@Roper122 Other than pointing out to everyone that you are a troll who should not be responded to by anyone in this thread, I have nothing more to say.
@wordonfirevideo From one Hitchen's fan to another, a word of clarification:
H. used the silly imagery (skyfairy, celestial north korea etc) as a stylistic device to demonstrate the ugly antilogy in the argumentation of many believers, who -on the one hand- deliberately profess a reductive and diffuse account of god in order to avoid a "reason/evidence debate", but -on the other hand- have no problem at all to make the most outstanding "this world" claims about what their god thinks and wants.
That's the thing I can't get around my own head either:
Although most christians accepted that god doesn't interfer in our daily lives by sending femines, hurricanes and diseases and that the universe doesn't spin around us, they can't really stop making outrageous claims about what god thinks and wants, selectively quoting parts of the bible to stipulate their very own view of how things "ought to be"... [cont]
Some people argue against homosexuality, citing Leviticus as old testament authority.
I wonder if these people see the other things in Leviticus as equally profound, like the rules for sacrifice rituals, food regulations, punishment for blasphemy or the number of prayers services on Atonement day...
Or to put it bluntly:
How can these people quote something as authoritive, when this alleged authority also contains alienating, pagan or even nonsensical stuff?
@Pi10sco ...Oh the irony, drop some names, say nothing of substance, through out some weak insults, and accuse me of baiting. : ) Couldn't be funnier if you'd written it as a parody. Somehow I'll live.
@Roper122 You remind me of Thrasymachus in the Socratic dialogues. Full of bluster, verbal abuse of the opponent, and wholly lacking in any intellectual weight. At least Thrasymachus walked out on the argument. We have to still be burdened by your tiresomeness. Your polemical comments are boring. Go bait someone else for a change.
@Roper122 - So, philosophy is the love of wisdom (from Greek philia = love & sophia = wisdom). It is based on rational argument and is undertaken systematically (step-by-step, methodical). It requires us to start from one point and work out from there, making connections as we go along. So I am curious what you think is the fundamental or initial good. My contention is that "being" or "existence" is fundamental, because existence is a prerequisite for any other experience. What do you think?
- I think you like the sound of your own voice, and you're straying so far off the topic that it's embarrassing.
I think you're making boring obvious statements like " existence is a prerequisite " ( something your god has a problem with ) , and I think you're trying to tack on value judgements by calling this " good ".
Even this early on I think you're transparent... but go on if you want.
@Roper122 - All I'm trying to do is establish a foundation for the rest of our conversation. Why are you insulting me? Please explain what you mean when you say that God has a problem with existence. We maintain that God IS existence, so it would be difficult to prove that He has a problem with it.
Sooo... you don't think that existing, AKA being alive, is good? You would rather call your life indifferent or apathetic?
Oh, and please refrain from your negativity. It is pointless.
@Roper122 - Philosophy should help us discern how to discover true happiness and live a life filled with love. When people simply philosophize for the sake of philosophizing, they miss the point and end up confusing (and annoying) people who are interested in wisdom and happiness. I wonder, have you have ever heard of sophism? Even *Wikipedia* makes a distinction between sophism and philosophy. Much of modern philosophy has fallen into sophism, or using rhetoric without seeking true meaning.
@Roper122 - Hence, you find people like Jacques Derrida arguing that language cannot convey any meaning because we cannot really understand what one another are saying. He thinks that meaning changes from one meaning to the next, so even from second to second we lose any understanding of one another's true intent. He would say that someone who says "the bluebird flew away" could be indicating to him that modern political systems are corrupt. Of course, no one can tell him anything different.
@Roper122 - His (postmodern philosophical) idea that language is useless leads us into nothing but confusion. It does not help advance mankind in any way. At best it makes people think about his ideas, which according to him cannot be conveyed or understood to begin with! It is this type of foolishness which demonstrates bad philosophy.
Now, because (postmodern) philosophy has convinced many people that everything is relative and nothing to good or bad, I may be labelled intolerant...
@Roper122 - So do you subscribe to the view that everything is relative and nothing is necessarily right or wrong? Do you believe that the same action performed under the same circumstances can be considered positive on one day and negative on the next? Or do you reject distinctions like "positive" and negative," "good" and "bad?"
I'm trying to figure out what you believe so that we can discuss the logical conclusions of your viewpoint.
@Roper122 - Roper, how many times must I make this point? I cannot prove something to you without first understanding what you consider proof. That is the whole point of this exercise. I have a hard time believing that you have not grasped this by now.
If you don't recognize philosophy as the basis for proof, then this is a waste of time. If you only consider empirical scientific evidence to be proof, then this is also a waste of time because God is not a physical, material being.
@Roper122 - Remember when you said I was making illogical statements by assuming that I knew what other people were feeling? You're doing it when you assume that I'm "squirming" and planning to "run away." Just sayin'.
Roper, I. am. asking. you. what . you. consider. proof. That. is. a. gesture. indicative. of. a. desire. to. gain. understanding. of. your. viewpoint.
So now I'll continue to ask you questions to establish the parameters of the rest of this conversation.
@Roper122 - By the way, I must do this to make a logical presentation of my view to you in a way that you will really understand, and not just read. I'm going for an actual communication between us, and "meeting of the minds" so to speak.
So I can tell you about faith and revelation, about morality and saints... I can tell you my entire life story or the lives of any number of religious people like me. Even if I do, if you decide it is nonsense, then to you that is the truth.
@danieljosephwilliams " I can tell you my entire life story or the lives of any number of religious people like me. Even if I do, if you decide it is nonsense, then to you that is the truth. "
- I can tell you my life story, I can tell you the life stories of people who disagree with you... you wouldn't consider that proof of anything.
But you are communicating with me... you're communicating your lack of proof.
Which was initially my point... days and days ago.
@Roper122 - Rest assured, I will eventually make assertions about my beliefs. It will be when I can do so in a way that will be fruitful.
So now that we agree that existence is fundamental to any other human experience, do you agree that truth, justice, compassion, love, hope, and other "universal human experiences" are rooted in biology alone, or something more?
@danieljosephwilliams " Rest assured, I will eventually make assertions about my beliefs "
- Yeah.. because you've been so forthcoming...
" do you agree that truth, justice, compassion, love, hope, and other "universal human experiences" are rooted in biology alone, or something more? "
- Human experiences? Human experiences are rooted in biology by definition.
But regardless, I agree that you cannot prove in any way that they aren't.
I also agree that you're wandering off point again.
@Roper122 - So this conversation does, in fact, center around what you "subscribe to." Your outlook influences the approach of proving something. Just as I would try to use car analogies to explain something non-mechanical to a mechanic, I will try using whatever analogy best suits your outlook to help you understand... or in other words, to "prove" what I have to say.
So once again, can you please answer the questions instead of avoiding them?
@danieljosephwilliams ..Don't be laughable. If you find my parameters reasonable? Provide some proof, then we'll discuss parameters. You're just setting yourself up to run away. I'll tell you what I believe, I believe that you have zero proof...and you know it. Try again.
@Roper122 - How do I provide you proof? What do you consider proof? Scientific, empirical data measuring God-units? I'm asking you if you want to approach it from a scientific, philosophical/metaphysical, theological (yeah right, I know), or some other angle. I don't intend to run away. I'm trying to move this conversation forward! It's a bit difficult to decide on how to discuss an infinite reality with anyone, let alone someone who has a bias against said reality...
@Roper122 - Sooo... do you want to approach this from a philosophical standpoint? I will just ask individual questions now so you can give "yes" or "no" answers in hopes that we can continue the conversation. It seems that you are running from the conversation more than me. I'm just trying to figure out which method is acceptable for you. Sooo, once again: How about a philosophical conversation, Roper? Then we can get to morality after the foundation is laid.
it seems like most people commenting here are athiests. its funny how athiests pay the most attention to videos on God by religious men. its like your dying to have someone prove the existance of God.
@wordonfirevideo Father,I am an atheist and I agree with you that it seems atheists such as Hitchens and even myself seem to be more passionate about the existence of God then many theists and I would also agree with you that Hitchens never did argue well against the best theist arguments.But this passion for the existence of God, can't it just be a result of atheists' interest in philosophy?After all, the question why does something exist rather than nothing is one that gets everyone pondering.
@danieljosephwilliams ..No, you haven't shown anything about morality...you've just reiterated what you believe...which is pointless. Worse still you've repeatedly failed to provide any proof
@Roper122 - First, you must state the parameters in which you feel that proof can be given. For example, if I give you a series of proofs for the existence of God and materials which explain and defend those proofs, then you may come back and say that you don't agree with them. From what I have gathered about your point of view, your disagreement is enough of a basis for disregarding anything I put forward. You have to state the parameters, or I will not know how to proceed.
@Roper122 - If I find your parameters reasonable, I can begin to put forward a coherent explanation. If not, I will not be able to communicate to you in any meaningful way, and I don't want to waste my time (or yours) going in circles. If you believe in universal subjectivity, then nothing I say will convince you of anything, which is a very postmodernist problem. Reminds me of Jacques Derrida. So basically, what do you consider morality, or what is real to you?
Ironic and telling how a supposedly religious person like this Fr. Barron takes it upon himself to lie and proclaim that Mr. Hitchens was religious, when Mr. Hitchens intellectually fought against religion. More evidence that an allegedly religious person is not more moral than an irreligious one. What a disingenuous person. Stop shamelessly lying to support your ridiculous position.
@TheMJtheGOD - The ideas you are expressing originated in the "Enlightenment" Era. To view reason and faith as mutually exclusive is to do both a disservice. I suggest that you read pre-"Enlightnment" thinkers and come to understand that their way of thinking is limited and limiting.
God is not a leprechaun any more than you are a peacock wearing a tutu. Let's avoid the mockery and over-simplification of the topic at hand and deal with it like adults.
