of disorders in 1973 after much political pressure to do so, rather than after careful consideration of research and study. Check your history. What the APA believes is nothing more than the opinion of the APA. It isn't science.
grunderlyme 6 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SpeaksToDragons "You right their is no such thing as "gay marriage" only marriage, which should include people who are gay."
--I'm glad we finally agree. Everyone, including homoseuxals, have the right to form that time-honored bond between man and woman. There is no such thing as "Gay" Marriage. Game over.
grunderlyme 8 hours ago
@grunderlyme Because marriage and family are subjective they change in according to the present culture. Their isn't any marriage police that has a set doctrine what marriage is and those who don't follow can't be married. Nor has any marriage been annulled by the lack of children and their isn't any law stating that marriage should lead to child bearing, their isn't any law, so you have no point.
SpeaksToDragons 2 days ago
@SpeaksToDragons "Because marriage and family are subjective"
--No, they are not "subjective." They are objective realities based on the proper function of male and female reproductive capacities which are naturally ordered to the procreation and rearing of children. Last time I checked, the anus is for pooping, genitalia are for babies. There is no such thing as "gay marriage." Try again
grunderlyme 13 hours ago
@SpeaksToDragons I already refuted your subjectivism two days because it entails a logical contradiction. Two changing conceptions of marriage cannot both be "right." One of them must be wrong. Logical consistency demands it.
grunderlyme 13 hours ago
@SpeaksToDragons "Their isn't any marriage police that has a set doctrine what marriage is."
--Why would I need police to tell me what a marriage is? Police can be wrong about things, so aren't you begging the question, what IS marriage? You still have yet to offer a coherent definition that does not also include incest and polygamy
grunderlyme 11 hours ago
@grunderlyme Because no one is promoting incest or polygamy which is a red herring. The only reason you keep repeating yourself in these areas is you wish to distract from the main topic. Their isn't a "rush" for children to marry their parents. Being a gay is a biological norm. No one chooses to be gay the same as no one chooses to be heterosexual.
SpeaksToDragons 7 hours ago
@SpeaksToDragons "no one is promoting incest or polygamy"
--Yes you are. You keep saying "love between adults is sufficient for marriage." If that is the case, then it LOGICALLY FOLLOWS that incestuos and polygamous relationships are marriages. Logic 101. It's not MY fault you cannot see the logical consequences of your own definition.
"which is a red herring"
--No it isn't. It is a logical consequence of your definition. Abandon your definition if you don't like it. Duh!
grunderlyme 7 hours ago
Comment removed
SpeaksToDragons 4 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@grunderlyme You don't fear gay marriage you really fear millions of people will start marrying their family members and millions of women will marry only one man. The same reasoning was used against mixed marriage, and nothing came from it. Their isn't any interest of people marrying their family members and thus your fears, "your fears" are unfounded. Which is a red hearing. Lets argue about the millions of same sex couples that wish to marry than you paranoia of incest based marriage.
SpeaksToDragons 4 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SpeaksToDragons "Being a gay is a biological norm.'
--You mean "ab-norm."
"No one chooses to be gay the same as no one chooses to be heterosexual."
--For the 5th time, so what? No one choose to be an alcoholic either.
grunderlyme 7 hours ago
Comment removed
grunderlyme 11 hours ago
Comment removed
grunderlyme 11 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SpeaksToDragons "Nor has any marriage been annulled by the lack of children"
--Duh. I've already been over this 3 times. Again, saying a marriage between a man and a woman is no longer a marriage just because they fail to produce a child is like saying a baseball team is no longer a baseball team just because it never wins a game. A baseball team is still a baseball team, even if it never wins. Likewise, a marriage is still a marriage even one of them cannot have a child.
grunderlyme 11 hours ago
@SpeaksToDragons ......Instead, as a minority you are trying to force the entire country to approve of your sodomizing relationships in our marriage laws. But marriage is a public institution which is intrinsically tied to children and family, not a private right. Society generally doesn't tolerate large-scale changes in its social institutions unless there is good reason for it having to do with the overall public good.....
grunderlyme 2 days ago
@grunderlyme ...as democracy is conceived today, the minority rights must be protected no matter how singular or alienated that minority is from the majority society; otherwise the majority's rights lose their meaning." John Stewart Mill, (I think)
Marriage is not a public institution but a cultural institution which at times historical has prohibited people from marring examples like denying people of mixed race, religion, national origins, and now sexual orientation.
