Is Pope Francis Catholic?

[CrakHoBarbie]

On 1/15/2024 at 3:41 PM, blackbird said:

A church exists to hear the preaching of the Bible, a place where believers meet to fellowship together and encourage each other, and spread the message of the gospel.

Before you said that the church is built on age old "truths".

some of thos alleged "truths" are pretty bizarre.

For example:

Do you really think a guy died on a cross, then came back to life with super human strength?

Do you think it's ok to buy slaves from neighboring countries?

Do you believe we need to kill our neighbors if they shave their faces?

Were you aware that if your testicles get crushed, you are no longer welcome in heaven?

Did you know that you must cut off your wife's hand if she touches the testicles of the man attacking you?

The Bible reads like a book of mythology because it is a book of mythology.

After all these thousands of years, do we yet have any empirical evidence any Gods exist?

We don't.
So, in the final analysis, the only reason your religion survives is because it offers comfort to the delusional and terrifies the weak minded with threats of eternal damnation.

[Yakuda]

On 1/18/2024 at 10:53 AM, CrakHoBarbie said:

Before you said that the church is built on age old "truths".

some of thos alleged "truths" are pretty bizarre.

For example:

Do you really think a guy died on a cross, then came back to life with super human strength?

Do you think it's ok to buy slaves from neighboring countries?

Do you believe we need to kill our neighbors if they shave their faces?

Were you aware that if your testicles get crushed, you are no longer welcome in heaven?

Did you know that you must cut off your wife's hand if she touches the testicles of the man attacking you?

The Bible reads like a book of mythology because it is a book of mythology.

After all these thousands of years, do we yet have any empirical evidence any Gods exist?

We don't.
So, in the final analysis, the only reason your religion survives is because it offers comfort to the delusional and terrifies the weak minded with threats of eternal damnation.

And apparently it infuriates the hateful. 

[CrakHoBarbie]

On 2/2/2024 at 8:12 AM, Yakuda said:

And apparently it infuriates the hateful. 

People don't like it when you point out the lack of evidence concerning the existence of their God's.

Their egos take over and they lash out, not understanding that ego is just the anesthesia used to deaden the pain of stupidity.

[Yakuda]

On 2/3/2024 at 11:18 AM, CrakHoBarbie said:

People don't like it when you point out the lack of evidence concerning the existence of their God's.

Their egos take over and they lash out, not understanding that ego is just the anesthesia used to deaden the pain of stupidity.

theres plenty of evidence but stevie wonder will never see red

so you should stop it 

[CrakHoBarbie]

9 hours ago, Yakuda said:

theres plenty of evidence but stevie wonder will never see red

so you should stop it 

What evidence?

[Yakuda]

9 hours ago, CrakHoBarbie said:

What evidence?

Aquinas covers it pretty well.

You won't like the evidence but that's irrelevant. There is no evidence you would accept because you're hard hearted. Nonbelievers however could immediately get me to cease believing in God if they did just one thing. 

[TreeBeard]

6 hours ago, Yakuda said:

Aquinas covers it pretty well.

You won't like the evidence but that's irrelevant. There is no evidence you would accept because you're hard hearted. Nonbelievers however could immediately get me to cease believing in God if they did just one thing. 

Why should Aquinas be believed?  Because he is a saint?

[Yakuda]

Just now, TreeBeard said:

Why should Aquinas be believed?  Because he is a saint?

It has nothing to do with his being a saint. Argue against his reasoning not his stance as a saint. 

Again a non believer only has to do to one thing and I will cease believing in God on the spot. 

[TreeBeard]

Just now, Yakuda said:

It has nothing to do with his being a saint. Argue against his reasoning not his stance as a saint. 

I find Aquinas’ arguments on God’s existence about as convincing as his arguments for slavery. 
 

If I can be that much moral and wise than Saint Aquinas, why would I bother with his arguments?  

[Yakuda]

1 minute ago, TreeBeard said:

I find Aquinas’ arguments on God’s existence about as convincing as his arguments for slavery. 
 

If I can be that much moral and wise than Saint Aquinas, why would I bother with his arguments?  

As I said that irrelevant. But at one time slavery was legal. 

You haven't shown that you're superior in any way whatsoever to Aquinas so until you can I certainly am not impressed with how you view yourself. 

[TreeBeard]

Just now, Yakuda said:

But at one time slavery was legal. 

You’ve said yourself that never made it moral.  Aquinas’ thinking on slavery makes perfect sense if he was just a guy with some opinions that were formed by the age in which he was living.  
 

I have higher standards for those who are supposedly be inspired by an all-loving god.   If I can be more moral as an afterthought than he could through decades of prayer, bible study and inspiration from God, then I don’t think his words carry much weight any longer.  They can be dismissed as easily as you brought them up. 

[Yakuda]

3 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

You’ve said yourself that never made it moral.  Aquinas’ thinking on slavery makes perfect sense if he was just a guy with some opinions that were formed by the age in which he was living.  
 

I have higher standards for those who are supposedly be inspired by an all-loving god.   If I can be more moral as an afterthought than he could through decades of prayer, bible study and inspiration from God, then I don’t think his words carry much weight any longer.  They can be dismissed as easily as you brought them up. 

Slavery is not the issue his 5 proofs are. Can you stay I track? 

Again IF you can be more moral. Your claims arent evidence of any superiority 

[TreeBeard]

10 minutes ago, Yakuda said:

5 proofs

Asserting that God has no cause is simply that an assertion without evidence.  Vacuous. 
 

I don’t need “proofs” of an ancient philosopher who justified slavery and assumed God then made up some justifications.  
 

Empirical evidence is all I will accept for the existence of an object or being.   Without empirical evidence, you’re not justified in believing it exists, whatever “it” may be. 