@danieljosephwilliams Are you insane??? Of course Reason and faith are mutually exclusive!! Reason is based on Evidence - not circumstantial evidence or anecdotal evidence - but properly controlled Empirical Evidence. Faith is the belief in something in either a) the total absence of evidence, or b) the face of overwhelming contradictory evidence. For example, although it is physically impossible for a person to walk on water unaided, christians have faith that jesus did.
@danieljosephwilliams Dostoyevsky used this theme beautifully in his novels. Not too long after, his native Russia reaped the bitter fruit sown by those who believed the ends justified the means.
You can't hop from expressing 'love' as a personal ideal and set of emotions through limited language within a material world to saying that, because 'God' becomes the misnomer, the synonym for your abstract thought, and - amongst many substantive definitions - God is 'to be'/'existence' as a pure neoplatonic Form, ergo God exists 'outside'. You take an ambiguous word (love, justice, goodness), and qualify it with another ambiguous word ('God'), which you define abstractly (to be).
If Fr. Barron states that God is only justice then he is an atheist and all just atheists are Christians. He makes out like his version of Christianity is the standard. It is not.
@RolandOnTheRoad - Having studied real Catholic theology and with full knowledge that the views expressed by Fr. Barron are historically and authentically Catholic, I must point out that you are mistaken. We have been teaching this for thousands of years, and these views have Biblical precedence. You may not be aware of it and it may not be what we speak about as a general rule, but it is completely legitimate and accurate.
@danieljosephwilliams Thank you for this. Now I believe Slavoj Zizek when he says that only an atheist can be a true Christian. If you are not an atheist you misunderstood Jesus and totally missed the point of the bible.
@RolandOnTheRoad - Your comment about Slavoj Zizek makes absolutely no sense. Are you seriously trying to contend that someone who doesn't believe in God can be a follower of God? That is nonsense! I have no idea how you came to that conclusion. In fact, I'm sure it is impossible to do so based on what I said. Furthermore, having read the Bible and studied it in the historical and cultural contexts in which it was written, I can tell you that believing in God is the only sane conclusion.
@RolandOnTheRoad - Many Catholics do not study their faith, whether because of lack of opportunity (they don't know where to look), lack of interest, or laziness. So these people would not speak about it. Non-Catholic Christians are potentially less likely to study Catholic theological/philosophical writings, so they wouldn't speak about it. However, it is not as of this information is hidden or hard to access. You just have to be inquisitive and diligent, and you can find it.
@danieljosephwilliams This kind of Christianity is just a break down of language. If you are saying the universe is God then yes we all believe in the universe. Atheists refute the main definition in the dictionary. "The creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority" I'm sorry but "Justice" didn't create the universe and "Justice" doesn't love me.
@RolandOnTheRoad Sure it does! Justice itself, Goodness itself, Beauty itself are all proper names of God, since God is the unconditioned act of Being itself. And Being itself is not "the universe." The universe is just the collectivity of conditioned things and events. God is what stands behind them, or in more classical language, creates them.
@wordonfirevideo justice, goodness, and beauty are relative words across cultural boundaries, mutually exclusive between individuals, and are objectively meaningless in terms of definition and value. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, goodness is subjective. Textually, they are substantive only as signs charged by their users. Its like Anselm's argument for the Fool in reverse: a theist uses the sign 'Love = God', therefore the God must exist outside of a mutable world?
@Judas130 - No Judas, only modern philosophical movements allow for this type of thought process. Moral relativism (and relativism/universal subjectivity in general) is dangerous and illogical. Followed to its logical conclusion, it leads to a great deal of selfishness, violence, and anarchy. If truth or good is based on my idea of truth or good, then I may decide to do something(s) entirely perverse and harmful to myself and society.
@Judas130 - There are many examples of individuals or groups which subscribed to your view that good is subjective and cannot be limited by the constraints of Judeo-Christian thought. Not all of these individuals committed horrible atrocities (of course, because not all of them strayed very far from the basic ideas of justice, love, etc). However, those who did define good as "a pure race" or good as their own pleasure over the well-being of others are known now as genocidal people, rapists...
@danieljosephwilliams Those 'bad' people you define happen to be both religious and secular across history. You know this. Moses encouraged the massacre of the women, men and children of ethnic minorities. Abraham was more than willing to murder his son on a rock because of the voices in his head. In practice, all is relative. My point is that it is not the Church or 'God' that need monopolise on these concepts, which find their expression in the process of evolution.
@Judas130 - Yes, there are bad people in both secular and religious circles. In both instances, they created their own versions of what is right and wrong, and they acted on those views. The affiliation of the person does not make their actions any more or less excusable, nor does it necessarily imply that their affiliation has a causal relationship with the viewpoint which they espouse and the actions in which they partake.
@Judas130 - Without understanding the historical and cultural context of the Biblical stories or their moral value, they become more confusing than informative. This is one example of an instance in which a little knowledge is dangerous, and a sufficient amount of knowledge is helpful.
@Judas130 - If you truly want to gain an understanding of the reasons for God's movements throughout history (and particularly in the Bible), I suggest that you avoid reading only the writings of anti-Christian/Catholic or anti-religion authors and take a more academic approach to the issue. Read the writings of Biblical scholars and theologians. With a balanced view of the facts, one can make a better judgment about the merit of ideological constructs of all kinds, including moral systems.
@Judas130 - Essentially, it comes down to "the end never justifies the means." We see God as the ultimate end. Obeying His laws and following Him are the purpose of our lives, resulting in eternal union with Him. Considering that He created us and that He knows what is best for all people (including non-Christian/Catholic people), following His will is the best course of action we can take.
@Judas130 - Speaking to your point about the development of ethical/moral systems and their ties with the process of evolution, I would like to challenge you to demonstrate that a biological process like evolution has had an impact on ethics/morals. My contention is that biological processes cannot effect change in the ethical/moral sphere. Perceptions of right and wrong can be changed in individuals who are biologically defective or altered by the use of substances, but not in principle.
@Judas130 - You will find it difficult to prove your assertion because there is certainly insufficient data. Most of recorded history lacks modern scientific measurement, so it would be very difficult to determine whether ethics/morals have "evolved" in conjunction with physical evolution. You may appeal to philosophy, but then you cannot ignore Christian/Catholic contributions to this field.
@Judas130 - If we explore health and happiness, even science points out the fact that, coincidentally, the societal constructs (like marriage between one man and one woman) which are encouraged by Christianity/Catholicism lead to authentic happiness. The merits of therapy were known to God long before modern psychology (the benefits of confession of wrongdoing instituted in the Sacrament of Reconciliation). Avoiding excess and a utilitarian approach to relationships... the list goes on.
@RolandOnTheRoad - Precisely what Fr. Barron said. This discussion about God and His many qualities can be found in past comments on this video. God IS existence (Biblical precedent = "I AM WHO AM" in Exodus 3:14), which means He is a prerequisite for the existence of anything else. He creates what He wills to create, including you. He loves what He creates as well, because He IS love. He is the source of all goodness, and anything less good is simply "further" from Him.
@RolandOnTheRoad - Hence, evil/sin is a movement "away from" God on the part of the sinning party. Perfect love (aka, God... see 1 John 4:16) is the fullness of union with God. This type of explanation can continue, if necessary. If you are interested in the logic/rationale, see the past comments.
P.S. I have never seen a solid refutation of religion in general or Catholicism in particular, by atheists or any others. And I have read. A lot.
You're a well-read man, would you say that your conception of God (which, to my ears, sounded Deistic - but its refreshing to hear it as in fact the norm in these Catholic institutions you were educated in) is essentially Platonic, having shunned the material conception of God? I'm seeing a lot of dualism here, moral abstracts, substantive phraseology... does 'God' become your synonym for these ideals, or a personification?
You seem like a nice man, but your ideas of God are so abstract that I don't understand why you are a Catholic priest or indeed part of any organised religion at all. Why deny yourself a companion for life? Why persist with bizarre rituals if your idea of God is as you say?
@james7300 Well, friend, I learned my ideas of God at Mundelein Seminary in Chicago, Catholic University in Washington, D.C., and the Institut Catholique in Paris! Last time I checked, these were Catholic institutions! Why in the world would you think the Mass is a "bizarre ritual?" And I embraced celibacy as a path of love.
@wordonfirevideo Thanks for the reply :) Do you never think 'What if none of it is true?' Especially after watching all those Hitchens videos? The man was an intellectual titan. Dawkins the same. I can't see past their logic. (I was raised Catholic by the way).
@james7300 Oh come on! I admired Hitchens as a writer and rhetorician, but he was far from "an intellectual titan." And Dawkins is a popularizer who harbors an irrational hatred for religion. Go get Robert Spitzer's book on arguments for God's existence and watch a real intellectual heavy-weight at work--or watch some of William Lane Craig's videos.
@wordonfirevideo Ok lets get off the God track.There IS no evidence for God, but no-one will ever know if 'something' started the big bang. The real crux of the argument is that ALL religions are man made. No-one ever talked to a burning bush. No-one rose from the dead. God never spoke to Moses. All these fables were made by men. Maybe there is something out there (although I doubt it) but it's certainly not a Christian God.
@james7300 There is indeed evidence for God. It is the argument from contingency. And friend, read the rest of your posting again and honestly tell me that it doesn't sound just a tad arrogant. I mean why would I have an argument with you, if you have a priori ruled religion utterly out of court?
@james7300 - Compassion is "Sympathetic pity and concern for the sufferings or misfortunes of others." So unless you are implying that you suffer from some sort of intellectual suffering or misfortune (which is the only type I can see given the nature of your conversation thus far), how does this comment make any sense whatsoever?
Please don't try to paint Fr. Barron as harsh or lacking compassion simply because he doesn't accept your assertions. It is misleading and dishonest.
@Roper122 - No one pushed any buttons. It's called a conversation, where a person says one thing and another responds. Stating a pretty clear fact (the Dawkins comment) and making an intelligent recommendation (watch William Lane Craig) can hardly be presented as a reaction of frustration or anger resulting from having one's buttons pushed! More silly implications... please just discuss the issue at hand!