SpeaksToDragons 2 days ago
@SpeaksToDragons "Marriage is not a public institution but a cultural institution"
--A cultural institution is, by definition, a public institution existing within a culture. Duh.
And if what the majority within a culture thinks is right and wrong, which you are obviously implying, then gay "marriage" is, in fact, wrong since the majority in this culture thinks it is. So how does bringing up cultural relativism help you? It doesn't. It backfires on you.
grunderlyme 8 hours ago
@grunderlyme In our society minorities have rights as well because one day the majority becomes the minority.
The police a are a public institution, our legal system is a public institution, marriage is a cultural institution. No on forces you to get married but their more reasons to do so.
Culture does change you may not like it or agree with it but your not in charge are you?
SpeaksToDragons 7 hours ago
@SpeaksToDragons "In our society minorities have rights as well"
--And everyone, including homosexuals, have the right to marriage, which is time-honored union of a man and a woman. So what's the problem?
"one day the majority becomes the minority."
--Well, until that day comes, your cultural relativism does not yet support gay "marriage," because the majority of voters keep knocking it down at the voting booth. Oops.
grunderlyme 6 hours ago
@grunderlyme Slavery was also time-honored tradition of British America and up to the 1860's it was part of culture for Christians to own another human being and prevent them from having rights. It was also tradition to deny the rights of colored people. Women didn't vote and did not have the same rights of men. People are not voting because of a religious reasons not legal ones. This has been made into a religious debate and not of a legal one.
SpeaksToDragons 4 hours ago
@SpeaksToDragons "Culture does change you may not like it or agree with it but your not in charge are you?"
--I have just as much voting power as you do. Again, your cultural relativism does not yet support gay "marriage," because the majority of voters keep knocking it down at the voting booth. Oops.
grunderlyme 6 hours ago
@grunderlyme Again if mixed race marriage was voted in popular vote in the 60' it would have been voted down. What if the right to vote was left to a popular vote? The right for a woman to work? Slavery, separate but equal doctrines. The right of marrying a person of an other race is right not based on popular opinion because opinion changes. More people are open to gay marriage than before.
SpeaksToDragons 4 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SpeaksToDragons "the minority rights must be protected no matter how singular or alienated that minority is from the majority society;"
--I agree. And everyone, including homosexuals, have the right to marriage which in the very least involves a man and a woman. No one is discriminating against homosexuals. So what's the problem?
Oh, that's right, you mean something different by the word "marriage." I'm sorry, but I don't know what that is. What are you talking about?
grunderlyme 8 hours ago
@SpeaksToDragons You're also begging the the question whether there is such a thing as "gay marriage." It is not even clear whether such a thing exists, much less whether there is a corresponding "right" to it. You are not merely trying to legalize sodomy, because that's already legal. Duh....
grunderlyme 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SpeaksToDragons "Choosing someone to marry is not in the same category of choosing someone to murder"
--But WHY is it "not in the same category"? You're just begging the question that there is nothing wrong with gay sex, when I have given you many reasons for thinking there IS. No one has the right to "marry" whomever they want. The Marriage laws throughout the land already ban polygamy and incest. So I don't even recognize what is this alleged "right" you are talking about in the 1st place
grunderlyme 2 days ago
Comment removed
grunderlyme 2 days ago
@SpeaksToDragons Finally, everyone, homosexual and heterosexual alike, have a right to marriage. The problem is that you mean something different by the word "marriage." But no one knows what that it is because your incoherent "adults" condition happens to include incestuous and polygamous relationships as well. Therefore, every time you accuse tradtionalists of denying gays the right to marriage, your statement is FALSE, and your argument INVALID, because you don't even know what marriage IS.
grunderlyme 2 days ago
@grunderlyme Your argument is a complete red herring. We are talking about gay marriage, not one marrying a family member or one marrying multiple wives. We are discussing two adults of the same sex can marry like their heterosexual counterparts and share all the legal benefits of marriage.
It is legal to be gay then its legal for gays to marry, you have no argument.