12 minutes ago, Yakuda said:

Again IF you can be more moral. Your claims arent evidence of any superiority 

I am more moral just by acknowledging that it is always immoral to own another human being as property.  Aquinas couldn’t do that. I can.  Moral superiority is achieved. 

[CrakHoBarbie]

6 hours ago, Yakuda said:

Aquinas covers it pretty well.

You won't like the evidence but that's irrelevant. There is no evidence you would accept because you're hard hearted. Nonbelievers however could immediately get me to cease believing in God if they did just one thing. 

Well, most religious zealots cite scripture as proof of their God.

But scripture is just words on paper and not tangible evidence of any Gods existence. 

Some cite creation as proof, but the fact that we exist is not tangible evidence that we were created by any god.

So, if you can cite some tangible, objective evidence of your gods existence,  I'm open to hear it.

[Yakuda]

8 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

Asserting that God has no cause is simply that an assertion without evidence.  Vacuous. 
 

I don’t need “proofs” of an ancient philosopher who justified slavery and assumed God then made up some justifications.  
 

Empirical evidence is all I will accept for the existence of an object or being.   Without empirical evidence, you’re not justified in believing it exists, whatever “it” may be. 

I am more moral just by acknowledging that it is always immoral to own another human being as property.  Aquinas couldn’t do that. I can.  Moral superiority is achieved. 

So in others words you can't refute the proofs. Got it. 

Your claims are not impressive except to you. 

[Yakuda]

2 minutes ago, CrakHoBarbie said:

Well, most religious zealots cite scripture as proof of their God.

But scripture is just words on paper and not tangible evidence of any Gods existence. 

Some cite creation as proof, but the fact that we exist is not tangible evidence that we were created by any god.

So, if you can cite some tangible, objective evidence of your gods existence,  I'm open to hear it.

It's been dine you ignore them. 

You only need to do one thing and I will have to cease my belief. I've asked your kind to do it for decades. As the decades have passed I've found your kind disappointingly less able to even discuss it let alone do it. 

[CrakHoBarbie]

2 minutes ago, Yakuda said:

It's been dine you ignore them. 

You only need to do one thing and I will have to cease my belief. I've asked your kind to do it for decades. As the decades have passed I've found your kind disappointingly less able to even discuss it let alone do it. 

Are you under the false impression that i care if you have faith or not?

I've asked you twice to cite tangible evidence of your gods existence. 

You've shared nothing.

Edited February 5, 2024 by CrakHoBarbie

[TreeBeard]

1 minute ago, Yakuda said:

You only need to do one thing and I will have to cease my belief.

Why would I want to do that?  My goal is honest conversation.  I’m not a preacher who needs conversions to appease his god.  

1 minute ago, CrakHoBarbie said:

I've asked you twice to cite tangible evidence of your gods existence. 

You've shared nothing.

You’re mistaking this for a conversation where we all discuss each other’s ideas.  It’s much easier for @Yakuda to just tell you to look up Aquinas and disprove the “5 proofs” than it is for them to discuss. 

[CrakHoBarbie]

5 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

 

You’re mistaking this for a conversation where we all discuss each other’s ideas.  It’s much easier for @Yakuda to just tell you to look up Aquinas and disprove the “5 proofs” than it is for them to discuss. 

I just read the 5 "proofs".

Total nonsense. Proves nothing.

" When I pass gas,  I can smell it in the air... proof of God!!!"

What a f__king halfwit.

[Yakuda]

16 hours ago, CrakHoBarbie said:

Are you under the false impression that i care if you have faith or not?

I've asked you twice to cite tangible evidence of your gods existence. 

You've shared nothing.

You don't really imagine that it matters to me what someone who calls themselves crack ho barbie thinks do you???? Really???

I gave you evidence. You don't like the evidence. Thats a you problem. Again I can't make you see the evidence anymore than I can make Stevie wonder see the color red. 

[TreeBeard]

4 hours ago, Yakuda said:

I gave you evidence.

Bad evidence. You wouldn’t believe anything else of any importance on evidence like that.  Your evidence is also evidence for “universe-creating Unicorn” just by substituting it for God. 
 

Do you have empirical evidence?

[Yakuda]

8 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

Bad evidence. You wouldn’t believe anything else of any importance on evidence like that.  Your evidence is also evidence for “universe-creating Unicorn” just by substituting it for God. 
 

Do you have empirical evidence?

According to you its bad but I'm sure someone else somewhere might care what you think of the evidence but I don't. 

Yes but you've declared it bad and as already stated someone else might care about that but i don't. What I have done though is given you people the chance to convince me I'm wrong but not one of you enlightened geniuses has yet been able to pull it off. And as I've mentioned I remember decades ago when the arguments from you people were better.  The quality has really trailed off 

Edited February 6, 2024 by Yakuda

[TreeBeard]

34 minutes ago, Yakuda said:

convince me I'm wrong

If I claim Bigfoot exists, do I have the burden of proof?  Or is the burden of proof on those who don’t believe me to prove he doesn’t exist?

[Yakuda]

5 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

If I claim Bigfoot exists, do I have the burden of proof?  Or is the burden of proof on those who don’t believe me to prove he doesn’t exist?

You posted my words out of context. At best Id say you're being disingenuous but my inclination is to say you're just duplicitous. 

Edited February 6, 2024 by Yakuda

[TreeBeard]

26 minutes ago, Yakuda said:

You posted my words out of context. At best Id say you're being disingenuous but my inclination is to say you're just duplicitous. 

“Convince me I’m wrong” is the opposite of “I will convince you I’m right”.  
 

Your words were in perfect context.  You want “those people” to disprove your god, which is a reversal of the burden of proof when you’re the one claiming God exists.