@danieljosephwilliams " a reaction of frustration or anger resulting from having one's buttons pushed! More silly implications... please just discuss the issue at hand! '
- To each his own... but there were two exclamation marks and accusations of being " silly " in your response ... if that's not a reaction to having buttons pushed, it's a pretty fair approximation.
( Oh and the Dawkins comment wasn't a fact at all, watching William Lane Craig is rarely intelligent... )
@Roper122 - Roper, I'm sure you would like to think that you have some sort of button-pushing prowess, but I am not upset or anything of the sort. I feel pity and a strange sense of amusement, but no frustration or anger. Exclamation points are a commonly used punctuation mark denoting emphasis, not necessarily a negative reaction. Your contradictory remarks are noted, but your response is hardly a logical/well-thought-out reply to my assertion. If you'd like, let's discuss.
- Odd that you didn't use any in that post then, perhaps your reaction wasn't quite so negative this time? Regardless my initial point wasn't about you, and I'd hardly expect anyone to admit to it anyway.
" your response is hardly a logical/well-thought-out reply "
@Roper122 - Do you have anything constructive to say about the issue at hand? All you have offered so far are contradictory remarks and sarcasm. I suggest that you engage the issue and its proponents at an intellectual level, and that you research (deeply) the issues which you attack. It would be preferable if this occurred before you posted again, but if you must, you can do it as the conversation moves along.
@Roper122 - The issue at hand, or that which should be the issue at hand, is the video under which we are commenting. So, post something about the video if you want to discuss it. That is, after all, the reason we are here (or at least why I'm here).
You should make an argument which has not already been made, responded to, and refuted regarding the contents of this video or the topics immediately relevant to said contents. That is what we are waiting to see.
- Already have… you're just too busy digging a hole for yourself to notice. I've said many times, the video was ill-advised and in poor taste at best, and cunning and self serving at worst.
" You should make an argument which has not already been made, responded to, and refuted "
- I did, and it hasn't been… it's been ignored…which was to be expected.
@Roper122 - What was the argument you made? This will have to be a well-thought-out, logical series of ideas, not simply an opinion like "the video was in ill taste." And you will have to be willing to understand our rebuttals based on ancient Catholic thought. Once we explain our rationale, you cannot reject it simply because you disagree with it, claiming that we are not really espousing Catholic thought. Fr. Barron's claims are based on historical fact and ancient thought.
@Roper122 - So because I can't prove that morals are anything but biological on you terms, you assume I am incorrect and you are correct? I'm waiting for a logical response to my comments...
@Roper122 & @TheMJtheGOD - Now it is time to challenge atheism, since it is being offered as reasonable and a good alternative to that put forth in the above video.
Atheism believes that morality is the result of random biological processes, and has evolved with humankind. I can quote so many atheists on this, so I'm going to assume you know and adhere to this POV. So you think that morals are just a collective agreement based on a series of electro-chemical reactions in the brain.
@Roper122 - Atheists like Dawkins call themselves "Brights" and religious people "Dims." Perhaps you consider yourselves "Brights," or maybe you hadn't thought about it. Either way, people who hold the same position as you consider themselves the next step in the evolutionary process because they have transcended the "need/biological tendency" to believe in God. Therefore, they place themselves above religious people from a genetic and intellectual standpoint.
@Roper122 - Now from this point of view, morality becomes a bit tricky, as do right and wrong. Atheists will claim again and again that religion is the cause of all of the world's problems, and that most people who have committed atrocities have been religious. So now it comes to this question: If our belief in religion is biological in origin, how can it be said that we are evil or wrong for holding such a belief? Can it be wrong for a pancreas to secrete insulin, or for a heart to beat?
@Roper122 - If our brains are wired to believe in God, why are atheists trying to convince us that God doesn't exist? Wouldn't it be equally productive to try convincing a stomach to stop digesting? If biology is the basis for morality, we lowly evolutionary slowpokes are not to blame for our belief and cannot be blamed for anything we do as a result of our belief. After all, it is a natural process!
@Roper122 - An atheist named JBS Haldane recognized this problem long ago, writing "If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motion of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true… and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms." Blind belief of and faith in science, evolution, and the whole bit leads to uncertainty about anything and subjectivity abounding.
@Roper122 - I said a lot more than just a few "boring" comments about Dawkins... aaaaaand still waiting for an intelligent response. Please move on from "nah-ah!" and "no, you're boring!"
@Roper122 - So you are going to refuse to discuss the logical conclusion of your system of thought... or do you acknowledge that you are wasting time by commenting on this video according to your view
@Roper122 - I am not trying to ban opinions. I am saying that some opinions are untrue, and others are true. I'm also saying that atheism claims that there is no true, just biological predetermination
@Roper122 - Yes Roper, I know atheism's definition. I am talking about the beliefs held by atheists and what they use to replace God; namely, science.
@danieljosephwilliams - No, you're making an unwarranted attempt to apply absolutes. Even if your distortions were true, you still can't prove my opinion is necessarily wrong. You fail twice.
@Roper122 - Oh Roper, still making claims about me being wrong and failing. If I am wrong, tell me how what I posted below is incorrect. You can use your "quote, respond" approach on that endeavor.
@Roper122 - I am talking about the section challenging atheism and belief in science/evolution as the source of morality. Refute the logic there instead of claiming it to be illogical. Go for it.
@Roper122- I have shown that morality means nothing when it is based on changeable biological processes. Morality is supposed to be a code by which people live their lives resulting in their happiness
@Roper122 - Please see (current) pages 21-75 of the below comments to see an explanation of what we believe. It is in those pages that many of these things have already been discussed.
@danieljosephwilliams Richard Carrier authored an excellent introduction to Metaphysical Naturalism called, "Sense and Goodness without God". It is comprehensive and also written for the general public.
@TheMJtheGOD - David Wood authored a rebuttal to Richard Carrier in his book "Good 'n' Senseless Without God." You can find it at AnsweringInfidels [dot] com, if you would like to review it.
@danieljosephwilliams Evolution shaped who we are including our morality, which was then expressed in the code of Hammurabi, Levitical law, Sharia law, etc.
@Roper122 - Of, and it's not what you _must_ believe, but what you _do_ believe. I know, now I'm a bad guy for telling you what you believe. Did you read the comments below?
@Roper122 - If free will doesn't exist then your opinion is a biological reaction to a stimulus. If that is the case, it _is_ useless and no more valuable than a sneeze. I don't believe that, but...
@Roper122 - So if that is the case, why in the world are you wasting both your and my time commenting? To express your opinions? At least my beliefs allow for me to think you are wrong...
@danieljosephwilliams - Unfortunately for you, I'm allowed to think you're wrong, I'm also allowed to see your lack of proof. Besides, what a belief allows, doesn't justify it's truth value. Sorry.
@Roper122 - Yes, you can think I am wrong, but you can also be wrong about that. And you cannot believe that your opinion is better than mine, unless you toss out secular atheism.
@Roper122 - Calling my comments nonsense does not exactly count as a logical response. I just challenged your belief system, and see no real defense. What do you have a problem with in the comments?
@Roper122 - So why do atheists get mad at theists? If we are biologically predetermined to believe, what have we done wrong? If evolution has shaped our morals, why get upset at us and call our ideas "ill-advised and in poor taste at best, and cunning and self-serving at worst?" It makes little sense to rail against the natural processes of our bodies. That is, if you really believe that morality is a purely biological reality.
@Roper122 - So free will doesn't exist by your accounting, because free will implies freedom from constraint in the decision-making process. If you have "faith that our mental processes are as much a product of blind, irrational and material forces as everything else and therefore no more assured of revealing The Truth than any other chemical process," you cannot claim that your viewpoint is correct any more than you can claim that Fr. Barron's is "ill-advised" or "self-serving."
@Roper122 - So please, either recognize that your system of thought does not even allow for the assertion that theism is wrong or evil. Recognize also that trying to persuade us of anything is also futile according to the logical conclusion of your belief system.
Now if you are interested in free will, the ability to persuade people of one thing or another, right and wrong, and many other excellent things, please feel free to become Catholic/Christian. There's always room for more!
@Roper122 - Finally, understand that disagreement and calling you out on illogical or useless comments does not imply anger or "having one's buttons pushed" (that is, unless responding to a textual address is considered having one's buttons pushed, that is). So let's talk about the video. That is the discussion I was alluding to in yesterday's comment. Please, no more distracting or illogical comments. Let's talk, not troll.
@danieljosephwilliams " no more distracting or illogical comments. Let's talk, not troll. "
- Well, you haven't shown anything I've said to be illogical.
You've answered a post directed at someone else, with a comment that you can't defend or back up. ( you have no way of knowing if someone else's " buttons have been pushed " ) and unfortunately for you I am allowed my opinion.
So you are interrupting with an argument that you can't possibly prove.
@Roper122 - When James made a comment about Fr. Barron lacking compassion (which I called him out on because it was illogical and misleading), you implied that Fr. Barron had had his buttons pushed. This is an equally illogical assertion, considering that the initial assertion was illogical ("not getting much compassion here"). You assumed that Fr. Barron's responses were fueled by some sort of frustration when, in fact, he is only trying to help you!
@Roper122 - Taking a look at the evidence we have regarding Fr. Barron's response, it is clear that your assertion about "button pushing" has no merit. If you find your comment so logical, please explain how Fr. Barron stating that Dawkins irrationally hates religion and his suggestion to James to watch some William Lane Craig bear out some sort of expression of frustration. I think you'll have a very difficult time.
@danieljosephwilliams Actually, Professor Dawkins' dismissal of religion and god is entirely logical. Professor Dawkins is basing his view on Evidence and Reason. Billy Lane Craig is rather lame. His arguments are infantile. Yeah, right, proving the existence of god with syllogism!! LOL!!!!!
@TheMJtheGOD - I think it is more likely that you have defined evidence in a limited way, thereby inhibiting your ability to recognize evidence of God's existence. There is a great deal of historical evidence that Jesus existed, so you should at least believe that. As for his walking on water, it would be difficult to disprove from your approach, given that you cannot scientifically test His ability (or lack thereof) to walk on water.