SpeaksToDragons 2 days ago
@SpeaksToDragons "We are talking about gay marriage"
--Huh? But I've already argued there is no such thing as gay "marriage." Sorry. You need to pay atttention.
grunderlyme 2 days ago
@SpeaksToDragons "two adults of the same sex can marry like their heterosexual counterparts"
--But they can't. This isn't possible. Only a man and a woman can marry.
"and share all the legal benefits of marriage."
--Like what? Joint health-insurance coverage? But they already have a right to this thing. Call your insurance company. Hospital visitation rights? Call the hospital. A right to make your lover a beneificiary of your will? Call an attorney.
grunderlyme 2 days ago
@SpeaksToDragons "It is legal to be gay then its legal for gays to marry"
--Again, this is logically invalid, and I've already explained why. Try again.
grunderlyme 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SpeaksToDragons "It has nothing to do with your main topic of sex education is supposed to make it less prevalent in society."
--"Supposed to"? But sex education has failed miserably. Again, how many times do I have to say this? Before the 60's sexual revolution philosophy these large-scale social harms did not even come close to resembling the rates we find today . So the problem is your disordered PHILOSOPHY about the meaning of human sexuality, not the lack of education.
grunderlyme 2 days ago
Comment removed
grunderlyme 2 days ago
Father Barron vs. Richard Dawkins on PAY-PER-VIEW!!!!! WOULD BE AWESOME!!
OmarTheGuy 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@snailrace7 "There might be very good reasons why two people don't want to have children."
--Then don't have sex! Duh! Did you not learn in biology class that children are a regular and perfectly natural result of having sex? Procreation is just as natural as digestion; the only difference is that it involves two people to make a baby. Having children are naturally what male and female genitalia are FOR. That is their function; we even name them accordingly. "Gen-"--to generate.
grunderlyme 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@snailrace7 ....trying to discourage an activity (sex) among irresponsible people by teaching them how to engage in it (putting on a condom), is just as illogical as trying to discourage a drug addict from shooting up by teaching him how to use a clean needle. It is your philosophy about the meaning of sexuality that is disordered, not the lack of education. Your method has already been tried and found wanting over and ever again.
grunderlyme 6 days ago
"The demoniac talking shelter of insatiable lust, pride & false prestige, & being thus illusioned, are always sworn to unclean work, attracted by the impermanant(material nature)."
"They believe that to gratify the senses unto the end of life is the prime neccesity of human civilization. Thus there is no end to their anxiety. Being bound by hundreds & thousands of desires, by lust & anger, they secure money by illegal means for sense gratification." -Sri Krishna:Bhagavad gita [ch.16. tx11-12]
ANDROID697 1 week ago
little herods is a compliment for this priest, i say he is a big herod hows that. Who ordered jesus killed btw? oh priests and that is not a metaphor. Big herod indeed.
bajorjor1 2 weeks ago
Exactly, atheists can't be content with their own personal beliefs. They want to vanquish theology altogether.
acrovader 2 weeks ago
Right on, Father Barron. Like you, methinks the atheists doth protest too much.
michaeldavidgantt 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
Well said Father.
mraNewfoundland 2 weeks ago
Wow, this priest is brilliant.
cashernandes1 2 weeks ago
WHY are they angry father? thats the question.
halflifeproductionz 2 weeks ago
This is coming from an atheist. Those who argue are extremists, most of us are born without a religion or converted. I do not argue that there is no God, I don't give a damn if people believe in a floating head. This guy is so biased I am tired of it. My teacher shows these videos (I go to a catholic school) and I disagree with 70% of his opinions. K bye thats my rant.
androidddddevvvv 2 weeks ago
@androidddddevvvv Well, rants might make you feel better, but they don't really advance the conversation. Why don't you tell me precisely where you disagree with me?
wordonfirevideo 2 weeks ago 11
Biased? The TRUTH cannot, by definition, be biased. "Floating Head"? Obviously, you are not PAYING ATTENTION in class. God Bless. Praying for you...
grokulskyd 2 weeks ago
@androidddddevvvv By the nature of disagreeing with his videos, you formulate an argument, albeit it silently. Argument (that is intellectually expressed) is very good, and should be encouraged, and I would hope that you provide counters to Father Barron, not because I necessarily want you to disagree with him (I agree with him on many things, disagree on others), but because you truly hope to find objective truth in this life. This from a Protestant student in a secular university.