@danieljosephwilliams Ha Ha Ha!! Exactly!! Just as I suspected!! The ability to walk on water unaided defies physics and reality, yet your default is to assume that the Zombie Jew could!!!
@TheMJtheGOD - Your system of thought is shaped by a philosophical systems called postmodernism, which relies on science to prove everything (which is impossible and absurd). The perspective from which you approach this issue means that you will automatically reject anything but science, science, science.
I will now lay out why atheism and postmodernism are silly and self-contradicting. If you will, read the articles which can be found by searching the terms in the following post...
@TheMJtheGOD - Your position is fundamentally shaped by postmodernism! You should study postmodernism if you think otherwise. And your repeated insistence that William Lane Craig is a "putz" or the like makes it no more true. It is a bit adolescent, but not a good argument.
P.S. Did you read what I provided you? If not, it is time to begin posting the main points so we can have an adult conversation.
@danieljosephwilliams No, I am a Scientist. My position is based on Science Realism, which is diametrically opposed to Postmodernism. Science Realists and Postmodernists have been feuding for years. I am not sure why you ascribe PoMo to me.
@TheMJtheGOD - That's actually very interesting... and it is also interesting that postmodernism is a departure from scientific realism. So now I ask you this:
You believe that scientific theories get increasingly better and, therefore, closer to explaining all of reality. You would say that this is the case throughout all of history up to this point. So now, please explain to me how your faith that science will eventually explain everything is different from my faith in God.
@TheMJtheGOD - You believe that eventually science will figure everything out, including the Big Bang and morality. To believe in something, to count on it to do something which you do not understand at some point in the future, to believe that we will eventually be enlightened regarding the mysteries of the universe... how is that different from my believing that God is the source of creation and that we will know everything when we met Him?
@TheMJtheGOD - Both are faith in the unseen, in the unknown. In both instances we have a set of information that we know about what we believe, and we trust in the rest. You cannot explain the origin of the universe except to say that the Big Bang was where it all started (as far as we know). Either God (a being without matter) created matter because He IS existence itself, or the matter and energy were just there and exploded. I'd say both require faith.
@TheMJtheGOD - Google search "The Incoherence of Atheism, Part 1." Read that article, and then parts 2 and 3 (just search for parts 2 & 3 via Google). If this is unacceptable, I can take up a great deal of comment space. Either way is fine with me.
William Lane Craig is an excellent debater and logician, and no one can make any other case from an objective point of view. His arguments are very sound and reasonable, even if you disagree with him.
@danieljosephwilliams I am only getting 178 characters. Billy Boy is not a great logician. He invokes Science incorrectly, then when True Scientists correct him, he decries Science!
@TheMJtheGOD - Did you read what I directed you towards? Are you going to try and discuss that? It is more important than the merits of William Lane Craig. I disagree with your characterization...
@Roper122 Other than pointing out to everyone that you are a troll who should not be responded to by anyone in this thread, I have nothing more to say.
Pi10sco 15 minutes ago
@roper122 Not a parody, buddy. Just holding a mirror up to you. If it doesn't look pretty you have no one to blame but yourself.
Pi10sco 21 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Pi10sco " Not a parody, buddy "
- That's unfortunate
" Just holding a mirror up to you "
- Oh I see.. the argumentative equivalent of " I'm not.. you are ! "
You'll excuse me if I don't lose any sleep.
Let me know if you bring out " Liar Liar Pants on fire "
I want to be prepared for your big guns.
Roper122 20 hours ago
@wordonfirevideo From one Hitchen's fan to another, a word of clarification:
H. used the silly imagery (skyfairy, celestial north korea etc) as a stylistic device to demonstrate the ugly antilogy in the argumentation of many believers, who -on the one hand- deliberately profess a reductive and diffuse account of god in order to avoid a "reason/evidence debate", but -on the other hand- have no problem at all to make the most outstanding "this world" claims about what their god thinks and wants.
sooperfukker 2 days ago
@wordonfirevideo [2]
That's the thing I can't get around my own head either:
Although most christians accepted that god doesn't interfer in our daily lives by sending femines, hurricanes and diseases and that the universe doesn't spin around us, they can't really stop making outrageous claims about what god thinks and wants, selectively quoting parts of the bible to stipulate their very own view of how things "ought to be"... [cont]
sooperfukker 2 days ago
@wordonfirevideo [3] As an example:
Some people argue against homosexuality, citing Leviticus as old testament authority.
I wonder if these people see the other things in Leviticus as equally profound, like the rules for sacrifice rituals, food regulations, punishment for blasphemy or the number of prayers services on Atonement day...
Or to put it bluntly:
How can these people quote something as authoritive, when this alleged authority also contains alienating, pagan or even nonsensical stuff?
sooperfukker 2 days ago
@Pi10sco ...Oh the irony, drop some names, say nothing of substance, through out some weak insults, and accuse me of baiting. : ) Couldn't be funnier if you'd written it as a parody. Somehow I'll live.
Roper122 2 days ago
@Roper122 You remind me of Thrasymachus in the Socratic dialogues. Full of bluster, verbal abuse of the opponent, and wholly lacking in any intellectual weight. At least Thrasymachus walked out on the argument. We have to still be burdened by your tiresomeness. Your polemical comments are boring. Go bait someone else for a change.
Pi10sco 2 days ago
@danieljosephwilliams Zzzzzzzz, go for it.
Roper122 4 days ago
@Roper122 - So, philosophy is the love of wisdom (from Greek philia = love & sophia = wisdom). It is based on rational argument and is undertaken systematically (step-by-step, methodical). It requires us to start from one point and work out from there, making connections as we go along. So I am curious what you think is the fundamental or initial good. My contention is that "being" or "existence" is fundamental, because existence is a prerequisite for any other experience. What do you think?
danieljosephwilliams 3 days ago
@danieljosephwilliams " What do you think? "
- I think you like the sound of your own voice, and you're straying so far off the topic that it's embarrassing.
I think you're making boring obvious statements like " existence is a prerequisite " ( something your god has a problem with ) , and I think you're trying to tack on value judgements by calling this " good ".
Even this early on I think you're transparent... but go on if you want.
Roper122 3 days ago
@Roper122 - All I'm trying to do is establish a foundation for the rest of our conversation. Why are you insulting me? Please explain what you mean when you say that God has a problem with existence. We maintain that God IS existence, so it would be difficult to prove that He has a problem with it.
Sooo... you don't think that existing, AKA being alive, is good? You would rather call your life indifferent or apathetic?
Oh, and please refrain from your negativity. It is pointless.
danieljosephwilliams 3 days ago
@danieljosephwilliams " All I'm trying to do is establish a foundation for the rest of our conversation "
- No, you're trying to avoid the issue.
" Why are you insulting me? "
- You need to get out more if you consider this insulting
." We maintain that God IS existence "
- I maintain he's not : ) Look up atheism.
" You would rather call your life indifferent or apathetic? "
- No, you would, without proof.
Oh and please refrain from your time wasting... it's pointless.
Roper122 2 days ago
@Roper122 - Philosophy should help us discern how to discover true happiness and live a life filled with love. When people simply philosophize for the sake of philosophizing, they miss the point and end up confusing (and annoying) people who are interested in wisdom and happiness. I wonder, have you have ever heard of sophism? Even *Wikipedia* makes a distinction between sophism and philosophy. Much of modern philosophy has fallen into sophism, or using rhetoric without seeking true meaning.
danieljosephwilliams 3 days ago
@Roper122 - Hence, you find people like Jacques Derrida arguing that language cannot convey any meaning because we cannot really understand what one another are saying. He thinks that meaning changes from one meaning to the next, so even from second to second we lose any understanding of one another's true intent. He would say that someone who says "the bluebird flew away" could be indicating to him that modern political systems are corrupt. Of course, no one can tell him anything different.
danieljosephwilliams 3 days ago
@Roper122 - His (postmodern philosophical) idea that language is useless leads us into nothing but confusion. It does not help advance mankind in any way. At best it makes people think about his ideas, which according to him cannot be conveyed or understood to begin with! It is this type of foolishness which demonstrates bad philosophy.
Now, because (postmodern) philosophy has convinced many people that everything is relative and nothing to good or bad, I may be labelled intolerant...
danieljosephwilliams 3 days ago
@Roper122 - So do you subscribe to the view that everything is relative and nothing is necessarily right or wrong? Do you believe that the same action performed under the same circumstances can be considered positive on one day and negative on the next? Or do you reject distinctions like "positive" and negative," "good" and "bad?"
I'm trying to figure out what you believe so that we can discuss the logical conclusions of your viewpoint.
danieljosephwilliams 3 days ago
@danieljosephwilliams ... 5 posts later... and still no point.
If you cannot justify your position ( which was exactly my point ) then simply move on.
This does not center around what I " subscribe to ".
" I'm trying to figure out what you believe so that we can discuss the logical conclusions of your viewpoint. "
- My " viewpoint " is that you have no proof of yours. None.
Pointless rambling notwithstanding.
Roper122 2 days ago
@Roper122 - Roper, how many times must I make this point? I cannot prove something to you without first understanding what you consider proof. That is the whole point of this exercise. I have a hard time believing that you have not grasped this by now.
If you don't recognize philosophy as the basis for proof, then this is a waste of time. If you only consider empirical scientific evidence to be proof, then this is also a waste of time because God is not a physical, material being.
danieljosephwilliams 2 days ago
@danieljosephwilliams " first understanding what you consider proof "
- You haven't even tried.. not once.. not even in the slightest.
I've said nothing about empirical evidence... I've just asked for proof.
Now surely you have proof.. and surely it's what you consider proof....
and surely you have an argument for why you consider it proof.
But instead.. you waste time, and write your " get out " clause before you even begin.
I'm sorry but it's predictable and cowardly.