GoshenequalsOcean 1 week ago
[...]
Obviously, I cannot speak for any other person, atheist or not, but I can assure you that I personally do not believe that your God can even possibly exist. I am not interested in God at all. What I am interested in are PEOPLE that believe in God or other gods. That's it.
In other words, I believe you and I know you won't ever change your mind. Why can't you accept the opposite? Do you not believe that I have good reasons (even if they are not good for you) to support my position?
hugopelland 3 weeks ago
Lucky for you that HE believes in YOU; otherwise you would not exist. Question: Where did those people you care so much COME from? Any, more importantly, WHY do you care about them?
grokulskyd 2 weeks ago
Father Barron, once in a while I come to watch your videos because you are a very good speaker and I find your views interesting, even though I am not religious at all.
On this June 2011 video however (sorry to be late for the party) you make a few comments at the end that really annoyed me. The problem is that you don't seem to believe people who don't believe in God. You say that they are still listening and interested in God.
[...]
hugopelland 3 weeks ago
Of course, because if you really, truly, believed (or disbelieved, I guess) what you espouse you would NOT protest so much... if you believed what you say you think it wold be like arguing with me that the Easter Bunny is not real. Why waste your time with someone who actually believed in a ginat rabbit distributing chocolate eggs?
grokulskyd 2 weeks ago
father i dont get it i'm questioned about my faith and i answer the questions to the best of my ability and if i don't know the answer i look it up on the internet and then i tell them.but Father this makes me think why don't atheists try to seek the answer instead of mock us catholics and criticise us?
trekee101 4 weeks ago
@whymortification Christians aren't in anyone's business, they just do not express their religion privately. Actually I recall atheists as the one's calling for the removal of such expression, which is far more being in someone's business than someone who chooses not to hide their faith.
SplatteredRemnants 1 month ago
I just discovered your videos and love them. Very rational, clear and true to Catholicism. I wish more priests were as good at explaining Catholicism.
crispiegee1 1 month ago
I love these videos, and I find myself in agreement with pretty much everything you say! God bless!
stallion4life 1 month ago
I understand now! Hitchens spent a large portion of his adult life criticizing the claims of religion not because he had good reason to, but because he was a closet theologian!
WOW
You learn something new everyday!
MrCraniumExplosion 1 month ago
One of the things that strikes me about the atheism vs. religion debate is how there are people on both sides who refuse to understand that there are different kinds of atheists and different kinds of religious people. The extent to which some have a monolithic conception of "THE ATHEIST" or "THE RELIGIOUS PERSON" is truly breathtaking. I think Fr. Barron says things here that help dispel the rather cartoonish image some of us Christians have about many atheists.
roxykatt.blogspot.com
roxykattx 1 month ago
Religious people are usually extremely dishonest when attempting to 'debate' with atheists. A blind willingness to ignore facts in the face whilst offering a reflection of their brain washed mentality. And as for the same arguments from atheists continuing to crop up...that's not a bad thing. Merely proves that not only can these arguments not be explained or refuted, it represents and eternal point. Never fix anything if it isn't broken.
SOS763 1 month ago
Father, ask yourself - why do you think Atheists want religion to disappear and go away?
SOS763 1 month ago
nihilism in GOD commonly concludes in believing anything!
atanboy 1 month ago
A materialist has no reason to postulate an invisible world - It is not clear, from that POV, that a non-existent deity is any different from a transcendent one. IMO, apologetics is too inclined to rationalism; People cannot be argued into faith - & it is only faith that is large enough to unite faith with reason. Reason simply not enough. Faith is irreducibly personal - one has to exercise it oneself; faith in Christ is not a spectator sport. Apologetics is man-centred anyway.
5355vbxjbj76rvn 1 month ago
There are myriad reasons I'm interested in religion: my upbringing, its dominance in our culture and history, my need to coexist with religious people every day, an interest in ideas with high social stakes, etc.
You are so quick to accuse atheists of condescension, and yet you condescend to us all the time. You hate it when I posit unconscious motives in you, and yet you assert them in me. Your position is shamelessly elitist, no doubt based in your faith's "objective" moral superiority.
jontv 1 month ago
Read a lot, get more informed, use your intellect, but don't forget your heart. Only good can come out of this.
darkgrb 1 month ago
Please Wordon, explain to me how worshiping an imaginary being is logical.
osgangstarrr 2 months ago
Dear Fr. Barron, could you name some books for us to combat the new atheists ?
vkorchnoifan 2 months ago
@vkorchnoifan Some good authors to look up would be Joseph Ratzinger, Keith Ward, John Lennox, Ravi Zacharias, N.T. Wright, Alister Mcgrath, William Lane Craig, Alvin Plantinga, Dallas Willard, and Eleonore Stump. These ppl all have a wide variety of publications and books that put Christianity in logical perspective. There's also classical authors like C.S. Lewis, G.K. Chesterton, and John Paul II. Or you can listen to their lectures here on youtube like this one.
TheFutureengineer20 2 months ago 10
@TheFutureengineer20 C.S. Lewis' 'Weight of Glory' is masterful. I also enjoy Fulton J. Sheen, Billy Graham, and Charles Spurgeon.
acrovader 2 weeks ago
@acrovader I like Sheen and Graham too. I know Spurgeon is influential but never read some of his stuff so I'll look it up. Thanks.
TheFutureengineer20 2 weeks ago
@vkorchnoifan The last superstition by Edward Feser is a great one. Any book written by a Catholic Thomistic philosopher would be recommended. And of course the first part of the Summa Theologica by St Thomas Aquinas is the greatest source.
AdversusHaereses 2 months ago
@vkorchnoifan --Family Bibles are pretty large and thus good to bonk atheist on the head with; try that.
HouseHaunter445 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@HouseHaunter445 " Family Bibles are pretty large and thus good to bonk atheist on the head with; try that. "
- and with that comment, you've summed up the traditional religious position. " Hit 'em in the head "
Thx for your honesty.
Roper122 1 month ago 2
@HouseHaunter445
The really big ones with metal clasps & metal caps on each edge might be good for giving a concussion, if they weren't too heavy to lift. The word "Bible-bashing" exists for a reason. For bashing an atheist, get an 1860s family Bible, with presentation page, references, concordances, coloured engravings, index, chronology of Bible History & Church History from 4004 BC to 2016 AD, & zillions of maginal notes explaining why the world will end in 1866 or 2016 :)
5355vbxjbj76rvn 1 month ago
ALOT of younger atheists are very uneducated in their attacks on religion. Many love to state that ALL Christians are idiots when they have never heard of CS Lewis, GK Chesterton, Saint Thomas Aquinas, Desmond Tutu and so many others. If you're going to attack something, make sure you throughly research it.
saderin 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@saderin "Many love to state that ALL Christians are idiots"
Most of the chirstains on youtube usually are... That might not be a case in real life -but prior to youtube I never knew there were such thing as "young earth creationist" and nutjob like the "westboro baptist church"
In real life chirstains dont acutally argue about evoultion an how the world is only 6000 years etc.. that only happens on youtube
badpanda84 1 month ago
@saderin
"Many love to state that ALL Christians are idiots when they have never heard of CS Lewis, GK Chesterton, Saint Thomas Aquinas, Desmond Tutu and so many others."
Youtube might have something to do with that.. because it expose you to more "nutjob" christains -- ( like young earth creationsit)
badpanda84 1 month ago
@badpanda84 lol like there aren't nut job atheists.
philosophizer149 1 month ago
@philosophizer149 There aren't
You do see any atheist claiming that the world is 6000 years old... or that God hates gays .. ad "thank God for dead soliders
badpanda84 1 month ago
@badpanda84 oh dude, seriously? you can't be that naive! Communists, The League of Militant Atheists, claiming all religious people must die. Heck I think they had to shut down the Richard Dawkins blog at least for a time because atheists were calling for homocidal actions. Look dude, every group has their crazies, thats a fact, even if atheism is true, that doesn't mean that all atheists are sane, and it doesn't mean that everyone else is crazy.
philosophizer149 1 month ago
@badpanda84 Oh and you do hear about atheists who believe that aliens visited them in their sleep, or atheists who believe in government conspiracy, or atheists who believe that every planet in the solar system has been like Earth or will be like Earth at some point. I could go on but you get my point.
philosophizer149 1 month ago
@badpanda84 Oh and there are actually atheists who reject evolution. Believe it or not, look it up, if you don't believe me.
philosophizer149 1 month ago
@philosophizer149 LOL there are no atheist who reject evoultion -- or at least they dont doubt that it happened.