Roper122 2 days ago
@Roper122 - Remember when you said I was making illogical statements by assuming that I knew what other people were feeling? You're doing it when you assume that I'm "squirming" and planning to "run away." Just sayin'.
Roper, I. am. asking. you. what . you. consider. proof. That. is. a. gesture. indicative. of. a. desire. to. gain. understanding. of. your. viewpoint.
So now I'll continue to ask you questions to establish the parameters of the rest of this conversation.
danieljosephwilliams 1 day ago
@danieljosephwilliams " You're doing it when you assume that I'm "squirming" and planning to "run away."
- Except I'm not talking about a third party, I'm directing it right at you. You can disagree but it's not illogical
" I. am. asking. you. what . you. consider. proof "
- and. I. asked. you. to. present. some. So. far. you. have. avoided. even. trying.
Not. only. can. you. not. defend. your . position. you . can't. even. defend. what . you. consider. proof.
Roper122 1 day ago
@Roper122 - You are just as obligated to provide proof for your viewpoints as I am to provide proof of mine. So start doing so.
Ask me a basic question (try not to load it) and I will answer it. This way we can both explore each others' viewpoints.
danieljosephwilliams 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@danieljosephwilliams " You are just as obligated to provide proof for your viewpoints as I am to provide proof of mine "
- You're the one making the claim ( well, making a claim and then avoiding having to back it up )
You can keep avoiding this as much as you like, it should be obvious by now that I won't be sidetracked.
Roper122 1 day ago
@Roper122 - By the way, I must do this to make a logical presentation of my view to you in a way that you will really understand, and not just read. I'm going for an actual communication between us, and "meeting of the minds" so to speak.
So I can tell you about faith and revelation, about morality and saints... I can tell you my entire life story or the lives of any number of religious people like me. Even if I do, if you decide it is nonsense, then to you that is the truth.
danieljosephwilliams 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@danieljosephwilliams " I can tell you my entire life story or the lives of any number of religious people like me. Even if I do, if you decide it is nonsense, then to you that is the truth. "
- I can tell you my life story, I can tell you the life stories of people who disagree with you... you wouldn't consider that proof of anything.
But you are communicating with me... you're communicating your lack of proof.
Which was initially my point... days and days ago.
Roper122 1 day ago
@Roper122 - Rest assured, I will eventually make assertions about my beliefs. It will be when I can do so in a way that will be fruitful.
So now that we agree that existence is fundamental to any other human experience, do you agree that truth, justice, compassion, love, hope, and other "universal human experiences" are rooted in biology alone, or something more?
danieljosephwilliams 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@danieljosephwilliams " Rest assured, I will eventually make assertions about my beliefs "
- Yeah.. because you've been so forthcoming...
" do you agree that truth, justice, compassion, love, hope, and other "universal human experiences" are rooted in biology alone, or something more? "
- Human experiences? Human experiences are rooted in biology by definition.
But regardless, I agree that you cannot prove in any way that they aren't.
I also agree that you're wandering off point again.
Roper122 1 day ago
@Roper122 - So this conversation does, in fact, center around what you "subscribe to." Your outlook influences the approach of proving something. Just as I would try to use car analogies to explain something non-mechanical to a mechanic, I will try using whatever analogy best suits your outlook to help you understand... or in other words, to "prove" what I have to say.
So once again, can you please answer the questions instead of avoiding them?
danieljosephwilliams 2 days ago
@danieljosephwilliams " So once again, can you please answer the questions instead of avoiding them? "
- Nope, I'm not the one making the claim. Sorry.
Of course you know that your " proof " will fail, so you try to set yourself up an escape before you even start.
Present something, and then present an argument for why it should be considered " proof " ... it's not hard.
We both know you won't.
Feel free to continue squirming.
Roper122 2 days ago
I loved too! Although he was wrong on God, he was sincere and rational. And a very, very good writer.
5555miles 6 days ago
@vanman778 " funny how atheists pay the most attention.. ". - It's a video about an atheist. Funny how atheists would pay attention to that.
Roper122 6 days ago
@danieljosephwilliams ..Don't be laughable. If you find my parameters reasonable? Provide some proof, then we'll discuss parameters. You're just setting yourself up to run away. I'll tell you what I believe, I believe that you have zero proof...and you know it. Try again.
Roper122 6 days ago
@Roper122 - How do I provide you proof? What do you consider proof? Scientific, empirical data measuring God-units? I'm asking you if you want to approach it from a scientific, philosophical/metaphysical, theological (yeah right, I know), or some other angle. I don't intend to run away. I'm trying to move this conversation forward! It's a bit difficult to decide on how to discuss an infinite reality with anyone, let alone someone who has a bias against said reality...
danieljosephwilliams 6 days ago
@danieljosephwilliams " How do I provide you proof? "
- Obviously this is a big problem for you.
" theological (yeah right, I know) "
- Exactly... you do know what's wrong there.
You're simply setting yourself up, so that when your evidence fails, you can reject my " parameters " as unreasonable...
Meanwhile you can continue make unprovable statements about morality.
It's a time wasting merry-go-round.
One parameter I do know.. is that this video was in poor taste.
Roper122 5 days ago
@Roper122 - Sooo... do you want to approach this from a philosophical standpoint? I will just ask individual questions now so you can give "yes" or "no" answers in hopes that we can continue the conversation. It seems that you are running from the conversation more than me. I'm just trying to figure out which method is acceptable for you. Sooo, once again: How about a philosophical conversation, Roper? Then we can get to morality after the foundation is laid.
danieljosephwilliams 5 days ago
it seems like most people commenting here are athiests. its funny how athiests pay the most attention to videos on God by religious men. its like your dying to have someone prove the existance of God.
vanman778 1 week ago
@vanman778 Read Mark 6:20 to understand why.
wordonfirevideo 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@wordonfirevideo " Read Mark 6:20 to understand why. "
- Does Mark 6:20 say that atheists would tend to comment on a video about an atheist?
Oh I see, ctually it says
" When Herod heard John, he was greatly puzzled; yet he liked to listen to him. "
Much like you liked to listen to Hitchens...
it's all in how you interpret it ; )
Roper122 6 days ago
@wordonfirevideo Father,I am an atheist and I agree with you that it seems atheists such as Hitchens and even myself seem to be more passionate about the existence of God then many theists and I would also agree with you that Hitchens never did argue well against the best theist arguments.But this passion for the existence of God, can't it just be a result of atheists' interest in philosophy?After all, the question why does something exist rather than nothing is one that gets everyone pondering.
JAEKIM10 3 days ago
@danieljosephwilliams ..No, you haven't shown anything about morality...you've just reiterated what you believe...which is pointless. Worse still you've repeatedly failed to provide any proof
Roper122 1 week ago
@Roper122 - First, you must state the parameters in which you feel that proof can be given. For example, if I give you a series of proofs for the existence of God and materials which explain and defend those proofs, then you may come back and say that you don't agree with them. From what I have gathered about your point of view, your disagreement is enough of a basis for disregarding anything I put forward. You have to state the parameters, or I will not know how to proceed.
danieljosephwilliams 1 week ago
@Roper122 - If I find your parameters reasonable, I can begin to put forward a coherent explanation. If not, I will not be able to communicate to you in any meaningful way, and I don't want to waste my time (or yours) going in circles. If you believe in universal subjectivity, then nothing I say will convince you of anything, which is a very postmodernist problem. Reminds me of Jacques Derrida. So basically, what do you consider morality, or what is real to you?
danieljosephwilliams 1 week ago
Ironic and telling how a supposedly religious person like this Fr. Barron takes it upon himself to lie and proclaim that Mr. Hitchens was religious, when Mr. Hitchens intellectually fought against religion. More evidence that an allegedly religious person is not more moral than an irreligious one. What a disingenuous person. Stop shamelessly lying to support your ridiculous position.
TheMJtheGOD 1 week ago
@TheMJtheGOD - The ideas you are expressing originated in the "Enlightenment" Era. To view reason and faith as mutually exclusive is to do both a disservice. I suggest that you read pre-"Enlightnment" thinkers and come to understand that their way of thinking is limited and limiting.
God is not a leprechaun any more than you are a peacock wearing a tutu. Let's avoid the mockery and over-simplification of the topic at hand and deal with it like adults.
danieljosephwilliams 1 week ago
@danieljosephwilliams Are you insane??? Of course Reason and faith are mutually exclusive!! Reason is based on Evidence - not circumstantial evidence or anecdotal evidence - but properly controlled Empirical Evidence. Faith is the belief in something in either a) the total absence of evidence, or b) the face of overwhelming contradictory evidence. For example, although it is physically impossible for a person to walk on water unaided, christians have faith that jesus did.
Embrace Reason!!
TheMJtheGOD 1 week ago
Morality does not need the belief in an invisible leprechaun in the sky. Morality has evolved via Natural Selection.
TheMJtheGOD 1 week ago
@danieljosephwilliams You are a voice of reason and faith. Bless you.
Pi10sco 1 week ago
@Pi10sco Reason and faith are mutually exclusive. Reject superstition, embrace Reason!
TheMJtheGOD 1 week ago
good commentary.
RESIDENTRYAN 1 week ago
@danieljosephwilliams Dostoyevsky used this theme beautifully in his novels. Not too long after, his native Russia reaped the bitter fruit sown by those who believed the ends justified the means.
Pi10sco 1 week ago
@Pi10sco - Yes, that is very true. Dostoyevsky was a brilliant author and a keen thinker. I have enjoyed reading his work.
danieljosephwilliams 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You can't hop from expressing 'love' as a personal ideal and set of emotions through limited language within a material world to saying that, because 'God' becomes the misnomer, the synonym for your abstract thought, and - amongst many substantive definitions - God is 'to be'/'existence' as a pure neoplatonic Form, ergo God exists 'outside'. You take an ambiguous word (love, justice, goodness), and qualify it with another ambiguous word ('God'), which you define abstractly (to be).
Judas130 1 week ago
Comment removed
Judas130 1 week ago
If Fr. Barron states that God is only justice then he is an atheist and all just atheists are Christians. He makes out like his version of Christianity is the standard. It is not.
RolandOnTheRoad 1 week ago
@RolandOnTheRoad - Having studied real Catholic theology and with full knowledge that the views expressed by Fr. Barron are historically and authentically Catholic, I must point out that you are mistaken. We have been teaching this for thousands of years, and these views have Biblical precedence. You may not be aware of it and it may not be what we speak about as a general rule, but it is completely legitimate and accurate.
danieljosephwilliams 1 week ago
@danieljosephwilliams Thank you for this. Now I believe Slavoj Zizek when he says that only an atheist can be a true Christian. If you are not an atheist you misunderstood Jesus and totally missed the point of the bible.
RolandOnTheRoad 1 week ago
@RolandOnTheRoad - Your comment about Slavoj Zizek makes absolutely no sense. Are you seriously trying to contend that someone who doesn't believe in God can be a follower of God? That is nonsense! I have no idea how you came to that conclusion. In fact, I'm sure it is impossible to do so based on what I said. Furthermore, having read the Bible and studied it in the historical and cultural contexts in which it was written, I can tell you that believing in God is the only sane conclusion.
danieljosephwilliams 1 week ago
@RolandOnTheRoad - Many Catholics do not study their faith, whether because of lack of opportunity (they don't know where to look), lack of interest, or laziness. So these people would not speak about it. Non-Catholic Christians are potentially less likely to study Catholic theological/philosophical writings, so they wouldn't speak about it. However, it is not as of this information is hidden or hard to access. You just have to be inquisitive and diligent, and you can find it.
danieljosephwilliams 1 week ago
@danieljosephwilliams This kind of Christianity is just a break down of language. If you are saying the universe is God then yes we all believe in the universe. Atheists refute the main definition in the dictionary. "The creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority" I'm sorry but "Justice" didn't create the universe and "Justice" doesn't love me.
RolandOnTheRoad 1 week ago
@RolandOnTheRoad Sure it does! Justice itself, Goodness itself, Beauty itself are all proper names of God, since God is the unconditioned act of Being itself. And Being itself is not "the universe." The universe is just the collectivity of conditioned things and events. God is what stands behind them, or in more classical language, creates them.
wordonfirevideo 1 week ago
@wordonfirevideo justice, goodness, and beauty are relative words across cultural boundaries, mutually exclusive between individuals, and are objectively meaningless in terms of definition and value. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, goodness is subjective. Textually, they are substantive only as signs charged by their users. Its like Anselm's argument for the Fool in reverse: a theist uses the sign 'Love = God', therefore the God must exist outside of a mutable world?
Judas130 1 week ago
@Judas130 - No Judas, only modern philosophical movements allow for this type of thought process. Moral relativism (and relativism/universal subjectivity in general) is dangerous and illogical. Followed to its logical conclusion, it leads to a great deal of selfishness, violence, and anarchy. If truth or good is based on my idea of truth or good, then I may decide to do something(s) entirely perverse and harmful to myself and society.
danieljosephwilliams 1 week ago
@Judas130 - There are many examples of individuals or groups which subscribed to your view that good is subjective and cannot be limited by the constraints of Judeo-Christian thought. Not all of these individuals committed horrible atrocities (of course, because not all of them strayed very far from the basic ideas of justice, love, etc). However, those who did define good as "a pure race" or good as their own pleasure over the well-being of others are known now as genocidal people, rapists...
danieljosephwilliams 1 week ago
Comment removed
Judas130 1 week ago
@danieljosephwilliams Those 'bad' people you define happen to be both religious and secular across history. You know this. Moses encouraged the massacre of the women, men and children of ethnic minorities. Abraham was more than willing to murder his son on a rock because of the voices in his head. In practice, all is relative. My point is that it is not the Church or 'God' that need monopolise on these concepts, which find their expression in the process of evolution.
Judas130 1 week ago
@Judas130 - Yes, there are bad people in both secular and religious circles. In both instances, they created their own versions of what is right and wrong, and they acted on those views. The affiliation of the person does not make their actions any more or less excusable, nor does it necessarily imply that their affiliation has a causal relationship with the viewpoint which they espouse and the actions in which they partake.
danieljosephwilliams 1 week ago
@Judas130 - Without understanding the historical and cultural context of the Biblical stories or their moral value, they become more confusing than informative. This is one example of an instance in which a little knowledge is dangerous, and a sufficient amount of knowledge is helpful.
danieljosephwilliams 1 week ago
@Judas130 - If you truly want to gain an understanding of the reasons for God's movements throughout history (and particularly in the Bible), I suggest that you avoid reading only the writings of anti-Christian/Catholic or anti-religion authors and take a more academic approach to the issue. Read the writings of Biblical scholars and theologians. With a balanced view of the facts, one can make a better judgment about the merit of ideological constructs of all kinds, including moral systems.
danieljosephwilliams 1 week ago
@Judas130 - Essentially, it comes down to "the end never justifies the means." We see God as the ultimate end. Obeying His laws and following Him are the purpose of our lives, resulting in eternal union with Him. Considering that He created us and that He knows what is best for all people (including non-Christian/Catholic people), following His will is the best course of action we can take.
danieljosephwilliams 1 week ago
@Judas130 - Speaking to your point about the development of ethical/moral systems and their ties with the process of evolution, I would like to challenge you to demonstrate that a biological process like evolution has had an impact on ethics/morals. My contention is that biological processes cannot effect change in the ethical/moral sphere. Perceptions of right and wrong can be changed in individuals who are biologically defective or altered by the use of substances, but not in principle.
danieljosephwilliams 1 week ago
@Judas130 - You will find it difficult to prove your assertion because there is certainly insufficient data. Most of recorded history lacks modern scientific measurement, so it would be very difficult to determine whether ethics/morals have "evolved" in conjunction with physical evolution. You may appeal to philosophy, but then you cannot ignore Christian/Catholic contributions to this field.
danieljosephwilliams 1 week ago
@Judas130 - If we explore health and happiness, even science points out the fact that, coincidentally, the societal constructs (like marriage between one man and one woman) which are encouraged by Christianity/Catholicism lead to authentic happiness. The merits of therapy were known to God long before modern psychology (the benefits of confession of wrongdoing instituted in the Sacrament of Reconciliation). Avoiding excess and a utilitarian approach to relationships... the list goes on.
danieljosephwilliams 1 week ago
@RolandOnTheRoad - Precisely what Fr. Barron said. This discussion about God and His many qualities can be found in past comments on this video. God IS existence (Biblical precedent = "I AM WHO AM" in Exodus 3:14), which means He is a prerequisite for the existence of anything else. He creates what He wills to create, including you. He loves what He creates as well, because He IS love. He is the source of all goodness, and anything less good is simply "further" from Him.
danieljosephwilliams 1 week ago
@RolandOnTheRoad - Hence, evil/sin is a movement "away from" God on the part of the sinning party. Perfect love (aka, God... see 1 John 4:16) is the fullness of union with God. This type of explanation can continue, if necessary. If you are interested in the logic/rationale, see the past comments.
P.S. I have never seen a solid refutation of religion in general or Catholicism in particular, by atheists or any others. And I have read. A lot.
danieljosephwilliams 1 week ago
You're a well-read man, would you say that your conception of God (which, to my ears, sounded Deistic - but its refreshing to hear it as in fact the norm in these Catholic institutions you were educated in) is essentially Platonic, having shunned the material conception of God? I'm seeing a lot of dualism here, moral abstracts, substantive phraseology... does 'God' become your synonym for these ideals, or a personification?
Judas130 2 weeks ago
You seem like a nice man, but your ideas of God are so abstract that I don't understand why you are a Catholic priest or indeed part of any organised religion at all. Why deny yourself a companion for life? Why persist with bizarre rituals if your idea of God is as you say?
james7300 2 weeks ago
@james7300 Well, friend, I learned my ideas of God at Mundelein Seminary in Chicago, Catholic University in Washington, D.C., and the Institut Catholique in Paris! Last time I checked, these were Catholic institutions! Why in the world would you think the Mass is a "bizarre ritual?" And I embraced celibacy as a path of love.
wordonfirevideo 2 weeks ago
@wordonfirevideo Thanks for the reply :) Do you never think 'What if none of it is true?' Especially after watching all those Hitchens videos? The man was an intellectual titan. Dawkins the same. I can't see past their logic. (I was raised Catholic by the way).
james7300 2 weeks ago
@james7300 Oh come on! I admired Hitchens as a writer and rhetorician, but he was far from "an intellectual titan." And Dawkins is a popularizer who harbors an irrational hatred for religion. Go get Robert Spitzer's book on arguments for God's existence and watch a real intellectual heavy-weight at work--or watch some of William Lane Craig's videos.
wordonfirevideo 2 weeks ago
@wordonfirevideo Ok lets get off the God track.There IS no evidence for God, but no-one will ever know if 'something' started the big bang. The real crux of the argument is that ALL religions are man made. No-one ever talked to a burning bush. No-one rose from the dead. God never spoke to Moses. All these fables were made by men. Maybe there is something out there (although I doubt it) but it's certainly not a Christian God.
james7300 2 weeks ago
@james7300 There is indeed evidence for God. It is the argument from contingency. And friend, read the rest of your posting again and honestly tell me that it doesn't sound just a tad arrogant. I mean why would I have an argument with you, if you have a priori ruled religion utterly out of court?
wordonfirevideo 2 weeks ago
@wordonfirevideo Well I said lets get off the God track but re the argument of contingency, who made God?
james7300 2 weeks ago
@james7300 To ask that question is simply to prove that you haven't grasped the nettle of the argument.
wordonfirevideo 2 weeks ago
@wordonfirevideo Not getting much compassion here.
james7300 2 weeks ago
@james7300 - Compassion is "Sympathetic pity and concern for the sufferings or misfortunes of others." So unless you are implying that you suffer from some sort of intellectual suffering or misfortune (which is the only type I can see given the nature of your conversation thus far), how does this comment make any sense whatsoever?