They might argue about the details though.
badpanda84 1 month ago
@badpanda84 Yea there are. There's a kid in my math class that's a self-professed atheist, and he simultaneously rejects evolution. You think that people's atheism is ONLY dependent upon the validity of evolution. And although this is true for, I think, the vast majority of atheists, deriving your atheism because of your intellectual assent to evolution is roundly and wholly fallacious. Thus, we have "New Atheism." And I think this is atheism's Achilles' Heel -and I have fun exposing it. ;)
M3PanoS 1 month ago
@M3PanoS "You think that people's atheism is ONLY dependent upon the validity of evolution"
Its not a critea for being atheist.. but not atheist is going tob elvie the world is created in 7 days
badpanda84 1 month ago
In my opinion, there have only ever been two original critics of Christianity. The better of the two was Nietzsche, who could have cared less about Christians and went right for the jugular of Christ. He knew what Christ taught quite well, understood what it meant, and quite courageously launched an attack on everything it meant. He didn't just attack "the God hypothesis": he attacked compassion, universal fraternity, equality, charity, and the virtues of what he called "slave morality"...
CoryTheRaven 2 months ago
@CoryTheRaven ...The other, more popular one, was the Roman Celsus. He didn't know anything of Christian doctrine and contented himself with attacking Christians for being icky, tacky people: the young, the old, the slaves and the women, all the lesser classes of people who were beneath that pinacle of human history, the White European Male. Because of the ease of its fundamental egotism, it has been inherited by New Atheism and constitutes its whole argument.
CoryTheRaven 2 months ago
Yes, they want to attack religion. Fortunately, I am about to launch quite a counter attack! March 2012..
twombonu 2 months ago
Comment removed
TheMrgoku1985 2 months ago
Of course, it is true that many atheists like to "listen in" on Christian sites, myself also, though there are some who listen in on "Muslim" sites. That said, I have known Christians both Catholic and protestant that are drawn to atheist sites. I am not sure that all this can be put down to some unconscious desire for God by atheists. I am disappointed by the amount of vitriol that some atheists indulge in on YouTube. I am also pleased at the Father's call for Christians to educate themselves.
zearro53 2 months ago
Actually, many atheists and agnostics whom I know, point to what can be considered as the very bad witness given by those of us who are Christian. While some people flock to fundamentalist churches because of excessively lax Catholicism, others flee to atheism and agnosticism because of what they see as excessively ridged traditionalism or even "Catholicized" protestant fundamentalism. As the pope has recently said the worst dangers are within not outside the Catholic community.
Slovakson1 2 months ago
know your enemy. thats why they listen
chopzi 2 months ago 8
@chopzi --atheist are obsessed with religion.
Archangel866 2 months ago
@chopzi I dont regard religious folks as enemies in any way. And believe me I dont have a secret need to believe. I rid myself of that years ago and am free! It's just that I post on this sort of debate because people feel they can post nonsense unchallenged. The world has changed. Religions have much to be ashamed of and people are now mature enough and less intimidated to make comments. what you believe privately is your business but dont be surprised if people respond when you go public!
Mrmentalmadness123 1 month ago
@chopzi There's more to it than just knowing your enemy. Why do atheists even bother to argue and debate as much as they do and as passionately as they do? They can simply just live their life happily and ignore Christianity and religion, but they don't ;)
SplatteredRemnants 1 month ago 4
@SplatteredRemnants
Because religious people subvert education and spread superstition.If you subvert the critical faculties of the people, we return to Dark Ages. This is what I'm most afraid and as an atheist and scientist I'll passionately debate every Christian in public and debunk their fallacies! Let them come as more as they like...
lachezar43 1 month ago
@lachezar43 But what makes you want to speak so passionately about something that you believe does not exist in the first place? I don't waste a second of my time debating with people about UFOs and ghosts because I don't believe in them, so it hardly triggers any kind of passionate response, for or against it. I think deep down, you and other atheists want Christianity to exist because you enjoy the passion you receive from being on that topic, whether you realize it or not.