Please don't try to paint Fr. Barron as harsh or lacking compassion simply because he doesn't accept your assertions. It is misleading and dishonest.
divineofficer 2 weeks ago
@james7300 " Not getting much compassion here. "
- You pushed too many buttons.
Impressive though, you got all the way to
" Dawkins irrationally hates religion "
and
" watch some William Lane Craig ".
Roper122 2 weeks ago
@Roper122 - No one pushed any buttons. It's called a conversation, where a person says one thing and another responds. Stating a pretty clear fact (the Dawkins comment) and making an intelligent recommendation (watch William Lane Craig) can hardly be presented as a reaction of frustration or anger resulting from having one's buttons pushed! More silly implications... please just discuss the issue at hand!
danieljosephwilliams 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@danieljosephwilliams " a reaction of frustration or anger resulting from having one's buttons pushed! More silly implications... please just discuss the issue at hand! '
- To each his own... but there were two exclamation marks and accusations of being " silly " in your response ... if that's not a reaction to having buttons pushed, it's a pretty fair approximation.
( Oh and the Dawkins comment wasn't a fact at all, watching William Lane Craig is rarely intelligent... )
Roper122 1 week ago
@Roper122 - Roper, I'm sure you would like to think that you have some sort of button-pushing prowess, but I am not upset or anything of the sort. I feel pity and a strange sense of amusement, but no frustration or anger. Exclamation points are a commonly used punctuation mark denoting emphasis, not necessarily a negative reaction. Your contradictory remarks are noted, but your response is hardly a logical/well-thought-out reply to my assertion. If you'd like, let's discuss.
danieljosephwilliams 1 week ago
@danieljosephwilliams " Exclamation points are a commonly used punctuation mark "
- Odd that you didn't use any in that post then, perhaps your reaction wasn't quite so negative this time? Regardless my initial point wasn't about you, and I'd hardly expect anyone to admit to it anyway.
" your response is hardly a logical/well-thought-out reply "
- Oh I thought it out... quite well actually.
" If you'd like, let's discuss. "
- Oh feel free.. but you won't like it.
Roper122 1 week ago
@Roper122 - Do you have anything constructive to say about the issue at hand? All you have offered so far are contradictory remarks and sarcasm. I suggest that you engage the issue and its proponents at an intellectual level, and that you research (deeply) the issues which you attack. It would be preferable if this occurred before you posted again, but if you must, you can do it as the conversation moves along.
danieljosephwilliams 1 week ago
@danieljosephwilliams " Do you have anything constructive to say about the issue at hand? "
- Sure.. pick one.. so far you've given me nothing to answer.
Personally I think the whole video was ill-advised and I've stated that before.
But if there's anything else you want me to clarify, by all means ask...
So far you're just trying to defend my opinion on someone else's emotional state...
a pointless argument you can't win.
If you want to discuss anything else..feel free.
Roper122 1 week ago
@Roper122 - The issue at hand, or that which should be the issue at hand, is the video under which we are commenting. So, post something about the video if you want to discuss it. That is, after all, the reason we are here (or at least why I'm here).
You should make an argument which has not already been made, responded to, and refuted regarding the contents of this video or the topics immediately relevant to said contents. That is what we are waiting to see.
danieljosephwilliams 1 week ago
@danieljosephwilliams " So, post something about the video "
- Already have… you're just too busy digging a hole for yourself to notice. I've said many times, the video was ill-advised and in poor taste at best, and cunning and self serving at worst.
" You should make an argument which has not already been made, responded to, and refuted "
- I did, and it hasn't been… it's been ignored…which was to be expected.
Anytime you want to deal with it, feel free.
Roper122 1 week ago
@Roper122 - What was the argument you made? This will have to be a well-thought-out, logical series of ideas, not simply an opinion like "the video was in ill taste." And you will have to be willing to understand our rebuttals based on ancient Catholic thought. Once we explain our rationale, you cannot reject it simply because you disagree with it, claiming that we are not really espousing Catholic thought. Fr. Barron's claims are based on historical fact and ancient thought.
danieljosephwilliams 1 week ago
@danieljosephwilliams Fr. Barron's claims are based on historical fact and ancient thought "
- So the claim that Hitchens was religious is based on fact, and I'm not allowed to disagree.. good luck
Roper122 1 week ago
@Roper122 - So because I can't prove that morals are anything but biological on you terms, you assume I am incorrect and you are correct? I'm waiting for a logical response to my comments...
danieljosephwilliams 1 week ago
@danieljosephwilliams " So because I can't prove...you assume I am incorrect? "
- No, but I have no reason to assume you are correct either. You are at a dead end.
Now you're starting to catch on.
Roper122 1 week ago
@Roper122 & @TheMJtheGOD - Now it is time to challenge atheism, since it is being offered as reasonable and a good alternative to that put forth in the above video.
Atheism believes that morality is the result of random biological processes, and has evolved with humankind. I can quote so many atheists on this, so I'm going to assume you know and adhere to this POV. So you think that morals are just a collective agreement based on a series of electro-chemical reactions in the brain.
danieljosephwilliams 1 week ago
@danieljosephwilliams " you think that morals are just a collective agreement based on a series of electro-chemical reactions in the brain "
- Not necessarily, but I know you can't prove otherwise.
Roper122 1 week ago
@Roper122 - Atheists like Dawkins call themselves "Brights" and religious people "Dims." Perhaps you consider yourselves "Brights," or maybe you hadn't thought about it. Either way, people who hold the same position as you consider themselves the next step in the evolutionary process because they have transcended the "need/biological tendency" to believe in God. Therefore, they place themselves above religious people from a genetic and intellectual standpoint.
danieljosephwilliams 1 week ago
@Roper122 - Now from this point of view, morality becomes a bit tricky, as do right and wrong. Atheists will claim again and again that religion is the cause of all of the world's problems, and that most people who have committed atrocities have been religious. So now it comes to this question: If our belief in religion is biological in origin, how can it be said that we are evil or wrong for holding such a belief? Can it be wrong for a pancreas to secrete insulin, or for a heart to beat?
danieljosephwilliams 1 week ago
@Roper122 - If our brains are wired to believe in God, why are atheists trying to convince us that God doesn't exist? Wouldn't it be equally productive to try convincing a stomach to stop digesting? If biology is the basis for morality, we lowly evolutionary slowpokes are not to blame for our belief and cannot be blamed for anything we do as a result of our belief. After all, it is a natural process!
danieljosephwilliams 1 week ago
@Roper122 - An atheist named JBS Haldane recognized this problem long ago, writing "If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motion of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true… and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms." Blind belief of and faith in science, evolution, and the whole bit leads to uncertainty about anything and subjectivity abounding.
danieljosephwilliams 1 week ago
@danieljosephwilliams .. Any danger of you actually having a point?
Boring rants about Dawkins notwithstanding.
Roper122 1 week ago
@Roper122 - I said a lot more than just a few "boring" comments about Dawkins... aaaaaand still waiting for an intelligent response. Please move on from "nah-ah!" and "no, you're boring!"
danieljosephwilliams 1 week ago
@danieljosephwilliams " I said a lot more than just a few "boring" comments "
- I know, there was lots of unprovable nonsense.
I've moved on.. you've still yet to prove a thing. Keep trying.
Roper122 1 week ago
@Roper122 - So you are going to refuse to discuss the logical conclusion of your system of thought... or do you acknowledge that you are wasting time by commenting on this video according to your view
danieljosephwilliams 1 week ago
@danieljosephwilliams - Well you refuse to justify yours.
I am not wasting my time, I reject your interpretation and you have yet to prove it.
You're trying to ban opinions without god. Try again
Roper122 1 week ago
@Roper122 - I am not trying to ban opinions. I am saying that some opinions are untrue, and others are true. I'm also saying that atheism claims that there is no true, just biological predetermination
danieljosephwilliams 1 week ago
@danieljosephwilliams " I am not trying to ban opinions "
- You are, you are claiming that if free will doesn't exist then any opinion is meaningless.
( oh and atheism is a lack of belief in gods )
Roper122 1 week ago
@Roper122 - Yes Roper, I know atheism's definition. I am talking about the beliefs held by atheists and what they use to replace God; namely, science.
danieljosephwilliams 1 week ago
@danieljosephwilliams " I am talking about the beliefs held by atheists "
- Yes I understand it's much easier to win when you tell your opponent what he "must" believe
Roper122 1 week ago
@Roper122 - It's the logical conclusion to your system of thought. I'm enlightening you to your beliefs' ultimate incoherence.
danieljosephwilliams 1 week ago
@danieljosephwilliams - No, you're making an unwarranted attempt to apply absolutes. Even if your distortions were true, you still can't prove my opinion is necessarily wrong. You fail twice.
Roper122 1 week ago
@Roper122 - Oh Roper, still making claims about me being wrong and failing. If I am wrong, tell me how what I posted below is incorrect. You can use your "quote, respond" approach on that endeavor.
danieljosephwilliams 1 week ago
@danieljosephwilliams " still making claims about me being wrong "
- Yup, and still waiting for you to provide any proof.
Nothing about your version of naturalism implies that I must be wrong.
Roper122 1 week ago
@Roper122 - I am talking about the section challenging atheism and belief in science/evolution as the source of morality. Refute the logic there instead of claiming it to be illogical. Go for it.
danieljosephwilliams 1 week ago
@danieljosephwilliams " Refute the logic there "
- I don't need to explain morality - you do.
Nowhere have you shown that naturalism must be wrong about morality, only that it could be.
Roper122 1 week ago
@Roper122- I have shown that morality means nothing when it is based on changeable biological processes. Morality is supposed to be a code by which people live their lives resulting in their happiness
danieljosephwilliams 1 week ago
@danieljosephwilliams That morality can arise from evolutionary process.