SplatteredRemnants 1 month ago
@SplatteredRemnants
I'm afraid you did not understand my previous answer. If someone who believe in UFOs and ghosts comes in the classroom and subvert education you'll be pretty disturb as well, aren't you? Similarly, Christians teach tiny children to have ''faith'' - believe without evidence...It's shame we live in such enlightened times, where science is everywhere and yet, we are still that narrow minded.
lachezar43 1 month ago
@lachezar43 I can't find the exact quote from Fr. Barron, but no one is dismissing science or having to choose one over the other. I believe he said something to the affect of, religion focuses on the spiritual, moral, and metaphysical, whereas science has its own place.
SplatteredRemnants 1 month ago
@SplatteredRemnants
Well, Roman Catholic Church indeed try not to argue with science. That is wise decision on their part, I admit that. However, this Fr. Barron is mistaken to believe religion doesn't subvert science. If religion didn't interfere with scientific understanding I wouldn't be opposed to their teachings, at all. The same way you so wisely do not have discussion about UFOs. If only they stop teaching ''faith''. Why they have never said something like:
lachezar43 1 month ago
@SplatteredRemnants Our Universe is more subtle, more grandeur than we have believed. But no, we want our God, to be little and petty God... Why don't they popularize scientific way of life - believing in evidence, studying Nature. We need knowledge, kindliness and courage not superstitions, ignorance and cruelty.
lachezar43 1 month ago
@SplatteredRemnants
And I forgot to respond to other question of yours... I dream for times when there is no more religion. Considering the current trends, upon extrapolation, I might say that after 50 years atheists will be majority and after 150 years, no more religion... At least I hope (I assume you do not share that hope).
lachezar43 1 month ago
@lachezar43 Of course I do not hope for that, but you and I will both no longer be living here on this planet 150 years from now, and since you don't believe in an afterlife, anything that happens 150 years from now should not matter to you whatsoever once you've expired from this world as it will not affect you. Why do you care that far into the future?
SplatteredRemnants 1 month ago
@SplatteredRemnants
You believe since I'm an atheist I do not care about the future. I must say I have never been that insulted in my life. Why bother living then, since I'll die? Why study Nature, why work at all if all these efforts are futile? Don't you understand? Man can only be happy by helping other men. If you calculate the probability to ever live in this world you'll find out that it is such a small number. How small? Well imagine 1/100. This is small...But I'm talking about much
lachezar43 1 month ago
@SplatteredRemnants number. The zeros in the denumerator are so many that if you want to write them you'll need so paper to wrap the entire galaxy. Therefore to be alive it is equivalent to have won lottery billions and billions of times. I want that so rare event to have some meaning. I'm the one who gives meaning to my life, not the ignorant priests of some ancient creed
lachezar43 1 month ago
@lachezar43 LOL! So the chance of living or being born as you claim, scientifically, is so slim that it's all an.... *drum roll* accient that we're alive? I'm sorry, but that is such an ignorantly funny statement. How something so rare and impossible is possible should tell you something about the existence of God. And you came up with that scientifically LOL.
SplatteredRemnants 1 month ago
@SplatteredRemnants Well, I have told you that the probability for particular individual to be born is so small. Instead of you ther could have been billions others - better musician than Mozart, better scientists than Einstein...It's so incredible. But surely, there must be someone and it so happens that it's you. I'll try to explain your logical fallacy. You can calculate the probability of your existence but it is pointless after you already exist. If it wasn't you, somebody else could have
lachezar43 1 month ago
@lachezar43 Yes, it could have been many others but it's me, and you, and the Einsteins and Mozarts instead of other better scientists and composers. Is this really a "coincidence?"
SplatteredRemnants 1 month ago
@SplatteredRemnants You can calculate it by implying simple model of increasing the number of people. Start several million years ago. Calculate the combinations of humans (in each sexual act there are several hundred thousands spermatozoids) and take the reciprocal number. It is elementary indeed. The difference between you and me is that I'm trying to understand how we got here... You just give up and most importantly sometimes religious people even deter science...How horrible is that...
lachezar43 1 month ago
@lachezar43 "You just give up" I don't understand what this means. On one hand you and people with your mentality state that religious people claim to have all the answers and then on the other hand you state that religious people claim to "just give up" and not know and shout Faith! Which one is it, sir?
SplatteredRemnants 1 month ago
@SplatteredRemnants
As a matter of fact you do both - you claim to have ultimate understanding and you do not proceed further, i.e. give up. But your so called explanation (God) doesn't stand elementary scrutiny. I do not wish to offend you or anything, but it is time to terminate the conversation. Neither can convince the other.
lachezar43 1 month ago
@lachezar43 "As a matter of fact you do both - you claim to have ultimate understanding and you do not proceed further, i.e. give up"
So is the same for science. Science claims to have "logical answers" for everything, yet when it's backed into a corner it claims that it doesn't have all the answers and doesn't have a problem with admitting that. Or perhaps it's just the people behind the science who make these contradictory claims.
SplatteredRemnants 1 month ago
@SplatteredRemnants It is futile effort of my part to supply you with knowledge. If you are fortunate enough, you'll start educating yourself in science - I suggest you start with the Carl Sagan's book - Demon Haunted World. I suppose it will give you great pleasure.
lachezar43 1 month ago
@lachezar43 But no, I'm sorry, your life has no meaning without God. You can't take your experiements or your degrees or your accomplishments or your money anywhere else once you've deteriorated on this planet. Life is limited and short, so what is the point? The universe is so vast you won't even begin to understand it in this lifetime, one could argue that you've wasted your time.
SplatteredRemnants 1 month ago
@SplatteredRemnants
Once you have deteriorated what is left of you is your work and the influence over the other people. You live the through others. Others after you can step on your shoulders and continue further. That is the point. Surely you'll die. But that doesn't matter. Do you remember when you weren't born? Of course not. Sometimes while you sleep, you don't remember anything at all. This is death. You will not suffer, neither worry... You just don't know since you do not exist...
lachezar43 1 month ago
@lachezar43
I'm sorry that you don't like it. Better live in a real world rather than imaginary. Only then you face it frankly and reveal its true beauty and its true ugliness. Only then progress will continue
lachezar43 1 month ago
@lachezar43 LOL You're confusing yourself here. The world in which Christians live in is not imaginary, it's real, and sometimes it's grim and ugly. The road we follow as Christians is a hard one, which is why many people wish to ignore that road and justify their reasons ignorantly for not taking it.
SplatteredRemnants 1 month ago
@lachezar43 If anyone is in an imaginary world it is people like yourself. Keep telling yourself there's no God, no afterlife, no consequences, so you don't have to let that thing called a "conscience" bother you in this life. Unless of course you don't believe there's a conscience either, because there's no verifiable evidence of it =P
SplatteredRemnants 1 month ago
@SplatteredRemnants
Hah...I'm sorry to inform you but you are not aware of modern computational theory of mind and artificial intelligence (Read for example the bestseller - ''How the mind work. There you'll find out why most certainly there is no such thing as soul!) If you read more carefully this book - you'll understand that in fact in the past 5 years we have finally understood what conscience is. (Another fail of religion...it turn out to be wrong again :D).
lachezar43 1 month ago
@lachezar43 " you'll understand that in fact in the past 5 years we have finally understood what conscience is"
And in 20 years you'll be coming back to this topic of conscience and most likely be re-evaluating your opinion on it when some new scientific discovery is made that trumps this current way of thinking.
SplatteredRemnants 1 month ago
@SplatteredRemnants About the details - yes.About this fact - most likely not.You do not understand how science works.In the beginning it is always difficult.But once started it will not stop.After several years you'll have the possibility to grow new legs, if you like. Isn't that wonderful?And the prospect of understanding the mind is even more interesting.We must change until we got the answer.But, be pretty sure, if you bet to science you'll win - look around you - electricity, technology...
lachezar43 1 month ago
@lachezar43 Electricity, technology- material things. As a non-materialistic person, those things are nice, but they are not everything in life. Growing new legs is great for people who need them, but if something positive should result from an act of evil, that is a big "No No" in my opinion.
SplatteredRemnants 1 month ago