TheMJtheGOD 1 week ago
@Roper122 - Please see (current) pages 21-75 of the below comments to see an explanation of what we believe. It is in those pages that many of these things have already been discussed.
danieljosephwilliams 1 week ago
@danieljosephwilliams Richard Carrier authored an excellent introduction to Metaphysical Naturalism called, "Sense and Goodness without God". It is comprehensive and also written for the general public.
TheMJtheGOD 1 week ago
@TheMJtheGOD - David Wood authored a rebuttal to Richard Carrier in his book "Good 'n' Senseless Without God." You can find it at AnsweringInfidels [dot] com, if you would like to review it.
danieljosephwilliams 1 week ago
@danieljosephwilliams Evolution shaped who we are including our morality, which was then expressed in the code of Hammurabi, Levitical law, Sharia law, etc.
TheMJtheGOD 1 week ago
@Roper122 - Of, and it's not what you _must_ believe, but what you _do_ believe. I know, now I'm a bad guy for telling you what you believe. Did you read the comments below?
danieljosephwilliams 1 week ago
@danieljosephwilliams " now I'm a bad guy for telling you what you believe "
- No, you're not bad, just wrong...
I need not believe what you say, and if I did, it does not make my opinions wrong.
Roper122 1 week ago
@Roper122 - If free will doesn't exist then your opinion is a biological reaction to a stimulus. If that is the case, it _is_ useless and no more valuable than a sneeze. I don't believe that, but...
danieljosephwilliams 1 week ago
@Roper122 - So if that is the case, why in the world are you wasting both your and my time commenting? To express your opinions? At least my beliefs allow for me to think you are wrong...
danieljosephwilliams 1 week ago
@danieljosephwilliams - Unfortunately for you, I'm allowed to think you're wrong, I'm also allowed to see your lack of proof. Besides, what a belief allows, doesn't justify it's truth value. Sorry.
Roper122 1 week ago
@Roper122 - Yes, you can think I am wrong, but you can also be wrong about that. And you cannot believe that your opinion is better than mine, unless you toss out secular atheism.
danieljosephwilliams 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@danieljosephwilliams " you cannot believe that your opinion is better than mine, unless you toss out secular atheism "
- Yes I can... it's a spectrum. Your opinion has no proof.
Roper122 1 week ago
@Roper122 - Calling my comments nonsense does not exactly count as a logical response. I just challenged your belief system, and see no real defense. What do you have a problem with in the comments?
danieljosephwilliams 1 week ago
@Roper122 - So why do atheists get mad at theists? If we are biologically predetermined to believe, what have we done wrong? If evolution has shaped our morals, why get upset at us and call our ideas "ill-advised and in poor taste at best, and cunning and self-serving at worst?" It makes little sense to rail against the natural processes of our bodies. That is, if you really believe that morality is a purely biological reality.
danieljosephwilliams 1 week ago
@Roper122 - So free will doesn't exist by your accounting, because free will implies freedom from constraint in the decision-making process. If you have "faith that our mental processes are as much a product of blind, irrational and material forces as everything else and therefore no more assured of revealing The Truth than any other chemical process," you cannot claim that your viewpoint is correct any more than you can claim that Fr. Barron's is "ill-advised" or "self-serving."
danieljosephwilliams 1 week ago
@danieljosephwilliams .. So you're claiming that because free will doesn't exist that I can't have an opinion on this poor taste video?
Well neither can you... ( meanwhile back in the real world )
Roper122 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@danieljosephwilliams .. So you're claiming that because free will doesn't exist that I can't have an opinion on this poor taste video?
Well neither can you... ( meanwhile back in the real world )
Roper122 1 week ago
@Roper122 - So please, either recognize that your system of thought does not even allow for the assertion that theism is wrong or evil. Recognize also that trying to persuade us of anything is also futile according to the logical conclusion of your belief system.
Now if you are interested in free will, the ability to persuade people of one thing or another, right and wrong, and many other excellent things, please feel free to become Catholic/Christian. There's always room for more!
danieljosephwilliams 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@danieljosephwilliams " please feel free to become Catholic/Christian. There's always room for more! "
- Plenty of room on the crazy bus hey?
Roper122 1 week ago
@Roper122 - Finally, understand that disagreement and calling you out on illogical or useless comments does not imply anger or "having one's buttons pushed" (that is, unless responding to a textual address is considered having one's buttons pushed, that is). So let's talk about the video. That is the discussion I was alluding to in yesterday's comment. Please, no more distracting or illogical comments. Let's talk, not troll.
danieljosephwilliams 1 week ago
@danieljosephwilliams " no more distracting or illogical comments. Let's talk, not troll. "
- Well, you haven't shown anything I've said to be illogical.
You've answered a post directed at someone else, with a comment that you can't defend or back up. ( you have no way of knowing if someone else's " buttons have been pushed " ) and unfortunately for you I am allowed my opinion.
So you are interrupting with an argument that you can't possibly prove.
So..remind me again... who's trolling??
Roper122 1 week ago
@Roper122 - When James made a comment about Fr. Barron lacking compassion (which I called him out on because it was illogical and misleading), you implied that Fr. Barron had had his buttons pushed. This is an equally illogical assertion, considering that the initial assertion was illogical ("not getting much compassion here"). You assumed that Fr. Barron's responses were fueled by some sort of frustration when, in fact, he is only trying to help you!
danieljosephwilliams 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@danieljosephwilliams " you implied that Fr. Barron had had his buttons pushed. This is an equally illogical assertion "
- According to you.. I disagree, sorry to disappoint, but opinions are allowed.
" You assumed that Fr. Barron's responses were fueled by some sort of frustration "
- You assumed it wasn't.. : ) See? Getting nowhere fast. Feel free to move on.
Roper122 1 week ago
@Roper122 - Taking a look at the evidence we have regarding Fr. Barron's response, it is clear that your assertion about "button pushing" has no merit. If you find your comment so logical, please explain how Fr. Barron stating that Dawkins irrationally hates religion and his suggestion to James to watch some William Lane Craig bear out some sort of expression of frustration. I think you'll have a very difficult time.
danieljosephwilliams 1 week ago
@danieljosephwilliams Actually, Professor Dawkins' dismissal of religion and god is entirely logical. Professor Dawkins is basing his view on Evidence and Reason. Billy Lane Craig is rather lame. His arguments are infantile. Yeah, right, proving the existence of god with syllogism!! LOL!!!!!
TheMJtheGOD 1 week ago
@TheMJtheGOD - I think it is more likely that you have defined evidence in a limited way, thereby inhibiting your ability to recognize evidence of God's existence. There is a great deal of historical evidence that Jesus existed, so you should at least believe that. As for his walking on water, it would be difficult to disprove from your approach, given that you cannot scientifically test His ability (or lack thereof) to walk on water.
danieljosephwilliams 1 week ago
@danieljosephwilliams Ha Ha Ha!! Exactly!! Just as I suspected!! The ability to walk on water unaided defies physics and reality, yet your default is to assume that the Zombie Jew could!!!
TheMJtheGOD 1 week ago
@TheMJtheGOD - Your system of thought is shaped by a philosophical systems called postmodernism, which relies on science to prove everything (which is impossible and absurd). The perspective from which you approach this issue means that you will automatically reject anything but science, science, science.
I will now lay out why atheism and postmodernism are silly and self-contradicting. If you will, read the articles which can be found by searching the terms in the following post...
danieljosephwilliams 1 week ago
@danieljosephwilliams Nice try!! Well, maybe not. My position has NOTHING to do with Post Modernism.
P.S. - Billy L. Craig is a Putz!!!
TheMJtheGOD 1 week ago
@TheMJtheGOD - Your position is fundamentally shaped by postmodernism! You should study postmodernism if you think otherwise. And your repeated insistence that William Lane Craig is a "putz" or the like makes it no more true. It is a bit adolescent, but not a good argument.
P.S. Did you read what I provided you? If not, it is time to begin posting the main points so we can have an adult conversation.
danieljosephwilliams 1 week ago
@danieljosephwilliams No, I am a Scientist. My position is based on Science Realism, which is diametrically opposed to Postmodernism. Science Realists and Postmodernists have been feuding for years. I am not sure why you ascribe PoMo to me.
TheMJtheGOD 1 week ago
@TheMJtheGOD - That's actually very interesting... and it is also interesting that postmodernism is a departure from scientific realism. So now I ask you this:
You believe that scientific theories get increasingly better and, therefore, closer to explaining all of reality. You would say that this is the case throughout all of history up to this point. So now, please explain to me how your faith that science will eventually explain everything is different from my faith in God.
danieljosephwilliams 1 week ago
@TheMJtheGOD - You believe that eventually science will figure everything out, including the Big Bang and morality. To believe in something, to count on it to do something which you do not understand at some point in the future, to believe that we will eventually be enlightened regarding the mysteries of the universe... how is that different from my believing that God is the source of creation and that we will know everything when we met Him?
danieljosephwilliams 1 week ago
@TheMJtheGOD - Both are faith in the unseen, in the unknown. In both instances we have a set of information that we know about what we believe, and we trust in the rest. You cannot explain the origin of the universe except to say that the Big Bang was where it all started (as far as we know). Either God (a being without matter) created matter because He IS existence itself, or the matter and energy were just there and exploded. I'd say both require faith.
danieljosephwilliams 1 week ago
@TheMJtheGOD - Google search "The Incoherence of Atheism, Part 1." Read that article, and then parts 2 and 3 (just search for parts 2 & 3 via Google). If this is unacceptable, I can take up a great deal of comment space. Either way is fine with me.
William Lane Craig is an excellent debater and logician, and no one can make any other case from an objective point of view. His arguments are very sound and reasonable, even if you disagree with him.
danieljosephwilliams 1 week ago
@danieljosephwilliams I am only getting 178 characters. Billy Boy is not a great logician. He invokes Science incorrectly, then when True Scientists correct him, he decries Science!
TheMJtheGOD 1 week ago
@TheMJtheGOD - Did you read what I directed you towards? Are you going to try and discuss that? It is more important than the merits of William Lane Craig. I disagree with your characterization...
danieljosephwilliams 1 week ago